All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole

Word said:
I think whoever hired Pacyga is the smartest of of the 10. Pacyga specializes in criminal defense. I don't think that's a very big part of Hutton's background.
Click to expand...

Winfield...and I agree.
 

sirloin1078 said:
Pacyga stated last night that he has a "surprise" for the panel today. I'm curious as to what it could be. Evidence of who leaked the report perhaps?

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/01/26/hearings-begin-gopher-football-players/
Click to expand...

It is interesting the school felt the need to bring in a "memory expert". As with all professional witnesses they are hired to bring their point of view and the subject of intense psychological trauma and memory is certainly not close to settled science. Many studies say trauma sharpens memory to extraordinary levels in many cases, while a few researchers are proponents of the fragmented memory hypothesis. Victims groups like to bring up the few researchers that support their fragmented memory point of view because it explains why accuser stories and testimony so often make little sense.

It is also true that memories can be altered post-event and therapists can influence memories to the point they seem real but I doubt this expert explored that aspect.

Interesting that the accuser was given 3 hours to tell her story and each player will have 31.5 minutes to deliver their rebuttals. And, two students and a grad student are deciding the lives of these guys. It's a mad world.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is interesting the school felt the need to bring in a "memory expert". As with all professional witnesses they are hired to bring their point of view and the subject of intense psychological trauma and memory is certainly not close to settled science. Many studies say trauma sharpens memory to extraordinary levels in many cases, while a few researchers are proponents of the fragmented memory hypothesis. Victims groups like to bring up the few researchers that support their fragmented memory point of view because it explains why accuser stories and testimony so often make little sense.

It is also true that memories can be altered post-event and therapists can influence memories to the point they seem real but I doubt this expert explored that aspect.

Interesting that the accuser was given 3 hours to tell her story and each player will have 31.5 minutes to deliver their rebuttals. And, two students and a grad student are deciding the lives of these guys. It's a mad world.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things upside down about this whole process but at least it's a panel of their peers...students. Closer to a jury than I expected.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is interesting the school felt the need to bring in a "memory expert". As with all professional witnesses they are hired to bring their point of view and the subject of intense psychological trauma and memory is certainly not close to settled science. Many studies say trauma sharpens memory to extraordinary levels in many cases, while a few researchers are proponents of the fragmented memory hypothesis. Victims groups like to bring up the few researchers that support their fragmented memory point of view because it explains why accuser stories and testimony so often make little sense.

It is also true that memories can be altered post-event and therapists can influence memories to the point they seem real but I doubt this expert explored that aspect.

Interesting that the accuser was given 3 hours to tell her story and each player will have 31.5 minutes to deliver their rebuttals. And, two students and a grad student are deciding the lives of these guys. It's a mad world.
Click to expand...

And the panel volunteered, which would suggest possible bias. It's just numbing that this system is approved, authorized and endorsed by a university. The system is so inadequate, imperfect and flawed that it's not in anybody's best interest. It's so sad for everybody but the 10 guys are at a major disadvantage.
 



PMWinSTP said:
There are a lot of things upside down about this whole process but at least it's a panel of their peers...students. Closer to a jury than I expected.
Click to expand...

All I see with the student panel is the ability to be unduly influenced by the faculty and Kim Hewitt. There is the possibility of fear of retribution, loss of personal references, etc. and frankly many perhaps most kids that age don't have the life experiences or wisdom to know when to question made-up science and statistics. Too easily influenced.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
All I see with the student panel is the ability to be unduly influenced by the faculty and Kim Hewitt. There is the possibility of fear of retribution, loss of personal references, etc. and frankly many perhaps most kids that age don't have the life experiences or wisdom to know when to question made-up science and statistics. Too easily influenced.
Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me of the NFL and their "appeal" process.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
All I see with the student panel is the ability to be unduly influenced by the faculty and Kim Hewitt. There is the possibility of fear of retribution, loss of personal references, etc. and frankly many perhaps most kids that age don't have the life experiences or wisdom to know when to question made-up science and statistics. Too easily influenced.
Click to expand...

They serve on juries in all kinds of court trials. Much rather have students than faculty or administrators serving on this panel. Much closer to understanding the realities of student life.
 



PMWinSTP said:
They serve on juries in all kinds of court trials. Much rather have students than faculty or administrators serving on this panel. Much closer to understanding the realities of student life.
Click to expand...

Students are exempted from serving on juries.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Students are exempted from serving on juries.
Click to expand...

If they want to be excused they can be, sometimes. But if they're capable of serving on a murder trial jury then they're capable of doing this.

Also "fragmented" memory, or the inability to perfectly recall traumatic events has an established relationship with PTSD. It's not controversial. Here's a literature review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182004/
 





PMWinSTP said:
They serve on juries in all kinds of court trials. Much rather have students than faculty or administrators serving on this panel. Much closer to understanding the realities of student life.
Click to expand...

Having students comprise the entirety of the panel also opens up another interesting avenue for future appeals/lawsuits.

You can bet that both lawyers are having staff comb the internet (social media specifically) for anything that could be interpreted as bias by the panel members. In fact, I read (only on this thread, can't remember the post, so take it with a grain of salt if you want) that Mr Pacyga has already had 1 panel member removed because of an early tweet about the case.

I think them being students of their age makes it more likely that if they had strong feelings about the case at any point leading up to now, they probably made their opinion heard. (Just reckless speculation, so don't bother asking for examples)
 

Pompous Elitist said:
All I see with the student panel is the ability to be unduly influenced by the faculty and Kim Hewitt. There is the possibility of fear of retribution, loss of personal references, etc. and frankly many perhaps most kids that age don't have the life experiences or wisdom to know when to question made-up science and statistics. Too easily influenced.
Click to expand...

The fact that the head of the EOAA "trains" the members of the appeal panel on how to make judgments on the decision the EOAA made should throw all kinds of red flags.
 

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

CurveballJesus said:
Having students comprise the entirety of the panel also opens up another interesting avenue for future appeals/lawsuits.

You can bet that both lawyers are having staff comb the internet (social media specifically) for anything that could be interpreted as bias by the panel members. In fact, I read (only on this thread, can't remember the post, so take it with a grain of salt if you want) that Mr Pacyga has already had 1 panel member removed because of an early tweet about the case.

I think them being students of their age makes it more likely that if they had strong feelings about the case at any point leading up to now, they probably made their opinion heard. (Just reckless speculation, so don't bother asking for examples)
Click to expand...

Yes, just like tossing a juror, it was reported he had one replaced. They certainly have more social media options to look at to find potential bias, not sure if they would be any more likely to express than any other age group under, say 50.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Students have the option of postponing service until they are on break or out of school.
Click to expand...

Big difference from being exempt. There are specific reasons for one to be excused from serving, being a student is not one of them.

Your point was "kids that age".
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Students have the option of postponing service until they are on break or out of school.
Click to expand...

Right, so not exempt. Delay is an option available to anyone, not just students. It is generally fairly easy to secure a deferment if you have a real reason. Much, much harder to be excused and almost no one is "exempt."
 


Pompous Elitist said:
Students are exempted from serving on juries.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. When I was a student I was called and I didn't have to miss school to be on jury duty but I had to reschedule during the summer and do it then.

As it turns out, I was never called for a pool. Only had trials 3 days of the 2 weeks I was scheduled due to a funeral for a cop and a judges' convention. Missed two weeks of full time (during the summer) employment and since I was a part time employee didn't get compensated at all besides the $15 a day for the 3 days I actually showed up.

Not that I'm still bitter... :)
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
No they aren't. When I was a student I was called and I didn't have to miss school to be on jury duty but I had to reschedule during the summer and do it then.

As it turns out, I was never called for a pool. Only had trials 3 days of the 2 weeks I was scheduled due to a funeral for a cop and a judges' convention. Missed two weeks of full time (during the summer) employment and since I was a part time employee didn't get compensated at all besides the $15 a day for the 3 days I actually showed up.

Not that I'm still bitter... :)
Click to expand...

Did you have to pay for parking too?
 

scools12 said:
Postponing is an option. You posted they are "exempt" which is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Temporarily exempt, similar to mothers with small children, and a long list of other exemptions (temporary or not). Arguing semantics, which is fine but settle down.

The real argument here is whether students at a school can be reasonably expected to be free of influence of that school. I would strongly argue no. In addition, they are an apparently self-selected group, i.e. They have a strong interest in volunteering on a sexual misconduct panel. That raises the question of what types of students may be aware of or asked to join.
 

piffle_dragon said:
If they want to be excused they can be, sometimes. But if they're capable of serving on a murder trial jury then they're capable of doing this.

Also "fragmented" memory, or the inability to perfectly recall traumatic events has an established relationship with PTSD. It's not controversial. Here's a literature review:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182004/
Click to expand...

That paper is talking about declarative memory of neutral events. it's not really talking about what you think. As far as traumatic memory recall deficits, false memories, psychogenic amnesia, memory decay there is a lot of gray. There are some that argue PTSD sufferer's memories are subject to change over time and not necessarily more accurate. Memories are subject to outside influence and change over time. Eyewitness testimony (including the victim) is demonstrably false in a significant number of cases. This is an evolving area and a controversial area. Obviously special interest groups will promote the science that supports their their agenda.
 

I am a criminal defense lawyer and Gopher fan. I have followed this quite closely and read both the police reports and the EEOA report. I am familiar with the female detective who investigated the case. She is no softy on sex crimes. Her, the police department and the county attorney conclusions of no proof of non-consensual sexual activity seem reasonable. The EEOA report seems biased and based on an underlying premise of "men bad women good".
I am appalled by the unfairness of the hearing process. It illustrates the maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The goal of protecting women is an obviously admirable one that almost nobody(Trump?) could disagree with. The result, however, is a grossly unfair process. I stopped by the room where the hearings are going on today. I saw the players sitting outside. They were all clean-cut, nicely addressed and seemed like nice college students. Seeing them not in uniform I have to say that they are really young and appear to be athletic young men not some giants. They are somebodies' sons. They goal of protecting our daughters is laudable, but not at the expense of sacrificing our sons. The accuser got to go to San Diego and cheer on the Gophers at the bowl game. These guys should at least get a fair hearing before being expelled or suspended.
 

Thank-you Goofers71. Finally someone in the "know" writes things that make sense. I fully expect this thing to get carried over to a Federal Court system where justice will prevail.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Temporarily exempt, similar to mothers with small children, and a long list of other exemptions (temporary or not). Arguing semantics, which is fine but settle down.

The real argument here is whether students at a school can be reasonably expected to be free of influence of that school. I would strongly argue no. In addition, they are an apparently self-selected group, i.e. They have a strong interest in volunteering on a sexual misconduct panel. That raises the question of what types of students may be aware of or asked to join.
Click to expand...

Not semantics at all. Not getting your settle down comment.

Never said the panel process is ideal or even adequate...given the panel choices as laid out, I would rather have a panel of students as opposed to one with people from the faculty or administration.
 

Goofers71 said:
I am a criminal defense lawyer and Gopher fan. I have followed this quite closely and read both the police reports and the EEOA report. I am familiar with the female detective who investigated the case. She is no softy on sex crimes. Her, the police department and the county attorney conclusions of no proof of non-consensual sexual activity seem reasonable. The EEOA report seems biased and based on an underlying premise of "men bad women good".
I am appalled by the unfairness of the hearing process. It illustrates the maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The goal of protecting women is an obviously admirable one that almost nobody(Trump?) could disagree with. The result, however, is a grossly unfair process. I stopped by the room where the hearings are going on today. I saw the players sitting outside. They were all clean-cut, nicely addressed and seemed like nice college students. Seeing them not in uniform I have to say that they are really young and appear to be athletic young men not some giants. They are somebodies' sons. They goal of protecting our daughters is laudable, but not at the expense of sacrificing our sons. The accuser got to go to San Diego and cheer on the Gophers at the bowl game. These guys should at least get a fair hearing before being expelled or suspended.
Click to expand...

Bob has been saying essentially the same for months on other posts.
 

Goofers71 said:
I am a criminal defense lawyer and Gopher fan. I have followed this quite closely and read both the police reports and the EEOA report. I am familiar with the female detective who investigated the case. She is no softy on sex crimes. Her, the police department and the county attorney conclusions of no proof of non-consensual sexual activity seem reasonable. The EEOA report seems biased and based on an underlying premise of "men bad women good".
I am appalled by the unfairness of the hearing process. It illustrates the maxim that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The goal of protecting women is an obviously admirable one that almost nobody(Trump?) could disagree with. The result, however, is a grossly unfair process. I stopped by the room where the hearings are going on today. I saw the players sitting outside. They were all clean-cut, nicely addressed and seemed like nice college students. Seeing them not in uniform I have to say that they are really young and appear to be athletic young men not some giants. They are somebodies' sons. They goal of protecting our daughters is laudable, but not at the expense of sacrificing our sons. The accuser got to go to San Diego and cheer on the Gophers at the bowl game. These guys should at least get a fair hearing before being expelled or suspended.
Click to expand...

Are you sure she went to cheer at the bowl game?

Also, if they don't go to the hearing clean-cut, nicely addressed and seem like nice college kids, they need a new attorney.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom