After Reading the Report Thoughts

Donate To GopherHole
UST_Gopher said:
Read pretty much the entire thing. Not an easy read. Couple of thoughts from an unbiased perspective :

1) a lot of he said she said. Makes for an overly long report. Definitely graphic in nature.
2) the EOAA immediately dismisses any credibility of the accused, thus allowing the EOAA the logic to conclude their side is less believable. They use this as a basis to conclude the victims claim as more believable.
3) The new players not previously mentioned until Tuesday could have more sympathy to the ruling than those initially implicated based on my interpretation of how the EOAA found they broke the code of conduct.

All in all, I am glad this is released as it offers answers to many people's questions. However, in the end it still remains a he said/she said debate. Thus, we will never get any real answers unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is not entirely true. Some of the players admit they did not think it was consensual at one point in the event. That may be the most damning piece of the report.
 

UST_Gopher said:
2) the EOAA immediately dismisses any credibility of the accused, thus allowing the EOAA the logic to conclude their side is less believable. They use this as a basis to conclude the victims claim as more believable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think this is a mischaracterization. The report gives a summary of why they generally find the alleged victim to be more credible than the accused students, and then details the reasons an a per-player basis. THe report certainly takes a bit of a 'leap of faith' but it's not fair to say it "immediately dismisses" anything.
 

UST_Gopher said:
Read pretty much the entire thing. Not an easy read. Couple of thoughts from an unbiased perspective :

1) a lot of he said she said. Makes for an overly long report. Definitely graphic in nature.
2) the EOAA immediately dismisses any credibility of the accused, thus allowing the EOAA the logic to conclude their side is less believable. They use this as a basis to conclude the victims claim as more believable.
3) The new players not previously mentioned until Tuesday could have more sympathy to the ruling than those initially implicated based on my interpretation of how the EOAA found they broke the code of conduct.

All in all, I am glad this is released as it offers answers to many people's questions. However, in the end it still remains a he said/she said debate. Thus, we will never get any real answers unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Except they didn't get rid of all the credibility of the accused, things that were corroborated by other's interviewed they considered credible, however the accused contradicted each other and witnesses (and even themselves) far more than the victim did, making the victims recount generally the more credible one when it came down to a one on one conflict in the recounts.
 

Gogogopher said:
This is not entirely true. Some of the players admit they did not think it was consensual at one point in the event. That may be the most damning piece of the report.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. It was 80 pages long so definitely could have missed aspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

This explains why Quran Hafiz did not want to come here. I am guessing he was the recruit in the report that weekend. I feel sick to my stomach. Either way this is bad situation and I am genuinely concerned to see the sanctions we get from the NCAA
 


Frank Grimey Grimes said:
This explains why Quran Hafiz did not want to come here. I am guessing he was the recruit in the report that weekend. I feel sick to my stomach. Either way this is bad situation and I am genuinely concerned to see the sanctions we get from the NCAA
Click to expand...

I doubt sanctions are likely for an isolated event.
 

justthefacts said:
I doubt sanctions are likely for an isolated event.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right. My only concern would be getting in trouble if the university knew the details of this report and these players should have been ineligible for most of the season.
 

Gogogopher said:
This is not entirely true. Some of the players admit they did not think it was consensual at one point in the event. That may be the most damning piece of the report.
Click to expand...

I did not see that in the report. Where is that?
 

UST_Gopher said:
I'll take your word for it. It was 80 pages long so definitely could have missed aspects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This was from page 55:

2 recalled, "from the stuff she said, it didn't seem like she
was into it. She said something and [the men present] decided it was messed up . . . She said
something that made it. seem like it wasn't the right thing to be doing.

The lights were turned off. RS saw A12 and then said, "I don't want to"
and "this is too many people" and "don't send people in here." RS repeatedly said that
she was in pain. A5 did not respond by stopping or changing his activities. A12
reported that it did not look like A5 was doing anything out of the ordinary with RS
A12 did not think tl1at RS . was trying to physically push AS away. A12 ultimately
concluded that "it didn't feel right , .. Sometimes it didn't seem like she was into it."
 



Frank Grimey Grimes said:
I hope you're right. My only concern would be getting in trouble if the university knew the details of this report and these players should have been ineligible for most of the season.
Click to expand...

As odd as it is, though, the players did nothing that would make them ineligible.
 

I am still digesting what I read, but my initial reaction is that I am impressed with the thoroughness of investigation that EOAA conducted. In comparison to reading the police report it makes the police report look rather shallow. I am sure this has to do with the limit of resources our PD has dealing with the large case loads in our city.

I am glad that the U has a function that is doing its best to make for a safe environment for its students and giving victims opportunities to report. I also am happy they act on these reports at this level of detail.

My also immediate thought is that if I ever have a daughter who goes to the U I hope:

1. That I've taught her well enough that she won't end up in such a dangerous situation.
2. That maybe the campus is safe enough where these disgusting events are few and far between.

As far as the football team:
1. This is telling that our football team has a big time culture problem. I hope in the near future we can have a coach leader who can found our football program on a good foundation with strong moral standards. I hope the team can have zero tolerance for this kind of crap.
2. I dont think it's Clayes who will accomplish this. Yesterday's fiasco is clear evidence that he does not have control over our team. Frankly his tweet about supporting his players publicly put me over the edge.

Just my initial reaction. I am sure it will change as I process this more.
 

11+ individuals interviewed, well after the fact about a 3+ hour window of time where perhaps dozens of people came and went, and with varying levels of alcohol involvement....

1 accuser.... fairly low level of possibility for inconsistency.
10 accused.... factorially more opportunity for inconsistency, and with the human element, it is not necessarily material misrepresentation of facts.

Hell, interview parties to a three car accident immediately after it happens and you will have inconsistencies.

The math needs to be considered before assigning the one party more "credibility" in this instance. You can bet this will be factored in during any appeal process where cross examination is allowed, and certainly in the legal arena once suits are filed.

Don't beat me up, but it is something that needs to be considered.
 

For those who have read the report is it fair to say it is still a "he said she said" situation?
 



Nax5 said:
I know a lot of the report is he-said, she-said. But even the text messages between the football players are disgusting. Having just graduated from the U of M, I can tell you that normal, respectful "bros" don't talk about women like that. I think that's already pretty telling and will certainly work against them in this whole case.
Click to expand...

Yes, no self respecting and responsible person would ever say "grab her by the pussy" or anything so disgusting. When Trump says it is locker room talk but here it is worthy of losing their future?
 

Awww hell I'm going to say it! "Becky" will get you every time.[emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Shaqfu14 said:
For those who have read the report is it fair to say it is still a "he said she said" situation?
Click to expand...

For me, I feel like it is still a he said she said thing. She being drunk enough to not remember everything, and yet she has detailed memory on who, what, and when. And it seems as if they think she's more credible even though she admits to not remembering everything. All the players, some probably pretty drunk too, are not credible to the University investigators. Was it a bad situation? Yes. Did she say no after the first couple/few guys? Most likely. Do some of the players deserve to be expelled? Yes. Do all players deserve to be expelled or suspended? No.

If you expel or suspend someone for lying or being inaccurate, shouldn't you do that to the accuser who isn't very accurate either? She claimed everything, including the first two guys, wasn't consensual. And even in the report, you can see it was. Everything after those two... is where it gets grey.
 

Taji34 said:
Except they didn't get rid of all the credibility of the accused, things that were corroborated by other's interviewed they considered credible, however the accused contradicted each other and witnesses (and even themselves) far more than the victim did, making the victims recount generally the more credible one when it came down to a one on one conflict in the recounts.
Click to expand...

Except seasoned investigators and prosecutors understand that one person remembering is far more likely to be consistent than 12 people remembering...eye witness testimony is the worst to go on.

In the report it is clear that they allowed for the trauma to be used by the accuser to allow for revision and enhanced recollection while the accused, who were being interviewed weeks after the event for the first time were not allowed that grace and it was a knock against them.

