Federal judge tosses former football players' lawsuit against University of Minnesota

[bizzle22]

Seriously, this theory has so many flaws in it I don’t know where to start. Once leaked, public perception is all that matters.



It tells me that no one could prove who leaked it. As far as I know, you are the only one who has cracked the case so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't think it is a little odd that no lawyer or player has ever said a word about how their rights were violated by the release of the report?

Public perception would probably fall in the favor of the players if they were able to create the narrative that they were railroaded by the U. According to the lawyer for the players, that is exactly what the report shows.

Look, I'll agree that we're never going to know for sure. But there are way more tea leaves suggesting it was the player/their lawyers than there are suggesting it was the U.

 

[Spoofin]

I do think it is oversimplifying it to say that leaking the report helped the U more than the players. Remember, news reports were throwing around the number of players involved at like 20. The report shows it to be far less than that. The report also shows that not all of the suspended players were accused of actually participating in the act. Both of those factors means the players benefit from getting that information out there. Frankly I don't think the release of the report was particularly helpful for either side.

Please explain to me how Buford benefitted from public knowledge that it was under 20 and that others named weren’t involved in the act?

The only people talking to the media about it were the players and their lawyers. The players each received a letter along with the report which totaled up to 82 pages. Coincidentally, the document that was leaked was exactly what each payer would have received. And again, any lawyer would be going nuts that the report was released without their consent. That is a direct violation of their clients rights and the easiest path to winning a lawsuit. Maybe I'm going a little far to say it is "clear" that the report was released by the players, but to me it definitely looks like it was released by one of the players and/or their lawyers.

The accuser wouldn’t be talking and U wasn’t allowed to. Of course the players were the only ones talking.

Yes each player got a report, but I assume you aren’t suggesting they were the only ones. The accuser and any number of people in the EOAA office and at the U had access to the exact same report.

Look, I'll agree that we're never going to know for sure. But there are way more tea leaves suggesting it was the player/their lawyers than there are suggesting it was the U.

There simply are not, IMO. Not sure how you can come to that conclusion. It falls right in line with your “smoking gun” comment made the day the report was leaked.

The tea leaves I see are an office that’s mission was dedicated to a particular outcome, who’s lead didn’t hide her axe to grind specifically with the football team, that could only further those causes with the pitch-fork mentality of the public involved, and whose head (coincidentally) left the position basically moments after this crap-pile was dropped. That makes sense. But yeah, probably Buford - after all, his lawyer said it would help his case when asked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ComoGopher]

I’m pretty sure they did that. Are you talking about hiring a forensic firm like in capital cases to painstakingly recover any shreds of deleted flash drive data to help determine where Seth Green and Kiondre were and the rest of the guys were. I wonder if the basketball team was there. I bet Claeys was there too. He seems like the type.

Minneapolis PD can examine phones. You see the video so you seize the phone and get a warrant. Basic police work.

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Minneapolis PD can examine phones. You see the video so you seize the phone and get a warrant. Basic police work.

They (and the EOAA) examined the relevant phones. You realize she accused the guys from the first threesome as well despite video of her appearing (per police reports) alert, playful, and consenting? Perhaps that had something to do with the PD not bringing the full force of forensic investigations to bear in this case, and the decision to not charge.

 

[rugger14]

They (and the EOAA) examined the relevant phones. You realize she accused the guys from the first threesome as well despite video of her appearing (per police reports) alert, playful, and consenting? Perhaps that had something to do with the PD not bringing the full force of forensic investigations to bear in this case, and the decision to not charge.

Really? "The full force" of forensic examination is a nerd in an office running the phone through an app on a computer. A warrant takes a cop a few minutes to write and then they file it electronically and wait for a judge to sign it electronically.

If the recruit was visible and identifiable in the video we have a crime. If the video was sent to anyone else we have another crime. Just based on a video existing and an accusation of CSC the phone should have been seized and analyzed.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[NotAFanOfBecky]

Really? "The full force" of forensic examination is a nerd in an office running the phone through an app on a computer. A warrant takes a cop a few minutes to write and then they file it electronically and wait for a judge to sign it electronically.

If the recruit was visible and identifiable in the video we have a crime. If the video was sent to anyone else we have another crime. Just based on a video existing and an accusation of CSC the phone should have been seized and analyzed.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Why is it a crime if the recruit is visible? Was he younger than the age of consent here? (Just asking because I don't think statutory rape exists in this case or was there another charge? Certainly violates code of conduct but not sure on the criminal). If video was sent what is the crime here? What if it was a he said she said with sending the video? How do you know the phone wasn't analyzed? (Maybe it was stated somewhere?)

Police investigation and EOAA investigation are two different and separate entities so you have to keep that in mind.

 

[rugger14]

Why is it a crime if the recruit is visible? Was he younger than the age of consent here? (Just asking because I don't think statutory rape exists in this case or was there another charge? Certainly violates code of conduct but not sure on the criminal). If video was sent what is the crime here? What if it was a he said she said with sending the video? How do you know the phone wasn't analyzed? (Maybe it was stated somewhere?)

Police investigation and EOAA investigation are two different and separate entities so you have to keep that in mind.

Possible child porn if he is under 18. Likely to be charged? No. But the elements of the crime are there. Non-consensual dissemination is also a crime so if it was sent to someone without the consent of both the female and the recruit that is also a crime which is probably more likely to be charged (maybe not in Hennepin County).

I do know that it is separate investigations. I also know that one found violations of student conduct and punished folks. The Attorney General's office published a report about sexual assault criminal investigations that is very interesting. I will see if I can find a link.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

Really? "The full force" of forensic examination is a nerd in an office running the phone through an app on a computer. A warrant takes a cop a few minutes to write and then they file it electronically and wait for a judge to sign it electronically.

If the recruit was visible and identifiable in the video we have a crime. If the video was sent to anyone else we have another crime. Just based on a video existing and an accusation of CSC the phone should have been seized and analyzed.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Again, at least two and probably more investigators viewed the video and knew the age of the participants. No child porn charges were filed or even considered as far as we know. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I doubt you’re an expert on child porn law.

 

[rugger14]

Again, at least two and probably more investigators viewed the video and knew the age of the participants. No child porn charges were filed or even considered as far as we know. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and I doubt you’re an expert on child porn law.

No charges but you have very good reason to get a warrant and have the phone analyzed which is not a huge undertaking like you tried to make it sound.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

No charges but you have very good reason to get a warrant and have the phone analyzed which is not a huge undertaking like you tried to make it sound.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Why would they if they didn’t judge it to be child pornography? Explain you reasoning a little more because I’m perplexed what you want them to find. The messaging etc was all documented.

 

[rugger14]

Why would they if they didn’t judge it to be child pornography? Explain you reasoning a little more because I’m perplexed what you want them to find. The messaging etc was all documented.

You have a video of sex involving three people one of whom is a minor. One of the parties has reported that it was a CSC involving several other people who arent even in that video. You know that there is possible evidence on the phone. The video itself being evidence so you seize the phone and get a warrant to have it analyzed. You have no idea what else is on that phone. There could have been video of all the other parties allegedly or admittedly involved. Countless text messages, etc... all related to the case. You don't know. Anything gathered by the police or the EOAA through either getting permission to take a cursory look at the phone or parties agreeing to provide data is just a fraction of the data on that phone. You will not get any deleted data without forensic analysis. Instead of a he said/she said there might be video of the whole night either showing that it was all consensual or showing that CSC happened. As far as I know the EOAA does not have the power to subpoena records and can't analyze phones. If I am wrong please correct me.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[Spoofin]

No charges but you have very good reason to get a warrant and have the phone analyzed which is not a huge undertaking like you tried to make it sound.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

The police investigated and did not file charges. The DA had the case reopened and again did not file charges. You have no idea what was or was not looked at. You have an assumption of guilt, a pitchfork in one hand, and a pointing finger on the other. Get those football players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rugger14]

The police investigated and did not file charges. The DA had the case reopened and again did not file charges. You have no idea what was or was not looked at. You have an assumption of guilt, a pitchfork in one hand, and a pointing finger on the other. Get those football players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. If they would have applied for warrants and analyzed the phone that should be in the report. The DA had nothing to look at because they didnt get the phone. Why is that hard to understand? If they did get the phone and have it forensically examined someone please correct me. I am not assuming anything, guilt or innocence, just stating that potentially a whole phone full of evidence existed and nobody looked at it. That is not a knock on MPD with their own procedures and policies. The point is that there was a whole lot of other potential evidence that was not even looked at.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[ComoGopher]

I doubt you’re an expert on child porn law.

Have you met Rugger? Are you actually reading his posts?

 

[dpodoll68]

The police investigated and did not file charges. The DA had the case reopened and again did not file charges. You have no idea what was or was not looked at. You have an assumption of guilt, a pitchfork in one hand, and a pointing finger on the other. Get those football players.

It is really strange how there is an assumption of guilt among so many who post on this board. It makes sense in the community that runs the EOAA, who assume a man is guilty anytime he does anything, but not among alleged fans of the football team. It's weird.

 

[ComoGopher]

It is really strange how there is an assumption of guilt among so many who post on this board. It makes sense in the community that runs the EOAA, who assume a man is guilty anytime he does anything, but not among alleged fans of the football team. It's weird.

Not strange at all. I have no idea if they were guilty of any criminal activity but the school found them in violation of the school code of conduct. No criminal charges does not make the EOAA a kangaroo court although I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made with that process. The bottom line is that there are folks on this board who seem to think that no charges completely exonerates the players. That is not true and stating that it is not true does not make me someone who presumes guilt. We simply don't know what happened and based on their investigation, the police and the county attorney did not charge anyone because they could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The leap to "assumption of guilt" by some posters is a huge stretch. I think what many of them did was definitely against school code of conduct and deserving of their punishment based on a lot of what was revealed during the EOAA. I do not know if anything that happened could be classified as CSC. Stating that I do not know does not mean that I assume guilt. You don't know what happened but you presume innocence? Just because it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There is a lot of gray here... None of them are convicted criminals because they were not convicted of a crime. Good for them. Several of them were disciplined at varying levels by the U. I happen to believe that the U did a decent job with a flawed system. We can argue that all day. I do not presume guilt of any crime. I simply don't know and leave the door open that there could have been CSC that could not be proven.

 

[dpodoll68]

Not strange at all. I have no idea if they were guilty of any criminal activity but the school found them in violation of the school code of conduct. No criminal charges does not make the EOAA a kangaroo court although I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made with that process. The bottom line is that there are folks on this board who seem to think that no charges completely exonerates the players. That is not true and stating that it is not true does not make me someone who presumes guilt. We simply don't know what happened and based on their investigation, the police and the county attorney did not charge anyone because they could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The leap to "assumption of guilt" by some posters is a huge stretch. I think what many of them did was definitely against school code of conduct and deserving of their punishment based on a lot of what was revealed during the EOAA. I do not know if anything that happened could be classified as CSC. Stating that I do not know does not mean that I assume guilt. You don't know what happened but you presume innocence? Just because it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There is a lot of gray here... None of them are convicted criminals because they were not convicted of a crime. Good for them. Several of them were disciplined at varying levels by the U. I happen to believe that the U did a decent job with a flawed system. We can argue that all day. I do not presume guilt of any crime. I simply don't know and leave the door open that there could have been CSC that could not be proven.

Your post nicely summarizes everything wrong with the joke of an EOAA process - not just at the U, but everywhere. Presumption of innocence is (or at least used to be) a bedrock of life in the United States. Any system that forces someone to prove their innocence is by definition a flawed system.

 

[Spoofin]

Your post nicely summarizes everything wrong with the joke of an EOAA process - not just at the U, but everywhere. Presumption of innocence is (or at least used to be) a bedrock of life in the United States. Any system that forces someone to prove their innocence is by definition a flawed system.

+ 100. Summed up perfectly. Thanks DPO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ComoGopher]

Your post nicely summarizes everything wrong with the joke of an EOAA process - not just at the U, but everywhere. Presumption of innocence is (or at least used to be) a bedrock of life in the United States. Any system that forces someone to prove their innocence is by definition a flawed system.

It is a 51% system that starts at neutral. In reality, I think you are right and it is slanted against the males in a case like this. But honestly, the worst they can do is kick you out of school which can happen for plagiarizing a paper. As was already stated, don't do a threesome and invite your buddies. Just be happy with your threesome. If you are a buddy don't show up when you get the text. If you live by those rules you would be good in this case. How many members of the empire class just stayed home? Were they accused of anything. Worst possible punishment is getting kicked out of school. Nobody has a criminal record here. If they were not football players nobody would even care.

 

[Spoofin]

Not at all. If they would have applied for warrants and analyzed the phone that should be in the report. The DA had nothing to look at because they didnt get the phone. Why is that hard to understand? If they did get the phone and have it forensically examined someone please correct me. I am not assuming anything, guilt or innocence, just stating that potentially a whole phone full of evidence existed and nobody looked at it. That is not a knock on MPD with their own procedures and policies. The point is that there was a whole lot of other potential evidence that was not even looked at.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

I will never agree with your view of this situation. In fact, I think it is dangerous. With that said we have both stated we don’t know what happened so we have that common ground. I hope you enjoy a nice Holiday weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hungan1]

Not strange at all. I have no idea if they were guilty of any criminal activity but the school found them in violation of the school code of conduct. No criminal charges does not make the EOAA a kangaroo court although I think there are a lot of improvements that can be made with that process. The bottom line is that there are folks on this board who seem to think that no charges completely exonerates the players. That is not true and stating that it is not true does not make me someone who presumes guilt. We simply don't know what happened and based on their investigation, the police and the county attorney did not charge anyone because they could not prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The leap to "assumption of guilt" by some posters is a huge stretch. I think what many of them did was definitely against school code of conduct and deserving of their punishment based on a lot of what was revealed during the EOAA. I do not know if anything that happened could be classified as CSC. Stating that I do not know does not mean that I assume guilt. You don't know what happened but you presume innocence? Just because it couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There is a lot of gray here... None of them are convicted criminals because they were not convicted of a crime. Good for them. Several of them were disciplined at varying levels by the U. I happen to believe that the U did a decent job with a flawed system. We can argue that all day. I do not presume guilt of any crime. I simply don't know and leave the door open that there could have been CSC that could not be proven.

Points well taken...

 

[Spoofin]

It is a 51% system that starts at neutral. In reality, I think you are right and it is slanted against the males in a case like this. But honestly, the worst they can do is kick you out of school which can happen for plagiarizing a paper. As was already stated, don't do a threesome and invite your buddies. Just be happy with your threesome. If you are a buddy don't show up when you get the text. If you live by those rules you would be good in this case. How many members of the empire class just stayed home? Were they accused of anything. <b>Worst possible punishment is getting kicked out of school. Nobody has a criminal record here. </b>If they were not football players nobody would even care.

Ever hired anyone? I do it as part of my job and have never hired anyone before doing a Google and social media search.

As for your other question - there was at least one member of the team who stayed home and was still accused of terrible acts due to the color of his hair. Tough standards at the EOAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rugger14]

I will never agree with your view of this situation. In fact, I think it is dangerous. With that said we have both stated we don’t know what happened so we have that common ground. I hope you enjoy a nice Holiday weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think if you knew what I do for a living and we could sit down and talk about it I could convince you that they should have seized the phone. My view is not dangerous. My view is from experience with multiple he said/she said cases where a phone was the key evidence in a case. If they seized it and examined it and got nothing my opinion could change. I don't think they examined the phone.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

I think if you knew what I do for a living and we could sit down and talk about it I could convince you that they should have seized the phone. My view is not dangerous. My view is from experience with multiple he said/she said cases where a phone was the key evidence in a case. If they seized it and examined it and got nothing my opinion could change. I don't think they examined the phone.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

So, all phones involved?

 

[rugger14]

So, all phones involved?

Great question. The phone can lead to more phones. One warrant can lead to a dozen more warrants and a ton of work. Then in the end you might not be able to prove beyond a reaonable doubt even though you know they did it and they know they did it. Based on your caseload I can see just letting this one go because you have been there before and knew upfront this was a loser that you might work on for two months for nothing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

Great question. The phone can lead to more phones. One warrant can lead to a dozen more warrants and a ton of work. Then in the end you might not be able to prove beyond a reaonable doubt even though you know they did it and they know they did it. Based on your caseload I can see just letting this one go because you have been there before and knew upfront this was a loser that you might work on for two months for nothing.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Hers?

 

[rugger14]

Hers?

Absolutely.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[PMWinSTP]

Absolutely.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

Slippery slope. EOAA investigation was flawed and assumed guilt. Players were interviewed under the guise of being witnesses, which was disingenuous at the very least.

 

[rugger14]

Slippery slope. EOAA investigation was flawed and assumed guilt. Players were interviewed under the guise of being witnesses, which was disingenuous at the very least.

You ask her for consent first. If she declines you write a warrant. Maybe you just write a warrant anyway.

Sent from my LG-H820 using Tapatalk

 

[dpodoll68]

As was already stated, don't do a threesome and invite your buddies. Just be happy with your threesome. If you are a buddy don't show up when you get the text. If you live by those rules you would be good in this case.

So threesomes aren't against the student code of conduct, but foursomes-plus are? I find it difficult to believe that they address how many sexual partners are acceptable in the student code of conduct. I've attended the U twice (undergrad and grad) and I don't remember reading anything about the requisite number of sexual partners that were acceptable by the student code of conduct. None of the orientation group leaders mentioned it either.

Worst possible punishment is getting kicked out of school. Nobody has a criminal record here. If they were not football players nobody would even care.

Well, that, along with anyone searching for you finding your name linked to sexual assault forever.