After Reading the Report Thoughts

Tell the truth, Truthseeker. Name even one poster that has said he wants to criminalize sexual activity he finds distasteful.

Gladly. As soon as you admit that you determined the players were guilty based on the Preponderance of the Evidence standard before even the EOAA report was released.
 

By the way, if you're truly a "Truth Seeker", you would be extremely pissed that these guys probably lied and destroyed evidence at a minimum. I think you probably want the truth only when it agrees with your conclusions. You seem pretty strident and angry with anyone and anything that contradicts you.

Wrong. I would want them prosecuted for doing so. However, I don't want any criminal matters to be adjudicated in any way outside of the judicial system. Universities shouldn't be in the business of labeling people sex offenders. When they do, you run into problems like this huge mess with players' names run through the mud, a potential victim's name being released (which it now has), an incompetent administration not handling the issue properly from the beginning causing a lot of anger and division, and other dire ramifications.

Also, the EOAA has no subpoena power and is not a court of law. They don't have a right to any information that people don't want to provide, hence, why the sex video and the medical examiner's opinion wasn't in the report either. Obviously, if this violates the student code, then there could be punishment, but that's minor compared to the elephant in the room, which carry lifelong consequences.
 

If I understand this correctly, all that needs to exist to punish these men is 1. Lying and 2. Obstructing the investigation by destroying evidence/deleting important information. Even if the sex was concensual, they can be punished and so could the accuser.

Are you referring to the actual law or the student code?
 

I think it's extremely common for young men to pick up women and treat them like pieces of meat. I am not saying that it's right but I don't think it's a new thing, I don't think it's a football player thing and I don't think it's a Minnesota thing. To change that part of our culture goes way beyond anything at the U.

The group stuff, I don't know, if it's consensual, I don't really see how that can be something we look to change.

People are into all sorts of things, if it's consensual, I don't see how we can have an opinion on the subject. If it's not consensual, we already have pretty strict laws in place to punish those activities.

I think it would be pretty strange (and unconstitutional) to have sexual preferences be part of the criteria to be admitted to the U.

The Empire Texts while this was occurring is the damming piece of evidence to me, you have a partially drunk women, you had sex with her and maybe she was OK with it maybe not, but it happens all the time, has for an eternity, but to send out a text to broadcast what is happening and in a way invite others to participate, no way/ no how with her state of mind does that not break the Code of Conduct rules.

I noticed in other threads there is talk of a 90 minute video, who knows with more information coming forward maybe everything we currently know and perceive will be turned on its head.

Did the administration leak the EEOA document to KMSP to change public perception.
 

The Empire Texts while this was occurring is the damming piece of evidence to me, you have a partially drunk women, you had sex with her and maybe she was OK with it maybe not, but it happens all the time, has for an eternity, but to send out a text to broadcast what is happening and in a way invite others to participate, no way/ no how with her state of mind does that not break the Code of Conduct rules.

I noticed in other threads there is talk of a 90 minute video, who knows with more information coming forward maybe everything we currently know and perceive will be turned on its head.

Did the administration leak the EEOA document to KMSP to change public perception.

Those texts are there to make you despise the players and side with the woman. They do not get to the issue of consent at all. The texts should never have been included in an unbiased, fact-finding report. As you can tell, the report is full of opinions not backed by fact by the authors and non-relevant information is included to paint the players in the most disparaging light possible. It is a report with a clearly biased agenda. A shade of what actually happened.
 


Those texts are there to make you despise the players and side with the woman. They do not get to the issue of consent at all. The texts should never have been included in an unbiased, fact-finding report. As you can tell, the report is full of opinions not backed by fact by the authors and non-relevant information is included to paint the players in the most disparaging light possible. It is a report with a clearly biased agenda. A shade of what actually happened.

Too narrow. The issue with the fact finding report was to disclose the reasons for suspension, not to determine if a rape had occurred. The report may fall under Title IX, but that covers several acts that cover more than education opportunity for women. The U has the right to a code of conduct that extends beyond Title IX, and the issue of an agenda is neither here nor there when video was shared that harms another person. Harm is self evident in this instance. Therefore, the suspension is just.
 

The irony with Djam's poorest decision of the night (the videos) is that it's same thing keeping him from facing a rape charge.

After reading the reports, the thing that really stood out to me was the University's assessment of credibility. The University assigns great weight to peripheral aspects of the case (like Djam not knowing the order of the fourth and fifth participants) but discounting crucial discrepancies on the part of the accuser (15 to 20 guys? Video contradicting reports of excessive intoxication and resistance to the initial sexual activity). I really think the University was determined to mete out
justice regardless of the facts.

I also thought it was important that Hardin was her friend's ex. After engaging in something like that, your reputation will forever be damaged. Seeing as how the damage to her reputation could
potentially extend past the football team and into her social circle (through Hardin's ex), I think it is more likely that her version of the events was a move to save face.
 

The one thing I don't understand, is why the female student would actually lie about all this?

People are saying it's because she regretted it, or wanted to save face, etc.

But is an invasive rape examination and month-long, destructive investigation worth it? Obviously the whole situation is damaging to everyone involved, guilty or not. Why would the female student do that to herself? It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to me why a group of men would rape a girl. So either way, you have some f'ed up decisions.
 

The Empire Texts while this was occurring is the damming piece of evidence to me, you have a partially drunk women, you had sex with her and maybe she was OK with it maybe not, but it happens all the time, has for an eternity, but to send out a text to broadcast what is happening and in a way invite others to participate, no way/ no how with her state of mind does that not break the Code of Conduct rules.

I noticed in other threads there is talk of a 90 minute video, who knows with more information coming forward maybe everything we currently know and perceive will be turned on its head.

Did the administration leak the EEOA document to KMSP to change public perception.

I didn't read anything in the Empire texts that seemed to insinuate that she wasn't fully consensual.

The key to to this entire thing is consent. A lot of players (Kaler, EOAA, Tom Powers, ESPN) are forgetting that this entire thing hinges on consent.
 



The one thing I don't understand, is why the female student would actually lie about all this?

People are saying it's because she regretted it, or wanted to save face, etc.

But is an invasive rape examination and month-long, destructive investigation worth it? Obviously the whole situation is damaging to everyone involved, guilty or not. Why would the female student do that to herself? It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to me why a group of men would rape a girl. So either way, you have some f'ed up decisions.

Unfortunately, people lie and people rape. To lie about something like this is almost unfathomable, but like you said, a sexual assault like she alleges is also unfathomable.
 

The one thing I don't understand, is why the female student would actually lie about all this?

People are saying it's because she regretted it, or wanted to save face, etc.

But is an invasive rape examination and month-long, destructive investigation worth it? Obviously the whole situation is damaging to everyone involved, guilty or not. Why would the female student do that to herself? It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to me why a group of men would rape a girl. So either way, you have some f'ed up decisions.

Because she told her mom. How do you explain to your mom you did 3-4 Guys willingly and then you wanted it to stop and it didn't. Imagine that conversation..... Which from everything I heard is what may have happened.
 

Probably why she initially said none of it was consensual then had an adjustment of her story after they refuted it with the video evidence.

As far as I can tell this whole EOAA deal is going to be just as bad if not worse for her than it will be for the players...
 

The one thing I don't understand, is why the female student would actually lie about all this?

People are saying it's because she regretted it, or wanted to save face, etc.

But is an invasive rape examination and month-long, destructive investigation worth it? Obviously the whole situation is damaging to everyone involved, guilty or not. Why would the female student do that to herself? It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to me why a group of men would rape a girl. So either way, you have some f'ed up decisions.

Agreed, but how about the rolling stone accuser? She completely made up an entire story that was going to be reported in a major magazine (formerly) and it was 100% false. If our case is false, I wouldn't be surprised if she convinced herself that it was true. Combo is guilt, shame, confusion, and alcohol can easily twist the recall of this kind of incident. Couple that with our "rape culture" narrative and meetings with various counselors who in trying to be supportive and do the right thing might all conspire to confuse what happened.
And when this all blew up, and she realized some of the facts were inaccurate, maybe a questioning of her memory and a desire to just put it behind her and try to move on?

Of course, it could all be true, and the fear of being re traumatized is the reason for wanting to move on. I have no idea, but anyway, supplying you with a reason for lying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



She's got the activists behind her giving us scientific reasons for the lies and the changes in stories . Al while declaring her unequivocally as the victim


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Because she told her mom. How do you explain to your mom you did 3-4 Guys willingly and then you wanted it to stop and it didn't. Imagine that conversation..... Which from everything I heard is what may have happened.
The same way you tell your mom that you took care of a high school kid and gifted him a 3 way, plus took care of your buds by letting them play tinder, box car and caboose. My mom would cut my nuts off.
 

The irony with Djam's poorest decision of the night (the videos) is that it's same thing keeping him from facing a rape charge.

After reading the reports, the thing that really stood out to me was the University's assessment of credibility. The University assigns great weight to peripheral aspects of the case (like Djam not knowing the order of the fourth and fifth participants) but discounting crucial discrepancies on the part of the accuser (15 to 20 guys? Video contradicting reports of excessive intoxication and resistance to the initial sexual activity). I really think the University was determined to mete out
justice regardless of the facts.

I also thought it was important that Hardin was her friend's ex. After engaging in something like that, your reputation will forever be damaged. Seeing as how the damage to her reputation could
potentially extend past the football team and into her social circle (through Hardin's ex), I think it is more likely that her version of the events was a move to save face.

Was Djam's poorest decision taking a video of her saying 'Nooooo" or getting a recruit whom he was hosting involved?
 

Exactly correct. That's what everyone's position should be. If you disagree with any of that, then you have autocratic tendencies and are not for freedom and liberty.

The nature of the sex does not matter. However, even though I disagree with the group sex that happened the people who engaged in it should not be punished at all, unless it wasn't consensual. There are many people here who want to criminalize sexual activity that they find distasteful. Those people are truly a danger to this country.

TruthSeeker, you are very articulate and persuasive and, I imagine, a successful lawyer. I'm wondering if you'd humor me for a moment and play along. Let's say your law professor wanted to conduct an experiment. First, he's going to ask you to read the police report and EEOA report and give your opinion on whether nonconsentual (not sure if that is a word) sex took place. Then, after all hearings, appeals, etc have taken place, he's going to ask you the same question. He wants to see how many students end up changing their minds. His one stipulation is that you must answer yes or no. You can not say the you are "undecided" or need more information. That is not the point of his experiment. He simply wants you to say whether, at each point in time, you believe there was any nonconsentual sex. So, at this moment in time, do you believe in your gut that nonconsentual sex took place? Thanks for playing.
 

TruthSeeker, you are very articulate and persuasive and, I imagine, a successful lawyer. I'm wondering if you'd humor me for a moment and play along. Let's say your law professor wanted to conduct an experiment. First, he's going to ask you to read the police report and EEOA report and give your opinion on whether nonconsentual (not sure if that is a word) sex took place. Then, after all hearings, appeals, etc have taken place, he's going to ask you the same question. He wants to see how many students end up changing their minds. His one stipulation is that you must answer yes or no. You can not say the you are "undecided" or need more information. That is not the point of his experiment. He simply wants you to say whether, at each point in time, you believe there was any nonconsentual sex. So, at this moment in time, do you believe in your gut that nonconsentual sex took place? Thanks for playing.
image.jpeg
 


TruthSeeker, you are very articulate and persuasive and, I imagine, a successful lawyer. I'm wondering if you'd humor me for a moment and play along. Let's say your law professor wanted to conduct an experiment. First, he's going to ask you to read the police report and EEOA report and give your opinion on whether nonconsentual (not sure if that is a word) sex took place. Then, after all hearings, appeals, etc have taken place, he's going to ask you the same question. He wants to see how many students end up changing their minds. His one stipulation is that you must answer yes or no. You can not say the you are "undecided" or need more information. That is not the point of his experiment. He simply wants you to say whether, at each point in time, you believe there was any nonconsentual sex. So, at this moment in time, do you believe in your gut that nonconsentual sex took place? Thanks for playing.

I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it's quite fair yet.

The police report seems impartial to me.
The EOAA report is coming from a group with a vested interest (and only her attorney present).

You can't really poll the students anymore either, the smoke of impartiality already is out the window (Kaler's comments, the EOAA report, etc.), so polling the public doesn't make much sense anymore.

I think you could do this hypothetical with a couple additional caveats. . . the players' attorney hires a private investigator to do an investigation of their own.

You get to read that report, the police report and the EOAA report.

The EOAA report must be scrubbed of irrelevant material (texts, etc.) and if their report brings up irrelevant material (her sexual history prior to that day, etc.), that be scrubbed as well.

You use the legal definition of consent and only that definition.

You get to pick between Yes, No, and Can't Decide (keep in mind that "can't decide" means that there is not a preponderance of the evidence. Things that are represented by a preponderance of the evidence, you could decide).

I think this exercise that you've created illustrates just how damning the process of the EOAA report is to the scales of justice, for all the parties involved.
 

I get what you're trying to do here, but I don't think it's quite fair yet.

The police report seems impartial to me.
The EOAA report is coming from a group with a vested interest (and only her attorney present).

You can't really poll the students anymore either, the smoke of impartiality already is out the window (Kaler's comments, the EOAA report, etc.), so polling the public doesn't make much sense anymore.

I think you could do this hypothetical with a couple additional caveats. . . the players' attorney hires a private investigator to do an investigation of their own.

You get to read that report, the police report and the EOAA report.

The EOAA report must be scrubbed of irrelevant material (texts, etc.) and if their report brings up irrelevant material (her sexual history prior to that day, etc.), that be scrubbed as well.

You use the legal definition of consent and only that definition.

You get to pick between Yes, No, and Can't Decide (keep in mind that "can't decide" means that there is not a preponderance of the evidence. Things that are represented by a preponderance of the evidence, you could decide).

I think this exercise that you've created illustrates just how damning the process of the EOAA report is to the scales of justice, for all the parties involved.

I hear and understand what you're saying, but honestly that's not my point. I simply want to know if TruthSeeker, and only TruthSeeker, believes that unwanted sex occurred. Just his gut instinct. I'm trying to better understand him, and only him.
 

The one thing I don't understand, is why the female student would actually lie about all this?

People are saying it's because she regretted it, or wanted to save face, etc.

But is an invasive rape examination and month-long, destructive investigation worth it? Obviously the whole situation is damaging to everyone involved, guilty or not. Why would the female student do that to herself? It just doesn't make sense. Then again, it doesn't make sense to me why a group of men would rape a girl. So either way, you have some f'ed up decisions.

Have you allowed for the possibility that none of the students lied?

Could it be that she went to this party, consented, enjoyed some, then thought hey, this is not quite what I thought, yet didn’t verbalize. However, the memory of the thought remains. Then, the lights are flickering, there are tons of dudes lined up at the door, she sees them, and becomes terrified. Her terror consumes her, and she remembers mostly being afraid?

Then later on has flashes of real memories, that seem like something she would definitely not consent too. However, because she is both human and young, she failed to recognize the distance in activites between what our executive center and underlying brain would possibly allow us to engage in.

Then, when she became completely sober, she fails to believe that “even at my drunkest” I could never consent to that action. Even though, in reality we have no way of knowing what we’d do at our drunkest state. Since human being have such a great need to stay consistent, the girls executive center fills in gaps in memory with a perfectly plausible scenario that allows her to function, but then becomes her reality of the incident. Thus, she thinks she is telling the entire truth, when in fact it is really a trick of the brain that is present inside, and happens to everyone frequently in our lives?

Or maybe something entirely different occurred. All in all, I don’t think a lie is actually required for a number of scenarios that could have occurred. Heck, even an irrational reason could exist. Some people have psychotic breaks. Some people like to lie, Some people misremember, some people just misinterpret events. Under any of those cases most of us will tend to trust whatever it is we remember.
 

What does that mean?

Double you are wasting your time and energy though I laud your effort as a voice of reason. A major portion of posters have convinced themselves that the EEOA report is not credible. They have a narrative, and an agenda. Many do not accept any investigative process besides a criminal one. They are fixated on their interpretation of due process. This is an unsettled issue of law, their interpretation may be correct, it may not. The court's haven't definitively really weighed in yet.

Some of them admit rape is a major problem on college campuses. Some blame everything on so called feminazis. They get offended if you disagree with them and accuse or imply that you are stupid, a creep, un american, racist, perverted, etc.

The report done by the U was almost 4 times as long as the one by police. A cursory reading reveals that is a thorough analysis of the events that transpired that evening. The people at the U spent more time investigating ( they will deny this, but it is painfully obvious). The U report seems to rely on witness's testimony that wasn't procured by the police. They will scream it wasn't produced because a lawyer wasn't present. The fact is there is more info in the U report. The folks that produced the U report are staking their careers on this report,they are highly educated professionals. For the cops, it's just another report, of the many they produce in a year. The cops didn't go to the apartment where it occurred until days after the event occurred. The police have a lot tougher job then the U investigators, a bigger workload, and more time pressure to produce the report.

many posters on this board want to fault a woman because her memory of the events was hazy. Someone who had been assaulted by multiple people would have a hazy memory. They want to attack her credibility in a way that illustrates why so many rape victims don't press charges.

These students will have a chance to appeal any punishment. So they will get some level due process. In the meantime, they will lose the right to play in a football game. A game.

I am not endorsing every aspect of the report. They likely got somethings wrong. Some students are being severely punished for obstructing the investigation. Hopefully that sends a message to other students to cooperate.

I don't think I will have the energy to respond to the vitriol this post will generate. I am comforted by the fact that most of the world thinks differently about the report.

The whole thing is really sad. I love gopher athletics, and I hope something good will come of all this. But ultimately sports are a very small part of the University and not the most important aspect.

SKI U MAH!!
 

TruthSeeker, you are very articulate and persuasive and, I imagine, a successful lawyer. I'm wondering if you'd humor me for a moment and play along. Let's say your law professor wanted to conduct an experiment. First, he's going to ask you to read the police report and EEOA report and give your opinion on whether nonconsentual (not sure if that is a word) sex took place. Then, after all hearings, appeals, etc have taken place, he's going to ask you the same question. He wants to see how many students end up changing their minds. His one stipulation is that you must answer yes or no. You can not say the you are "undecided" or need more information. That is not the point of his experiment. He simply wants you to say whether, at each point in time, you believe there was any nonconsentual sex. So, at this moment in time, do you believe in your gut that nonconsentual sex took place? Thanks for playing.

Very tough call. I could be persuaded either way with more information.

I wouldn't find any guilty right now in criminal court. That decision couldn't be changed without very strong new evidence brought to light.

Based on my gut alone, I would say a very, very weak no if you're making me say yes or no. If I could answer my way, I would say undecided.
 

Thank you for answering. For what it's worth, I admit that the EEOA report disturbed me to the point of losing perspective. I'm a very emotional person and overreactive by nature. After calming down, I agree that in no way would I convict in a court of law at this point. If I had to answer the law professors question, I'm sure I would say "yes", but would certainly be worried about my answer and obsess/ruminate about it for days and continuously question why I answered "yes". Good chat my man!

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 


If you are referring to my picture it is from the movie Saw and the main characters phrase "I want to play a game".
Thanks. Never saw that movie.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Thank you for answering. For what it's worth, I admit that the EEOA report disturbed me to the point of losing perspective. I'm a very emotional person and overreactive by nature. After calming down, I agree that in no way would I convict in a court of law at this point. If I had to answer the law professors question, I'm sure I would say "yes", but would certainly be worried about my answer and obsess/ruminate about it for days and continuously question why I answered "yes". Good chat my man!

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

That's very fair and reasonable. Anybody who thinks that there isn't at least a decent possibility that someone did something nonconsensual isn't thinking clearly.
 

Double you are wasting your time and energy though I laud your effort as a voice of reason. A major portion of posters have convinced themselves that the EEOA report is not credible. They have a narrative, and an agenda. Many do not accept any investigative process besides a criminal one. They are fixated on their interpretation of due process. This is an unsettled issue of law, their interpretation may be correct, it may not. The court's haven't definitively really weighed in yet.

Some of them admit rape is a major problem on college campuses. Some blame everything on so called feminazis. They get offended if you disagree with them and accuse or imply that you are stupid, a creep, un american, racist, perverted, etc.

The report done by the U was almost 4 times as long as the one by police. A cursory reading reveals that is a thorough analysis of the events that transpired that evening. The people at the U spent more time investigating ( they will deny this, but it is painfully obvious). The U report seems to rely on witness's testimony that wasn't procured by the police. They will scream it wasn't produced because a lawyer wasn't present. The fact is there is more info in the U report. The folks that produced the U report are staking their careers on this report,they are highly educated professionals. For the cops, it's just another report, of the many they produce in a year. The cops didn't go to the apartment where it occurred until days after the event occurred. The police have a lot tougher job then the U investigators, a bigger workload, and more time pressure to produce the report.

many posters on this board want to fault a woman because her memory of the events was hazy. Someone who had been assaulted by multiple people would have a hazy memory. They want to attack her credibility in a way that illustrates why so many rape victims don't press charges.

These students will have a chance to appeal any punishment. So they will get some level due process. In the meantime, they will lose the right to play in a football game. A game.

I am not endorsing every aspect of the report. They likely got somethings wrong. Some students are being severely punished for obstructing the investigation. Hopefully that sends a message to other students to cooperate.

I don't think I will have the energy to respond to the vitriol this post will generate. I am comforted by the fact that most of the world thinks differently about the report.

The whole thing is really sad. I love gopher athletics, and I hope something good will come of all this. But ultimately sports are a very small part of the University and not the most important aspect.

SKI U MAH!!

I think the point many have tried to make is that we shouldn't just automatically take the report as fact like a few here have said. There have been instances where these reports by schools have been biased. Doesn't mean a lot of things in it aren't true, just that it wouldn't be the first time an internal investigation like this was extremely biased.
 

I think the point many have tried to make is that we shouldn't just automatically take the report as fact like a few here have said. There have been instances where these reports by schools have been biased. Doesn't mean a lot of things in it aren't true, just that it wouldn't be the first time an internal investigation like this was extremely biased.

The EOAA investigation is part of the Title IX disciplinary process used by every college in the country. Furthermore, every college has an interim suspension policy for sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. This isn't something the U dreamed up by itself. Interim suspensions are necessary for schools to be able to protect victims of sexual harassment and violence. With such suspensions there is clearly a risk that students might be falsely accused before they have had a hearing and that would be an injustice if the EOAA investigation gets it wrong. But I think most reasonable people would agree that interim suspensions after EOAA investigations are absolutely necessary for schools to maintain a safe environment for their students.

The process now moves to the hearings where the players will be represented by an attorney and will be able to challenge everything in the EOAA report. They will be able to call there own witnesses and cross examine adverse witnesses. If the decision goes against them then they can appeal. If they lose the appeal they can sue the U in federal court. And if they prevail in federal court the players will then be able to bring lawsuits for damages against the U and the girl. Win or lose all 10 players will have had their day in court.

It has been repeated over and over again in GH over the last three days. Because criminal prosecutors did not charge the accused players because of insufficient evidence does not mean they didn't commit the crime. OJ got off on his criminal trial but he lost the civil case against him because of the lower standard of proof for such cases. That is what we are presented with here. Hennepin County declined to prosecute so the U had to investigate the case to determine if the Student Code of Conduct was violated. For colleges not to be able to do this would prevent them from taking necessary action to keep their campuses safe and it would stack the process totally against victims of sexual violence on every campus in America.
 




Top Bottom