Plus the deleting of texts, messages, etc after they "heard" of a claim by the accuser were treated as deliberately trying to slow and hamper the investigation (part of student code). Only problem with that is that the EOAA investigation hadn't started 2 days after the incident when the messages and texts were deleted. Funny the police and DA didn't see that as anything concerning but the EOAA used it as a reason to punish the guys who didn't have any sexual contact.
 

So how does everyone feel this reconciles with the police report?

The EOAA report reads like a house of horrors, but the story is different than what the police were told or put in their report. The EOAA report says that the accuser remembered things in more detail later, but it also implies that the police investigation led her to believe that her initial encounter with Djam and recruit was consensual, but later she realized was not. That is a monster revelation. It seems to imply the cops intentionally were trying to steer their investigation to a certain conclusion.
 

If this is as bad as most are saying, then why did a player give it up to the media? Did they think this would make people feel sorry for them?
 

WoodburyTim said:
So how does everyone feel this reconciles with the police report?

The EOAA report reads like a house of horrors, but the story is different than what the police were told or put in their report. The EOAA report says that the accuser remembered things in more detail later, but it also implies that the police investigation led her to believe that her initial encounter with Djam and recruit was consensual, but later she realized was not. That is a monster revelation. It seems to imply the cops intentionally were trying to steer their investigation to a certain conclusion.
Click to expand...

Accuser would not give EOAA permission to see the 90 second video that the police used to determine the sex was consensual between the initial 3some. So the EOAA only had the police summary of the video...that is huge IMO to the veracity of the EOAA determination of consent and the mind set of the accuser. I am guessing the video is pretty clear if the DA and police didn't even bother to arrest anyone.
 

RolGnav said:
For me, I feel like it is still a he said she said thing. She being drunk enough to not remember everything, and yet she has detailed memory on who, what, and when. And it seems as if they think she's more credible even though she admits to not remembering everything. All the players, some probably pretty drunk too, are not credible to the University investigators. Was it a bad situation? Yes. Did she say no after the first couple/few guys? Most likely. Do some of the players deserve to be expelled? Yes. Do all players deserve to be expelled or suspended? No.

If you expel or suspend someone for lying or being inaccurate, shouldn't you do that to the accuser who isn't very accurate either? She claimed everything, including the first two guys, wasn't consensual. And even in the report, you can see it was. Everything after those two... is where it gets grey.
Click to expand...

They should kick her out of school if it makes you feel better. It's only one more thing her family and therapist will have to deal with during the next two or three decades. I am sure the players will feel better, as well.
 

woozee said:
I am still digesting what I read, but my initial reaction is that I am impressed with the thoroughness of investigation that EOAA conducted. In comparison to reading the police report it makes the police report look rather shallow. I am sure this has to do with the limit of resources our PD has dealing with the large case loads in our city.

I am glad that the U has a function that is doing its best to make for a safe environment for its students and giving victims opportunities to report. I also am happy they act on these reports at this level of detail.

My also immediate thought is that if I ever have a daughter who goes to the U I hope:

1. That I've taught her well enough that she won't end up in such a dangerous situation.
2. That maybe the campus is safe enough where these disgusting events are few and far between.

As far as the football team:
1. This is telling that our football team has a big time culture problem. I hope in the near future we can have a coach leader who can found our football program on a good foundation with strong moral standards. I hope the team can have zero tolerance for this kind of crap.
2. I dont think it's Clayes who will accomplish this. Yesterday's fiasco is clear evidence that he does not have control over our team. Frankly his tweet about supporting his players publicly put me over the edge.

Just my initial reaction. I am sure it will change as I process this more.
Click to expand...

Having a large case load doesnt lead to closing the investigation. I am dumfounded the pd did not come up with the same evidence. Something smells funny to me. No reason to tell one investigation one thing and tell another investigation something else unless the pd investigation was not even close to thorough.
 

Report was about what I expected, although I ran out of steam about page 60. It does not change my feeling of the situation but it certainly makes it harder for the players to continue to boycott.
Feeling frozen and afraid to say or do anything, is her basic stance on why she feels she didn't consent. And if her story is 100% true, I would certainly side with her. But at the same point, if she's performing oral sex on a bunch of guys and telling them it's ok if they put on condoms, I can certainly see why they might have thought it was fine.
So yes, he said she said.

Seems a little inconsistent to argue that she was really drunk and also the more credible party. Can't really be both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

The police investigation saw that the situation was ambiguous enough not to press charges.
The EEOC gave the woman time to refine her recollections and catch the players in their obstructions.
Those were an expensive 5 or 6 shots of vodka.
Apparently the University thinks that the only thing sacred here is the women's unempowered status.
And the players think losing a couple football games is enough punishment for their depravity.
This is the lowest the Gophers have ever gone. Sad.
 

It reads like she likely had some level of interest in some sort of wild sexual encounter at some point, and ended up getting steamrolled into an absolutely level 10 insane sexual encounter.
I can see how a whole swath of people deserve severe punishment.
I can also see how the punishment seems too severe in some of the cases.
Sometimes severe happens in life (it has to all of us at some point), and these students will probably have to find a way to deal with it. They have themselves to blame for it.
I think this will be a catalyst for some sort of leadership change within the big three coming very soon.
I wonder if Bob Loblaw has self-reported his violation and is eating a huge bowl of dogsh*t for dinner as punishment.
 

Section2 said:
Feeling frozen and afraid to say or do anything, is her basic stance on why she feels she didn't consent. And if her story is 100% true, I would certainly side with her. But at the same point, if she's performing oral sex on a bunch of guys and telling them it's ok if they put on condoms, I can certainly see why they might have thought it was fine.
So yes, he said she said.
Click to expand...

I don't recall reading that. She mentioned them using condoms but did the document actually say she said it was OK? I'm genuinely asking.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Accuser would not give EOAA permission to see the 90 second video that the police used to determine the sex was consensual between the initial 3some. So the EOAA only had the police summary of the video...that is huge IMO to the veracity of the EOAA determination of consent and the mind set of the accuser. I am guessing the video is pretty clear if the DA and police didn't even bother to arrest anyone.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you again. If the video played out as she said that things did, the men would be in jail and could rot there for all I care. There has to be a reason why the authorities did not go forward with this case. If she is confident on her story, why not let the EOAA see the video?
 

As Kaler said in his email, athletes are held to a high standard of conduct. It is pretty clear that their actions, their dehumanizing and degrading descriptions of women (in the report), and involving a recruit in all this violates the conduct that a representative of the University should be partaking in. I stand with the University wholeheartedly. I don't really understand how anyone could dispute that this violates University conduct.
 

Berma144 said:
As Kaler said in his email, athletes are held to a high standard of conduct. It is pretty clear that their actions, their dehumanizing and degrading descriptions of women (in the report), and involving a recruit in all this violates the conduct that a representative of the University should be partaking in. I stand with the University wholeheartedly. I don't really understand how anyone could dispute that this violates University conduct.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you that they should be held to a high standard, but the punishment doesn't fit the degree to what happened, IMO. I could support suspending the 5 involved for a year, and giving them the option to leave to go wherever they want, and putting the others on 1 year of probation. This was overkill by the EOAA and supported by the administration.
 

Section2 said:
Report was about what I expected, although I ran out of steam about page 60. It does not change my feeling of the situation but it certainly makes it harder for the players to continue to boycott.
Feeling frozen and afraid to say or do anything, is her basic stance on why she feels she didn't consent. And if her story is 100% true, I would certainly side with her. But at the same point, if she's performing oral sex on a bunch of guys and telling them it's ok if they put on condoms, I can certainly see why they might have thought it was fine.
So yes, he said she said.
Seems a little inconsistent to argue that she was really drunk and also the more credible party. Can't really be both.
Click to expand...

You should have kept reading. Paul McEnroe, the KSTP reported who obtained the report, said on two different radio stations today that the report stated that at least one of the players (and maybe more) admitted to investigators that they heard the girl tell one of players (and maybe more) that she didn't want the sex to continue. Game, set, match.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom