All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling the players' attorneys came well prepared and were all over the expert witness.
 

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


This is where the University has really stepped in it. They aren't following their own rules. Giving the players 1/3 of the time that the Universities own rules says they should get, will cost them in subsequent lawsuits. Generally speaking, this is where courts so far have found fault with schools in these types of proceedings.
 

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


This is where the University has really stepped in it. They aren't following their own rules. Giving the players 1/3 of the time that the Universities own rules says they should get, will cost them in subsequent lawsuits. Generally speaking, this is where courts so far have found fault with schools in these types of proceedings.
Click to expand...

Yep, Pointed that out in an earlier post.
 

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


This is where the University has really stepped in it. They aren't following their own rules. Giving the players 1/3 of the time that the Universities own rules says they should get, will cost them in subsequent lawsuits. Generally speaking, this is where courts so far have found fault with schools in these types of proceedings.
Click to expand...

No mention of Lee Hutton in those proceedings. Are Barnes and Thornburg from Hutton's firm ?
 

I would think that the students who are on the panel would be intimidated by attorney's etc.. I'm not so sure about this whole process.
 




#2Gopher said:
I would think that the students who are on the panel would be intimidated by attorney's etc.. I'm not so sure about this whole process.
Click to expand...

Discussed earlier...pretty broad brush statement. So they would be in a courtroom too? Serve all the time on juries. Give them a little more credit.

Agree that the process is ill designed and fraught with unfairness toward any student found in violation of any code, let alone something this serious and life altering.
 

bigticket1 said:
No mention of Lee Hutton in those proceedings. Are Barnes and Thornburg from Hutton's firm ?
Click to expand...

Barnes and Thornburg is the name of the firm. I am sure in addition to Hutton, they sent some other attorneys from the firm as well. Easier to just put the firm name on there instead of listing each individual attorney.
 



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...

To the part in bold - they can be the nicest guys in the world and still be guilty of making a stupid decision fueled by peer pressure and alcohol (not saying they are guilty just making a point). All you have to do is look at some other cases involving Gopher football players, I don't think Philip Nelson is a bad person, he just made a horrible decision on that fateful night in Mankato. Same could go for Dominic Jones who ended up spending time in jail for a case of horrible judgement on his part fueled in large part by alcohol. Nelson looks like he might be able to salvage things, one night for Jones basically destroyed a potential NFL career.

Common denominator in most of these cases is alcohol. As for this whole process, can totally understand the reservations you and many others have. I am holding out hope that that players get a fair shake in all this but I won't be shocked if there are more appeals based on how this is all structured. Feels like something that could drag on for a long time.
 

MNVCGUY said:
To the part in bold - they can be the nicest guys in the world and still be guilty of making a stupid decision fueled by peer pressure and alcohol (not saying they are guilty just making a point). All you have to do is look at some other cases involving Gopher football players, I don't think Philip Nelson is a bad person, he just made a horrible decision on that fateful night in Mankato. Same could go for Dominic Jones who ended up spending time in jail for a case of horrible judgement on his part fueled in large part by alcohol. Nelson looks like he might be able to salvage things, one night for Jones basically destroyed a potential NFL career.

Common denominator in most of these cases is alcohol. As for this whole process, can totally understand the reservations you and many others have. I am holding out hope that that players get a fair shake in all this but I won't be shocked if there are more appeals based on how this is all structured. Feels like something that could drag on for a long time.
Click to expand...

Something that hasn't really been discussed here yet, but I believe if the appeals go in favor of the players, the accuser can also further appeal up to the Provost.

So this may not be over in a week one way or the other.
 

CurveballJesus said:
Something that hasn't really been discussed here yet, but I believe if the appeals go in favor of the players, the accuser can also further appeal up to the Provost.

So this may not be over in a week one way or the other.
Click to expand...

True but I am not sure that she would. By all accounts she is not the one driving all of this at this point. So if they do end up finding in favor of the players I would not expect her to continue to pursue legal action because at that point the players would have been cleared by the police and the University.
 

MNVCGUY said:
True but I am not sure that she would. By all accounts she is not the one driving all of this at this point. So if they do end up finding in favor of the players I would not expect her to continue to pursue legal action because at that point the players would have been cleared by the police and the University.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that as well.
 



Pompous Elitist said:
Here is an example of a presentation by a researcher at Cal-Berkeley that contradicts the university memory expert (possibly Campbell at MSU) point by point. He is also a professional expert witness.

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/Tsukuba05.htm
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty confident the accused players' attorneys were all over that expert. Also the interplay of alcohol during that time. Would think it is hard to argue the gained memory angle as well as impairment she initially claimed from drinking earlier that night.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Discussed earlier...pretty broad brush statement. So they would be in a courtroom too? Serve all the time on juries. Give them a little more credit.

Agree that the process is ill designed and fraught with unfairness toward any student found in violation of any code, let alone something this serious and life altering.
Click to expand...

You're missing the more important point. It's not about their age alone. It's the influence the school and faculty hold over students.
 

CurveballJesus said:
Something that hasn't really been discussed here yet, but I believe if the appeals go in favor of the players, the accuser can also further appeal up to the Provost.

So this may not be over in a week one way or the other.
Click to expand...

The provost is a supporter of the affirmative consent rule. There will no overturn by her.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
The provost is a supporter of the affirmative consent rule. There will no overturn by her.
Click to expand...

Based on his post scenario, and your assertion here, it would definitely have a chance for being overturned. So...did you actually read what CJ posted?
 

I misread - I'm splitting my attention here and it's not working. Mea culpa.
 

PMWinSTP said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is semantics. I'm not sure why this a big issue for you guys. No full-time student will be forced to serve on a jury. However, most students eventually go on break or conclude their studentship status permanently. Maybe there are no exemptions for students, mothers, the ill, military, etc in some states but I'd have to see some evidence.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is semantics. I'm not sure why this a big issue for you guys. No full-time student will be forced to serve on a jury. However, most students eventually go on break or conclude their studentship status permanently. Maybe there are no exemptions for students, mothers, the ill, military, etc in some states but I'd have to see some evidence.
Click to expand...

Seems a big of a deal for you. Yes they will have to serve if summoned, just get to postpone if it creates a hardship. I put the link in my post listing the reasons people can be excused in Minnesota. http://www.mncourts.gov/Jurors.aspx#WhoCanBeExcused

There are groups barred from serving, like active military, professional police officers/fire fighters and full time public officers of federal, state or local governments.
 

Cheerleaders went to bowl game

I Want 2 Win said:
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.
Click to expand...

The cheerleaders went to the bowl game - so Yes
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is semantics. I'm not sure why this a big issue for you guys. No full-time student will be forced to serve on a jury. However, most students eventually go on break or conclude their studentship status permanently. Maybe there are no exemptions for students, mothers, the ill, military, etc in some states but I'd have to see some evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the official ways to get out of it are, but I can tell you from experience that a student could definitely get out of it. I had jury duty once, and after they got basic info from everyone the judge asked if anyone had a reason they couldn't serve on the jury. I don't remember all the reasons people gave, but some of them were ridiculous. The one I remember most was a guy who said he had a dog at home that needed to be fed at specific times and serving on the jury would prevent him from doing that. Also like five people said they were racist (defendant was black), and another woman just said she was going to fall behind at work if she had to serve on the jury. An older guy said driving into downtown made him nervous. All were dismissed with very few questions asked. Whether it's an official reason or not there is no doubt in my mind that being a student could get you out of jury duty.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Seems a big of a deal for you. Yes they will have to serve if summoned, just get to postpone if it creates a hardship. I put the link in my post listing the reasons people can be excused in Minnesota. http://www.mncourts.gov/Jurors.aspx#WhoCanBeExcused

There are groups barred from serving, like active military, professional police officers/fire fighters and full time public officers of federal, state or local governments.
Click to expand...

So we agree then. Sheesh. From personal experience in MN and here in CA this is the case. Exempt. That means one does not have to perform a duty that another person does. It can be permanent or temporary. Exempt.

Also, military are not barred from serving. In fact they are encouraged if it doesn't impact mission readiness.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I call out anyone who posts misinformation on any subject. No one has a problem with that unless I'm defending the made up stuff that's posted on here about Coyle. Then the same handful of Claeys apologists come calling.

Coyle had very little say over the situation.

Blind.
Click to expand...


So, if anyone dares attempt to hold Coyle accountable for his actions - or lack thereof - their Claeys apologists?

Did Coyle Suspend the payers back in Sept? I was called a liar for saying he should be fired for not doing his job. I'm still waiting for you to show proof that this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding because the athletic direct did his job.

There are several other things I said that you called me a liar for as well, that Coyle did, in fact do - or in the case of his job on several occasions NOT do.

Coyle isn't the anti-christ, but he definitely did not do his job and definitely deserves to be fired for his inaction if nothing else. I don't expect you to agree. Of course, given your first photo suggested a penis and you next one a pair of breasts that are slippery, I'm guessing your judgement on these matters may be, somewhat skewed.
 

Payciga (sp?) said last eve that the alleged victims testimony included several items that weren't in the police report or the EOAA report. Would support the EOAA's memory expert ................

So traumatized that she can't even remember what she forgot, or vise-versa.
 

caliGopher said:
So, if anyone dares attempt to hold Coyle accountable for his actions - or lack thereof - their Claeys apologists?

Did Coyle Suspend the payers back in Sept? I was called a liar for saying he should be fired for not doing his job. I'm still waiting for you to show proof that this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding because the athletic direct did his job.

There are several other things I said that you called me a liar for as well, that Coyle did, in fact do - or in the case of his job on several occasions NOT do.

Coyle isn't the anti-christ, but he definitely did not do his job and definitely deserves to be fired for his inaction if nothing else. I don't expect you to agree. Of course, given your first photo suggested a penis and you next one a pair of breasts that are slippery, I'm guessing your judgement on these matters may be, somewhat skewed.
Click to expand...

I got you spoofin...

Beatlejuice beatlejuice beatlejuice
 

caliGopher said:
So, if anyone dares attempt to hold Coyle accountable for his actions - or lack thereof - their Claeys apologists?

Did Coyle Suspend the payers back in Sept? I was called a liar for saying he should be fired for not doing his job. I'm still waiting for you to show proof that this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding because the athletic direct did his job.

There are several other things I said that you called me a liar for as well, that Coyle did, in fact do - or in the case of his job on several occasions NOT do.

Coyle isn't the anti-christ, but he definitely did not do his job and definitely deserves to be fired for his inaction if nothing else. I don't expect you to agree. Of course, given your first photo suggested a penis and you next one a pair of breasts that are slippery, I'm guessing your judgement on these matters may be, somewhat skewed.
Click to expand...

The players were allowed to play after being cleared legally, which would have happened at nearly every school. Then the EOAA investigation was conducted and they recommended school expulsions and suspensions, which Coyle had nothing to do with. Kaler then tossed that over to Coyle and what was he supposed to do? Let them play in the bowl game when they are facing school suspensions? No AD would have let them play.

I've already said he could have handled communication better, but that's not going to get him fired. The Claeys apologist line is directed at the same 5 people who continue to argue with me over and over again on this. It's not a coincidence they also happen to be Claeys biggest fans.

My pictures are weather maps, you can interpret them however you'd like.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom