After Reading the Report Thoughts

Donate To GopherHole
My thoughts:

1. The acts were horrible to read. However, I already knew she was accusing them of raping her so I expected that. That doesn't change anything in my eyes.

2. The basis of the report's findings is that she was more credible and thus that is the more likely way it happened. If the EOAA would have seen the video, factored in her pleading the 5th or the clause she put in the settlement maybe they would have concluded she was less credible and everything flips 180.

3. Easy to see why no charges were filed.

4. Easy to see something at best "not good" and at worst "horrific" happened.

5. Certain players did much more questionable things then others - it is a shame they are lumped together.

6. Some punishments seem too extreme. Others don't.

7. I still can't believe how poorly K and C handled this.

8. The boycott was right as the kids still deserve due process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Vandy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying and I agree to an extent. There will probably be some variation in what 11 people tell you even if they are all telling the truth. But in this case I don't think that was the only reason they saw her as the more credible one. One of the things they cited was that what she told police and what she told the EOAA was basically exactly the same. That was not necessarily the case for some of the players. Some of them told pretty different stories to the EOAA than what they told police. Also, the fact that the players made a concerted effort to destroy texts and whatnot from that night does not look good.
 

That was my first thought. Regardless of what happened, who is guilty, not guilty, what student-codes were broken or not, the texts alone demonstrated such a sickening disregard for women and tirvilaization of sex (really not a prude, just humane!) that I am still stunned.
 

Go Gophers Rah said:
Reposted from the other thread...

I was disgusted by the players actions before reading this.
It sickens me that we live in a culture (because I know that this is not specific to the Gophers football team) where any of this is considered acceptable behavior that the football team, as a whole, would rally around to support.

I am tired of people on this board acting like if some people are disgusted by this, then they are just prudes who cannot accept other people's "lifestyles."

I hold the coaching staff somewhat accountable for: a) not recruiting players with a decent character, b) creating an environment where such behavior could be deemed appropriate by the non-participating players, and c) acing like the players in question are victims.
Click to expand...
People act like that, because it's true. CONSENT is the lynchpin of the morality in of all this. The form & function of the act is irrelevant. And to say it's not about prudish puritanical thinking is not based in reality. The same people who cry "gangbang" as though a completely consensual one, is still, by definition, an immoral act are the same who 30 yrs ago said a gay couple having sex, by definition was immoral. CONSENT is all that separates right from wrong here. I wouldn't take part in such an act, but if all involved are willing participants, to each their own...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

minny01 said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's likely she did not want to have to watch the video. If it was presented to EOAA, she would have to review it to know what is out there and it would likely have to be played at the hearing. This, as you could imagine, probably would be hard for her to watch.
 


ProfessorBum said:
Yes, Walitarsky...they should kick all 120 of you off the team.
Click to expand...

He is going to really regret putting himself out there where he was the face of this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WestTexasGopher said:
That was my first thought. Regardless of what happened, who is guilty, not guilty, what student-codes were broken or not, the texts alone demonstrated such a sickening disregard for women and tirvilaization of sex (really not a prude, just humane!) that I am still stunned.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.
 

goooogophers said:
It's likely she did not want to have to watch the video. If it was presented to EOAA, she would have to review it to know what is out there and it would likely have to be played at the hearing. This, as you could imagine, probably would be hard for her to watch.
Click to expand...

If you buy that line of thinking, I've got a bridge to sell you.
 

U2Gopher said:
He is going to really regret putting himself out there where he was the face of this.


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

Woli was the face of asking for transparency and due process. Why would he regret that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 



bizzle22 said:
I see what you are saying and I agree to an extent. There will probably be some variation in what 11 people tell you even if they are all telling the truth. But in this case I don't think that was the only reason they saw her as the more credible one. One of the things they cited was that what she told police and what she told the EOAA was basically exactly the same. That was not necessarily the case for some of the players. Some of them told pretty different stories to the EOAA than what they told police. Also, the fact that the players made a concerted effort to destroy texts and whatnot from that night does not look good.
Click to expand...

The police saw all the texts, none indicated a crime or guilt, but they sure did make the players look like scumbags who have horrible opinions of women and how they should be treated and thought of. Not a crime but with the EOAA it adds to their ability to give them harsher penalties.

I still think the punishment doesn't fit the crime for many of the players. Suspension from the bowl game and probation seems reasonable for 4 or 5 of them and 1 year suspension for 3 of them but the one in charge of the recruit and the one that called in his buddies to partake have to be gone.
 

WestTexasGopher said:
That was my first thought. Regardless of what happened, who is guilty, not guilty, what student-codes were broken or not, the texts alone demonstrated such a sickening disregard for women and tirvilaization of sex (really not a prude, just humane!) that I am still stunned.
Click to expand...

+1000

Hard to stomach...
 

Spoofin said:
Woli was the face of asking for transparency and due process. Why would he regret that?


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

Are you crazy? "The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players who are involved are lifted". For once quit being so stubborn.
 

Spoofin said:
My thoughts:

1. The acts were horrible to read. However, I already knew she was accusing them of raping her so I expected that. That doesn't change anything in my eyes.

2. The basis of the report's findings is that she was more credible and thus that is the more likely way it happened. If the EOAA would have seen the video, factored in her pleading the 5th or the clause she put in the settlement maybe they would have concluded she was less credible and everything flips 180.

3. Easy to see why no charges were filed.

4. Easy to see something at best "not good" and at worst "horrific" happened.

5. Certain players did much more questionable things then others - it is a shame they are lumped together.

6. Some punishments seem too extreme. Others don't.

7. I still can't believe how poorly K and C handled this.

8. The boycott was right as the kids still deserve due process.
Click to expand...


My thoughts:

1. At least one of the players admitted hearing the girl tell at least one of the other players that she wanted the sex to stop. That should change everything in everyones eyes.

2. All three videos together didn't amount to more than two or three minutes of at least 90 minutes of sexual activity. I don't believe the video would have mattered to most reasonable people based on the totality of the other evidence.

3. The fact that criminal charges weren't filed is immaterial to a Student Code of Conduct hearing.

4. Anyone who is hanging out at a gang bang is taking a risk that things might go very badly for them even though they don't actually participate.

5. The boycott makes the players look foolish given the conduct of the involved players.
 



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.


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

So that means if someone didn't use a condom it's not OK, right? I just scanned it, but I think there was something in there where someone didn't have one.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
The police saw all the texts, none indicated a crime or guilt, but they sure did make the players look like scumbags who have horrible opinions of women and how they should be treated and thought of. Not a crime but with the EOAA it adds to their ability to give them harsher penalties.

I still think the punishment doesn't fit the crime for many of the players. Suspension from the bowl game and probation seems reasonable for 4 or 5 of them and 1 year suspension for 3 of them but the one in charge of the recruit and the one that called in his buddies to partake have to be gone.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree on the punishment not fitting the crime. I think probation and no bowl game is appropriate for players who had no sexual contact with the woman. And we could still end up there. Remember, the EOAA isn't the end all be all as some seem to think. They aren't even the ones who actually give out the punishment, they only make a recommendation for the punishment. The school takes that into account when determining what the final punishment should be. I'd like to see a middle ground reached here through the appeals process, and I think if that happens many will have a different view of this situation. Still a sad situation.
 

WestTexasGopher said:
That was my first thought. Regardless of what happened, who is guilty, not guilty, what student-codes were broken or not, the texts alone demonstrated such a sickening disregard for women and tirvilaization of sex (really not a prude, just humane!) that I am still stunned.
Click to expand...

C'mon you fuddy-duddy, it was just a big ol' groovy super-consensual love orgy! Don't be so uptight.
 

Spoofin said:
Woli was the face of asking for transparency and due process. Why would he regret that?


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

This is really setting the stage for a huge constitutional challenge on Obama's 2011 Regulations regarding Title IX
 

So does anyone else think it's some sort of a red flag that the accuser didn't allow a key piece of evidence in the police deciding not to press charges to be released to the EOAA?

Being such a small portion of the encounter even if it painted her in a bad light she could easily explain it away (I.e. Started out consensual then changed to non consensual at some point).

This makes her appear to be hiding something. May not be hiding anything but gives the appearance nevertheless.
 

What happened is absolutely despicable. As fans we shouldn't have to try to defend what happened. Read the report, it's not he said she said. Stop defending the players. It's over.
 

cjcarter8 said:
So does anyone else think it's some sort of a red flag that the accuser didn't allow a key piece of evidence in the police deciding not to press charges to be released to the EOAA?

Being such a small portion of the encounter even if it painted her in a bad light she could easily explain it away (I.e. Started out consensual then changed to non consensual at some point).

This makes her appear to be hiding something. May not be hiding anything but gives the appearance nevertheless.
Click to expand...

What the holy hell are you referring to?
 


nm. After reading the report in part, I am resolved to end my participation in any Gopher men's athletic event. This has been a repeated problem in the department.
 

So does anyone else think it's some sort of a red flag that the accuser didn't allow a key piece of evidence in the police deciding not to press charges to be released to the EOAA?

Being such a small portion of the encounter even if it painted her in a bad light she could easily explain it away (I.e. Started out consensual then changed to non consensual at some point).

This makes her appear to be hiding something. May not be hiding anything but gives the appearance nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I believe she said (or I read) that this part of the encounter was consensual and she didn't feel the need to have more people watch her sex tape.
 

goooogophers said:
It's likely she did not want to have to watch the video. If it was presented to EOAA, she would have to review it to know what is out there and it would likely have to be played at the hearing. This, as you could imagine, probably would be hard for her to watch.
Click to expand...

The other two videos werent equally hard to watch?. Doesnt add up to me and says she may be hiding something. Still a lot of unanswered questions.
 

I too wonder what the heck it takes for the police to file charges. No wonder women don't report and no wonder women say campus rapes are not prosecuted and there is a rape crisis on campuses. That anyone on this board would defend any of the players after reading this report disgusts me.
 

zman said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a long report so I may be wrong. That's what one of the players accounts said I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

cjcarter8 said:
She didn't allow the 90 second video to be released to the EOAA by the police.
Click to expand...

Please refer me to the place in the report where it is stated that RS "didn't allow" this.

All I see is, "In addition, EOAA is aware of, but was unable to obtain, a third approximately ninety-second video showing A2 RS and the recruit engaged in sexual contact in apartment B ."

ETA: never mind. page 24
 

SKOOKM said:
So that means if someone didn't use a condom it's not OK, right? I just scanned it, but I think there was something in there where someone didn't have one.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I think it's fair to assume that not everyone received verbal consent, but I don't know how you could be sure.

This happened over a pretty short period of time. An hour plus? Reasonable to say she was a willing participant for some or most of the time, and that changed. Whether that changed in her mind later, or during the event is unclear to me. And the "no more men in here" is also unclear in context. Like, after this guy I'm done? It's a pretty disgusting situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

CoMn said:
I too wonder what the heck it takes for the police to file charges. No wonder women don't report and no wonder women say campus rapes are not prosecuted and there is a rape crisis on campuses. That anyone on this board would defend any of the players after reading this report disgusts me.
Click to expand...

+1
 

Wait does anyone else feel it incredibly wrong, that we are basing all of our conclusions on the fact that we are using "leaked" and incomplete information. Wasn't this country based on the idea due process and the facts being presented with equal opportunity to be challenged in front of our peers in a court of law?

We seem to have forgotten the fact that the purpose of this boycot was not to challenge whether these students did or did not do something, it's that the fact the Government has decided to regulate how students should act towards one another and adjudicate punishment outside of the legal system.

Isn't that what we were arguing for yesterday, fair treatment of this Woman and these players? I don't want the guys on this team, but there is nothing to say that this document produced today wasn't doctored in some fashion. I am not suggesting it was, I don't even believe it was, but Jesus...isn't this an example of the disaster of using Presidential directives and regulations rather than actual law to determine the outcomes of criminal activity?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom