All Things EOAA, Investigation, Suspension, Overturned Etc. Thread: UPDATED 1 Thread

[GopherBulldog]

When you start complaining about the abuses and injustice in the criminal court system in America we will start complaining about abuses and injustice in Title IX student code of conduct system. The Title IX system is a model of integrity and justice by comparison with the criminal court system. And that is probably true about the civil court system as well.

You are concerned about maybe a few dozen cases where male college students were mistreated in Title IX sexual abuse cases and many other people are concerned about the many thousands of cases of sexual abuse where there is no justice at all for the victims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a five-part series of articles that found, in the paper's own words, "nearly 400 cases where prosecutors obtained homicide convictions by committing the most unforgivable kinds of deception. They hid evidence that could have set defendants free. They allowed witnesses to lie. All in defiance of the law. Prosecutors swear to seek the truth but instead many pursue convictions at any cost. The premium is on winning, not justice."

The series, reported and written by Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, documented 381 cases, going back to 1963, in which courts reversed murder convictions because prosecutors presented evidence they apparently knew to be false, or concealed evidence suggesting innocence, or both.

Then, in November 1999, the Tribune published another in-depth series by Armstrong and reporter Steve Mills that examined murder cases in which Illinois prosecutors, mostly in Cook County (Chicago), had charged a defendant with a capital crime and asked for the death penalty. The journalists identified 326 reversals attributed in whole or part to the conduct of the prosecutors.

Read more at: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/06/26/5528/short-history-exposing-misconduct

I cannot believe that you are doubling-down on a system where we just witnessed that 40% of accused perpetrators were completely exonerated. I hate to fathom how this could have played out if these kids had not been football players, if they had not been part of a case that generated national attention and if at least one of them did not have a high profile father with the resources to hire an independent attorney. They would have been completely steamrolled by this system. Your system.

 

[Wally]

Rereading the article myself, I would note that students from rich families are the ones most likely to appeal to the Federal Courts. Even if they win, those families settle for having students' records expunged. The article mentions only two instances where students received settlements. It also appears that EoAA processes are more fair than those of military tribunals, in the eyes of almost everyone. If Hutton's firm is taking their U of M cases on a contingency basis, it will be interesting to see how it proceeds. An Appellate Court made up entirely of George W. Bush appointees came down unanimously against a student's claims of unfair treatment about six months ago. Finally, the facts of the case seem to matter a great deal in these appeals. Hutton has a long row to hoe ahead of him--assuming he even appeals to a Federal Court.

That's great they are more fair than military tribunals. Guess that's probably better than we can all hope for?

I just don't get it...

 

[Tucker32]

I think SDM was happy that a female sexual assault victim at the U has finally received justice after hundreds of reported cases where not pursued in by the criminal justice system.

No, that isn't what he has been saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Livingat45north]

We know that there are differences in "facts" between what the accuser told the police versus what she told the U's panel. Given that, she either told the police or told the U something that was not true (note, that's different than saying she deliberately lied). Is it a double standard, punishing a football play for not telling the truth to the panel but not punishing the accuser?

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Fair enough. I can agree with what you said. The original post didn't explain in any detail. I know it's hard to jam all of one's thoughts in a post. The recruit being there has been my biggest Hangul in the whole thing. I think Djam should be gone for bringing him into it. That said, I suspect Djam and Williams will be gone after Fleck has his say.

Yeah. As a side matter that didn't involve the EoAA or any inferences of sexual assault, I would have no problem with Djam or whomever was responsible for the recruit being kicked off the team for whatever happened.

You have to keep in mind though that makes things tough too because the main issue is the alcohol. Let's say you bring a recruit to a party and he and a girl hit it off and they want to hook up, should the player stop that from happening? It's legal. They are both past the age of consent. So I don't know.

But I can understand why a coach would kick a kid off the team for that stuff. It's just that when people are discussing the EoAA and the sexual assault allegations, it's a red herring.

 

[Maverick]

We know that there are differences in "facts" between what the accuser told the police versus what she told the U's panel. Given that, she either told the police or told the U something that was not true (note, that's different than saying she deliberately lied). Is it a double standard, punishing a football play for not telling the truth to the panel but not punishing the accuser?

Quit trying to argue with a brick wall. Brick walls are stupid and don't change or adjust their position no matter how good an argument you have. They make good party line supporters though, like all good communists, they push the agenda even though the free world around them sees right through them.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Rereading the article myself, I would note that students from rich families are the ones most likely to appeal to the Federal Courts. Even if they win, those families settle for having students' records expunged. The article mentions only two instances where students received settlements. It also appears that EoAA processes are more fair than those of military tribunals, in the eyes of almost everyone. If Hutton's firm is taking their U of M cases on a contingency basis, it will be interesting to see how it proceeds. An Appellate Court made up entirely of George W. Bush appointees came down unanimously against a student's claims of unfair treatment about six months ago. Finally, the facts of the case seem to matter a great deal in these appeals. Hutton has a long row to hoe ahead of him--assuming he even appeals to a Federal Court.

(A) You can't read.
(B) When you're asking about Hutton's pay, you clearly don't understand how this all works.
(C) This article is showing how the facts DON'T matter for these appeals. They are showing the most absurd facts and showing that they rarely get overturned by a Federal Court. They are showing you that facts DON'T matter.
(D) Of course students of rich families and athletes are the ones most likely to appeal. They have the funds and the spotlight to do it, most people leave school after the EoAA makes their "investigation". IT's what I've been saying all along.

 

[Wally]

When you start complaining about the abuses and injustice in the criminal court system in America we will start complaining about abuses and injustice in Title IX student code of conduct system. The Title IX system is a model of integrity and justice by comparison with the criminal court system. And that is probably true about the civil court system as well.

You are concerned about maybe a few dozen cases where male college students were mistreated in Title IX sexual abuse cases and many other people are concerned about the many thousands of cases of sexual abuse where there is no justice at all for the victims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 1999, the Chicago Tribune published a five-part series of articles that found, in the paper's own words, "nearly 400 cases where prosecutors obtained homicide convictions by committing the most unforgivable kinds of deception. They hid evidence that could have set defendants free. They allowed witnesses to lie. All in defiance of the law. Prosecutors swear to seek the truth but instead many pursue convictions at any cost. The premium is on winning, not justice."

The series, reported and written by Maurice Possley and Ken Armstrong, documented 381 cases, going back to 1963, in which courts reversed murder convictions because prosecutors presented evidence they apparently knew to be false, or concealed evidence suggesting innocence, or both.

Then, in November 1999, the Tribune published another in-depth series by Armstrong and reporter Steve Mills that examined murder cases in which Illinois prosecutors, mostly in Cook County (Chicago), had charged a defendant with a capital crime and asked for the death penalty. The journalists identified 326 reversals attributed in whole or part to the conduct of the prosecutors.

Read more at: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2003/06/26/5528/short-history-exposing-misconduct

The prosecutors in those cases should end up in jail with all the people they put there. That might make them think twice.

The "real" legal system is a joke also, you are correct. After being on jury duty it was obvious to me that no one at the court house gave a s### about the truth. The most important thing is the lawyers and their paychecks. This gentleman's agreement is largely only upset when someone has enough money to upend it.

Sadly it's not all that different from EOAA except it has a much higher standard of proof, which has an important moderating influence.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

They are not only awful, they are also extremely ignorant and disgusting. Just think about it for a second. That poster is apparently a graduate of the University of Minnesota. We will just have to tell ourselves that he probably got his degree at a time when just about anyone could get into the U.

You could argue the substantive points of his posts if you'd like? Are you capable?

 

[GopherBulldog]

They are not only awful, they are also extremely ignorant and disgusting. Just think about it for a second. That poster is apparently a graduate of the University of Minnesota. We will just have to tell ourselves that he probably got his degree at a time when just about anyone could get into the U.

Can you please inform me of the timeline regarding strict admissions vs. come one come all? I have a diploma that says University Minnesota on it. But need to know if I'm in the smart guy club or if I should hang out with the knuckle-draggers.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

You could argue the substantive points of his posts if you'd like? Are you capable?

It is pointless and a complete waste of time to get in an endless pissing contest with another poster on an internet message board. I will argue the substantive points with you in any bar of your choosing. Just you and me.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

It is pointless and a complete waste of time to get in an endless pissing contest with another poster on an internet message board. I will argue the substantive points with you in any bar of your choosing. Just you and me.

Did you just ask me on a date?

 

[Iceland12]

Yes and after that statement, Wolitarsky and other players talked about how they were mainly worried about the players not directly involved with the woman.

]I would say no[/U], no more turns needed since he just quoted Wolitarsky verbatim and you are living in your own I know what they meant even though they specifically said something different world. At least for the purpose of this troll.

Yeah, even the thread you responded to proves you wrong.

Though it is odd, you saying no more turns, because that's all you been wanting for awhile now.

Don't worry though, he's making his money getting other people to reply to his baiting.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Did I miss something in the news here? Weren't five players' suspensions upheld--the five most serious ones at that? Doesn't this make the "victim" a victim?

Legally, no, she is not a victim. If you call her a victim, then you're saying players harmed her. That's defamation.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The only people who are saying the victim lied are the players, their attorney, and GopherHolers who think that getting one side of the story is all they need for the truth. The fanboys are not interested in what the girl and her attorney had to say and what the hearing officers who listened to all of the testimony believed.

Dishonest, scumbag post. Completely disgusting.

 

[TruthSeeker]

They are not only awful, they are also extremely ignorant and disgusting. Just think about it for a second. That poster is apparently a graduate of the University of Minnesota. We will just have to tell ourselves that he probably got his degree at a time when just about anyone could get into the U.

Wrong. You were banned for your disgusting posts on this topic. You continue your disgusting posts.

Campus rape culture is complete BS. Sexual assaults are way down from past decades. It's pure, disgusting propaganda.

 

[TruthSeeker]

It is pointless and a complete waste of time to get in an endless pissing contest with another poster on an internet message board. I will argue the substantive points with you in any bar of your choosing. Just you and me.

Ha! What a lie. You routinely engage in these contests on the OTB. Another disgusting post.

 

[scools12]

Yes and after that statement, Wolitarsky and other players talked about how they were mainly worried about the players not directly involved with the woman.

5 not 10.

Your turn I guess..

According to this post above they team did throw half the players under the bus.

Great idea. They would have been champions if they would have said they are boycotting for 1/2 the kids while throwing the other half under the bus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[balds]

We know that there are differences in "facts" between what the accuser told the police versus what she told the U's panel. Given that, she either told the police or told the U something that was not true (note, that's different than saying she deliberately lied). Is it a double standard, punishing a football play for not telling the truth to the panel but not punishing the accuser?

Winfield's attorney also stated that her testimony during the hearing contained several new items not in the police or EOAA report. That would be 3 times where her story had "inconsistencies".

 

[Spoofin]

5 Punishments Upheld, 4 Cleared, 1 Reduced in Gopher Football Player Sexual Misconduc

According to this post above they team did throw half the players under the bus.

One of these statements refers to the initial demands. The other was a comment explaining what the boycott was really about. It supports my statements, not contradicts. This really isn't complex - just too complex for some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Urbandale]

I think it's great that 4 of the expulsions got upheld, and it's very entertaining to read all the guys on here that whine about it incessantly in thread after thread. The name calling and emotional tantrums are even better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have an odd glee about this whole situation. To paraphrase the great Ben Franklin, "It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." There were innocent people suffering in this whole messy business. Or have you forgotten that? Or perhaps it doesn't matter to you?

 

[CentralGopher]

5 Punishments Upheld, 4 Cleared, 1 Reduced in Gopher Football Player Sexual Misconduc

Help me with this...on tape Djam has a threesome with a recruit and is NOT recommended for expulsion? How is that not grounds for expulsion? Just explain that to me because of all the players, there was no doubt in my mind he was the one who should have been kicked off the team for involving a recruit...who had to go to a lousy school btw, after having about a couple dozen offers, many power 5 ones....

I was thinking the same thing. Thought his might be upheld since he was taking the recruits to parties and setting bad examples for all. Fleck may say bye bye anyway though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#coacheslivesmatter

 

[gopherveteran]

According to Fox TV, Title IX people no longer want women to go to the police.
They are not getting the results they want from the police at many colleges.

They want women to report to Title IX people. Then Title IX people can be the judge and get the results they want.

 

[GopherBulldog]

I was thinking the same thing. Thought his might be upheld since he was taking the recruits to parties and setting bad examples for all. Fleck may say bye bye anyway though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#coacheslivesmatter

I also thought this was strange. I do wonder if Djam had evidence that it was concensual between the recruit and the woman. If so, and if he was then severely punished, it could then lead to possible punishment for the alleged victim. Which, of course, the EOAA would not condone.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

According to Fox TV, Title IX people no longer want women to go to the police.
They are not getting the results they want from the police at many colleges.

They want women to report to Title IX people. Then Title IX people can be the judge and get the results they want.

Is this true? It wouldn't be surprising to me, but if so, wow.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I also thought this was strange. I do wonder if Djam had evidence that it was concensual between the recruit and the woman. If so, and if he was then severely punished, it could then lead to possible punishment for the alleged victim. Which, of course, the EOAA would not condone.

The woman admitted that her encounters with Djam and the recruit were consensual. Any punishment that Djam would receive for letting the recruit drink would be outside of the authority of Title IX. It would be a different thing.

I'm not sure what the alleged victim would be punished for in her encounter with Djam and the recruit.

 

[MennoSota]

What happens if the alleged victim appeals?

If the female, alleged victim, appeals the latest EoAA decision, does that mean the four exonerated athletes are thrown back into the lions den for another round of "guilty until proven innocent?"

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Does the alleged victim get to appeal?

 

[Sparlimb]

Does the alleged victim get to appeal?

no

 

[Deckergopher]

She won't, the university blew this thing way out of proportion... IMO she's moved on long time ago.