Credibility of EOAA Report

Donate To GopherHole
C

csom_1991

Active member
Joined
Sep 11, 2010
Messages
663
Reaction score
223
Points
43
I don't condone the actions of the players in any way. However, this 'report' needs to be taken in context as to what it is and what it is not. While many things are disputed, I think this finding is the most relevant in assessing whether the EOAA has any credibility:

"Did RS affrrmatively consent to sexual contact with A2 ?

The evidence indicates that RS expressed reluctance to engage in sexual contact with A2
in the following ways.

...

Ultimately, based on available evidence, we find it more likely than not that a reasonable person
in the circumstances would have believed that RS provided affirmative consent to the reported
instances of sexual contact with A2 9

....

Did A2 aid or abet any other accused students' sexual assault of RS ?

Under the Student Conduct Code, assisting or abetting another person or group to commit sexual
assault is a violation of the Code's sexual assault provision. We find that A2 violated this
provision by facilitating a gathering of men in apartment B while RS : was unclothed"


So, this report basically says what A2 did was NOT sexual assault. However, it wants to paint it as a 'grey area' despite any rational person reading the case against A2 and concluding (based on video no less) that it was consensual. It then determines that the subsequent sexual contact with the girl was sexual assault so that they could then wrap in this lesser charge to more or less smear him.

The EOAA should have been very clear that the evidence DOES NOT support the girl's claim of sexual assault at the hands of A2 and should have used this finding in their assessment of credibility of the parties. They either failed to do so or choose to completely ignore her inconsistencies. Lastly, the text messages - for me at least - paint a picture of gang bangs being a common occurrence within this atmosphere. With that as your backdrop as opposed to 'sex before marriage of evil' - I think you can understand some of the players engaging in sex with the girl and not finding it unusual.
 

csom_1991 said:
I don't condone the actions of the players in any way. However, this 'report' needs to be taken in context as to what it is and what it is not. While many things are disputed, I think this finding is the most relevant in assessing whether the EOAA has any credibility:

"Did RS affrrmatively consent to sexual contact with A2 ?

The evidence indicates that RS expressed reluctance to engage in sexual contact with A2
in the following ways.

...

Ultimately, based on available evidence, we find it more likely than not that a reasonable person
in the circumstances would have believed that RS provided affirmative consent to the reported
instances of sexual contact with A2 9

....

Did A2 aid or abet any other accused students' sexual assault of RS ?

Under the Student Conduct Code, assisting or abetting another person or group to commit sexual
assault is a violation of the Code's sexual assault provision. We find that A2 violated this
provision by facilitating a gathering of men in apartment B while RS : was unclothed"


So, this report basically says what A2 did was NOT sexual assault. However, it wants to paint it as a 'grey area' despite any rational person reading the case against A2 and concluding (based on video no less) that it was consensual. It then determines that the subsequent sexual contact with the girl was sexual assault so that they could then wrap in this lesser charge to more or less smear him.

The EOAA should have been very clear that the evidence DOES NOT support the girl's claim of sexual assault at the hands of A2 and should have used this finding in their assessment of credibility of the parties. They either failed to do so or choose to completely ignore her inconsistencies. Lastly, the text messages - for me at least - paint a picture of gang bangs being a common occurrence within this atmosphere. With that as your backdrop as opposed to 'sex before marriage of evil' - I think you can understand some of the players engaging in sex with the girl and not finding it unusual.
Click to expand...

You missed the first video evidence of her clearly saying no to the recruit and slapping away his hands.
 


fraternity2017 said:
Stop defending them. It's over.
Click to expand...

Not defending them - they should be booted from the team. However, this is not an unprovoked attack in an alleyway. This is VERY MUCH a grey area and they deserve an impartial hearing before we all throw them under the bus and the report by EOAA is not that.
 

fraternity2017 said:
Stop defending them. It's over.
Click to expand...

Why can someone not point out the obvious bias of this report without "defending" anyone. It is part of the story - to ignore it is like closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


The EOAA report presents opinions along with factual statements. That allows people to project their own opinions onto the report. If you're inclined to support the players, you could reasonably conclude that the report is biased against the players. Their statements are not believed - the accuser's statements are believed.

On the other hand, if you're inclined to support the accuser, you could reasonably conclude that she is a victim and the players are a**holes who treat women like meat.

That's the problem with this report - it's open to interpretation.

And Dean - the statement about "slapping away his hands" is not based on clear video evidence - the slap is heard - not seen. the report draws the inference that she is fending off unwanted advances. That may be the truth - but it's an inference, not an incontrovertible fact.
 

Dean S said:
You missed the first video evidence of her clearly saying no to the recruit and slapping away his hands.
Click to expand...

Clearly she changed her mind when she agreed to be pig roasted. A girl can withdraw AND consent sex - it is not a one and done thing obviously. Before reading the report, I had my list of things that would make me think this was a grey area. Oral sex and agreeing to multiple partner sex - she did both willingly even according to the EOAA.
 

Spoofin said:
Why can someone not point out the obvious bias of this report without "defending" anyone. It is part of the story - to ignore it is like closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears.


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

See my other post and thanks for making my point.
 

Some of you people are disgusting. Take your maroon and gold goggles for second and realize there way more to life than football. None of you would be trying to defend any these guys had they not been football players if your being honest with yourself, you'd see that.
 





Dean S said:
You missed the first video evidence of her clearly saying no to the recruit and slapping away his hands.
Click to expand...
If you read the report, the slapping was heard off camera. The EOAA just assumed it was the alleged victim slapping the recruits hand.

Their was no clear evidence that is what occurred.
 

DeathClutch said:
If you read the report, the slapping was heard off camera. The EOAA just assumed it was the alleged victim slapping the recruits hand.

Their was no clear evidence that is what occurred.
Click to expand...

I pointed this out in two seperate threads... For what reason would the EOAA include that event? There was no factual evidence and both the accuser and the accused had no recollection of what that was, and yet the EOAA decided to add it to the report... Why? It's to manipulate and stear who ever read it to think it was her attempt to say "No." And most people will take that for fact instead of realizing it was only EOAA's opinion. You can tell there's an agenda here.
 



DeathClutch said:
If you read the report, the slapping was heard off camera. The EOAA just assumed it was the alleged victim slapping the recruits hand.

Their was no clear evidence that is what occurred.
Click to expand...
Also the victim and the player involved couldn't recall what the noise was from.
 

Mason on BTN:

-Why now? The University had months. Not handled well by University!
-One of the players was not even there
 

GuyFawkes said:
None of you would be trying to defend any these guys had they not been football players if your being honest with yourself, you'd see that.
Click to expand...

You must have take that leaping to conclusions class offered by the EOAA. I said before and I will say again - the guys should be booted from the team. I don't care whether it is football players involved or not. This is about justice and hearing both sides of a story before reaching conclusions.
 

Disturbing stuff in the report no matter whose side you're on.

The big philosophical question is do you prefer the legal standard (innocent until proven guilty) or the EOAA standard (guilty until proven innocent). If you've ever been falsely accused of a crime you'd certainly side with the former.

I'm not saying the guys are all innocent, but they should at least be innocent until proven guilty. I'd rather have 10 guilty people set free than 1 innocent person go to jail, etc.
 

Some interesting questions arise.

1)The big one for me is role of some of the subsequent players. In the police report the victim recommends they speak to Seth Green as he was sober in the downstairs apartment, but not in 523 where the alleged assault occurred. But now he is one of the suspended?

It is possible that it was later discovered he was up there, but it is impossible to tell from the report.

2)Also I get that it is impossible to say how someone would react to being a victim, but in the police report, Buford says they exchanged Snapchat names after the sex and Dior Johnson sent her a message at some point afterward about seeing each other again and he received a response to this request. Is this typical? That stuff isn't in the EOAA.

It just seems like the two reports don't reconcile factually. They have different standards of proof of course, but there are pretty big differences just on the facts.
 

Wow, now that i have read the police report, i am mystified that people place more faith in it then the EOAA report. The EOAA report is very detailed, it breaks down the events of the evening in a clinical fashion. The EOAA report looks to be 3 times as long as the police report. The EOAA report has reports from Gopher players of indications that they perceived something wasn't right about the later sexual encounters.

Many gopherholers don't like the report because of the source. They have an axe to grind with the EOAA. I won't categorically defend all EOAA investigations, but this one looks quite thorough. Due process concerns are one thing, but the U football program is a small part of what the U is. These students have hurt the reputation of the U throughout the nation. And don't blame the victim or the messenger.
 

Gogogopher said:
Wow, now that i have read the police report, i am mystified that people place more faith in it then the EOAA report. The EOAA report is very detailed, it breaks down the events of the evening in a clinical fashion. The EOAA report looks to be 3 times as long as the police report. The EOAA report has reports from Gopher players of indications that they perceived something wasn't right about the later sexual encounters.

Many gopherholers don't like the report because of the source. They have an axe to grind with the EOAA. I won't categorically defend all EOAA investigations, but this one looks quite thorough. Due process concerns are one thing, but the U football program is a small part of what the U is. These students have hurt the reputation of the U throughout the nation. And don't blame the victim or the messenger.
Click to expand...

It's nice seeing other logical people on here taking their Maroon and Gold goggles off when it comes to something like this, at the end of the day football is just a stupid game and life goes on. The fact the U is taking the Moral stand over the Financial stand is something I'm proud of, and in the long run will help us avoid such situations such as Baylors
 

Gogogopher said:
Wow, now that i have read the police report, i am mystified that people place more faith in it then the EOAA report. The EOAA report is very detailed, it breaks down the events of the evening in a clinical fashion. The EOAA report looks to be 3 times as long as the police report. The EOAA report has reports from Gopher players of indications that they perceived something wasn't right about the later sexual encounters.

Many gopherholers don't like the report because of the source. They have an axe to grind with the EOAA. I won't categorically defend all EOAA investigations, but this one looks quite thorough. Due process concerns are one thing, but the U football program is a small part of what the U is. These students have hurt the reputation of the U throughout the nation. And don't blame the victim or the messenger.
Click to expand...

But that is sort of the problem isn't it? The two aren't the same thing. The EOAA report is a conclusion of it's findings, the police report is the investigation notes and then concludes that it is up to the prosecutor on where to go from there. The EOAA is going to be much more "persuasive" because it is making judgments and drawing conclusions not simply detailing the situation.

Neither provides actual transcripts of the interviews which would be very helpful. But when taking into account the purpose and scope of the two reports, I am not sure how anyone could pronounce one better than the other.

I am interested in the factual discrepancies between the two. I am not sure that is something that will ever be answered.
 

WoodburyTim said:
But that is sort of the problem isn't it? The two aren't the same thing. The EOAA report is a conclusion of it's findings, the police report is the investigation notes and then concludes that it is up to the prosecutor on where to go from there. The EOAA is going to be much more "persuasive" because it is making judgments and drawing conclusions not simply detailing the situation.

Neither provides actual transcripts of the interviews which would be very helpful. But when taking into account the purpose and scope of the two reports, I am not sure how anyone could pronounce one better than the other. I am interested in the factual discrepancies between the two. I am not sure that is something that will ever be answered.
Click to expand...

I don't know that it is better or not. But look at the reports, the EOAA report is much more detailed about the events of the evening. A cursory glance at the reports confirms as much.

The EOAA is not just conclusions, have you read it??
 

Don't worry, everything is just speculation right now, and I'm sure everyone will have their day in court. And when that day comes, if some or all of the players lose in court, then so be it, they got what they deserved. And if some end up winning, then I hope they get just compensation for the EOAA's role, and Kaler and Coyle's role in it also. And hopefully that entity is reformed, and those top guys are fired.
 

The EOAA report is becoming more and more like 'making a murderer'... as in it's really damning,
except for all the stuff they left out, that may or may not have you thinking in a different direction.
The report left out a lot of evidence and facts of the case, some the woman didn't want to be added
in the report. I can't think because it would be too painful to read, since she testified some horrifying
things through the first 10 pages.. to not allow a video or submit to the EOAA your medical exam.
Perhaps a non-university non-biased investigation should occur...to really determine who was there,
did what and what was consensual and what was not and by whom. This doesn't detail that. Just
more or less 'they were probably there and they probably did bad things'
 

Gogogopher said:
I don't know that it is better or not. But look at the reports, the EOAA report is much more detailed about the events of the evening. A cursory glance at the reports confirms as much.

The EOAA is not just conclusions, have you read it??
Click to expand...

Yep front to back. It is is not JUST conclusions, but I was contrasting that against the police which draws no conclusions. The EOAA has more information, but my point is neither provided all the information it uncovered. I have only read a couple of other EOAA reports before and perhaps they are all somewhat different, but they like most reports of that nature have their conclusions and the information to support those conclusions. The question is whether all the information that may not have supported their conclusions is included.
 

GuyFawkes said:
It's nice seeing other logical people on here taking their Maroon and Gold goggles off when it comes to something like this, at the end of the day football is just a stupid game and life goes on. The fact the U is taking the Moral stand over the Financial stand is something I'm proud of, and in the long run will help us avoid such situations such as Baylors
Click to expand...

Agreed. Admitting there is a problem is the first step. Sh!t-canning this sh!t-show would hardly be the end of the world.
 

Gopher028 said:
The EOAA report is becoming more and more like 'making a murderer'... as in it's really damning,
except for all the stuff they left out, that may or may not have you thinking in a different direction.
The report left out a lot of evidence and facts of the case, some the woman didn't want to be added
in the report. I can't think because it would be too painful to read, since she testified some horrifying
things through the first 10 pages.. to not allow a video or submit to the EOAA your medical exam.
Perhaps a non-university non-biased investigation should occur...to really determine who was there,
did what and what was consensual and what was not and by whom. This doesn't detail that. Just
more or less 'they were probably there and they probably did bad things'
Click to expand...

I guess we don't know what for sure what was not in there, but coming from someone that used to look at these type of reports for a living there are some concerning things. The one that stands out from the first read was an odd comment in there about the credibility of the victim. It says that she misidentified one of the men she had sex with and then changed that portion. The investigator said that they actually thought that increased her credibility because it showed she was willing to correct past incorrect versions of her story. Plausible perhaps, but the report also said multiple of the accused had statements that contradicted themselves and this showed their lack of credibility.

It seems strange that the same report would state that statement inconsistencies is a sign of credibility for one party and statement inconsistencies is a sign of lack of credibility for another party?
 

Under the Student Conduct Code, assisting or abetting another person or group to commit sexual
assault is a violation of the Code's sexual assault provision. We find that A2 violated this
provision by facilitating a gathering of men in apartment B while RS : was unclothed"
Click to expand...

Reasonable conclussion by the EOAA.

Girl was naked in DJam's apartment, separate from the apartment that her friends (and Seth Green (who seems innocent in all this)), and DJam facilitated a group of teammates to continue to take advantage of a drunk naked girl.

There is a huge difference between a drunk girl consenting to having a threesome, which IMO is fine, and I believe this girl did...but now after that, she's naked and drunk, with no one around to help her, and DJam sends man after man in there to take advantage of a highly vulnerable person, and the teammates all take advantage of the highly vulnerable person. To DJam, she consented to have anyone and everyone **** her. That wasnt the case. She consented to DJam and one other to have a threesome, not to have man after man enter a room where she was naked and drunk.

Huge respect to Kiante Hardin though, who after having the girl suck his dick for a couple minutes, felt guilty because he had a girlfriend, and kindly asked her to stop. I'm glad that in all of this, we at least know that there are some good guys to have come out of this to represent the team and state like Kiante Hardin.

On a serious note though, it sounds like its unfortunate Seth Green is involved in this. According to her statement, Seth appeared sober, and was in apartment A where the assault did not take place. Basically, all it sounds like he was doing was hanging out, and saw the girl willingly leave apartment A, with two men. The worst thing he could have done, was hear through the grapevine that there was a train being run, and he just separated himself from that situation entirely, and went about his evening.
 

WoodburyTim said:
I guess we don't know what for sure what was not in there, but coming from someone that used to look at these type of reports for a living there are some concerning things. The one that stands out from the first read was an odd comment in there about the credibility of the victim. It says that she misidentified one of the men she had sex with and then changed that portion. The investigator said that they actually thought that increased her credibility because it showed she was willing to correct past incorrect versions of her story. Plausible perhaps, but the report also said multiple of the accused had statements that contradicted themselves and this showed their lack of credibility.

It seems strange that the same report would state that statement inconsistencies is a sign of credibility for one party and statement inconsistencies is a sign of lack of credibility for another party?
Click to expand...

it's a kangaroo court my man. you're just going to drive yourself nuts trying to "understand" it or them. they're glorified activists working in the EOAA office. nothing more.
 

I'm having a hard time reconciling what I just spent an hour reading with the posts in this thread.

The report states the girl falsely accused a player (Kiondre), cannot remember wide periods of time, was in the apartment for 55 minutes rather than the the 90 minutes reported by you dodos last night, first admitted consent then changed her story, amazingly had better memory recall weeks after the incident, and was picking pictures out of a "lineup" as to who was there - police lineups are notoriously inaccurate.

Yet the investigators breezily dismissed all of these inconsistencies and memory faults while holding the players to a much higher standard. Try to recall want happened on Saturday night 5 weeks ago in perfect detail.

This was biased and slanted and it was clear from the early synopsis when they found her to be "credible" despite explaining in detail that she is not at all credible. A conclusion looking for supporting evidence. Some of the guys may in fact be guilty of something, the sex might be "icky", and it is uncomfortable to think that this girl not be an angel, but I don't see that report as anything more than hearsay and possible regrets.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom