Hutton to the Minnesota Daily: There are plans to sue ‘everyone.’

Donate To GopherHole
supadupafly said:
one thing i am almost certain of is that the political agenda driven leadership in the EOAA office (i.e. kimberly hewitt) strategically held onto releasing their "report" as long as they could so as to ensure it would coincide with interfering with the bowl game. and to also ensure the accused players would not be able to have any sort of formal hearing via the U of M hearing process until after the bowl game sometime in january.

the timing of when kimberly hewitt in EOAA released her kangaroo court "report" was not mere coincidence.
Click to expand...

I don't think any timing would have been "better" other than having Claeys and Coyle dismiss the 4 immediately (thus possibly subverting any EOAA action). If the EOAA came out a month earlier it would've been "they're doing this just as we have a chance to win the B1G West." A month later and they may look complicit in delaying consequences until after the bowl game. As it is, all parties got to finish the semester in good standing, I assume.
 

DoubleAlum said:
Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

And, it just now occurred to me that lots of men must realize how easy it is to get away with rape. It's worth the the risk I imagine. They probably have less than a 10% chance of going to prison. Perhaps less.
Click to expand...

huh? you truly have that little faith in the male gender as a whole? okay.......
 

DoubleAlum said:
Again, I wholeheartedly agree.

And, it just now occurred to me that lots of men must realize how easy it is to get away with rape. It's worth the the risk I imagine. They probably have less than a 10% chance of going to prison. Perhaps less.
Click to expand...

I can't possibly get into the head of a rapist or any criminal. I don't think lack of foresight, wisdom, lack of empathy or impulse control is rare in the human population particularly when mixed up with alcohol. In fact those traits are probably more common that not in most people although there is a spectrum and criminals lie on one extreme. I don't have the answers for the foibles of the human race but I know fairness is a positive trait that many people are lacking right now. This mob mentality we see here, it is similar to the anti-police movement (BLM), anti-muslim movements, alt-right. Sweeping generalizations, loss of rights, over fear, etc. It's sad.
 

Catechol said:
I don't think any timing would have been "better" other than having Claeys and Coyle dismiss the 4 immediately (thus possibly subverting any EOAA action). If the EOAA came out a month earlier it would've been "they're doing this just as we have a chance to win the B1G West." A month later and they may look complicit in delaying consequences until after the bowl game. As it is, all parties got to finish the semester in good standing, I assume.
Click to expand...

but dismiss them for what? they hadn't been formally charged or arrested for anything and never ended up being formally charged or arrested for anything by the ACTUAL law. the ACTUAL law and the ACTUAL real justice system says these student athletes were not guilty of having done anything or breaking a law that could be proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

not directing this statement at you, but i've said it earlier on the forum: personal/individual morality standards and personal "feels" about sex, while we're all free to have them, DO NOT equal the law of the land.
 

They could have been booted for breaking team rules (underage drinking, etc) and the EOAA process would have been null and void as they were no longer students. They have no jurisdiction over non-students.

So yes, in hindsight it would have probably been better (for the U) to dump any person that's found to break rule and/or COULD be named in an EOAA pseudo-investigation. Whether that's fair to students/players is open for debate and obviously I think not. I suspect breaking the student code is awfully easy in this day and age when just about anything you say or do can be seen as harassment by someone.
 


supadupafly said:
but dismiss them for what? they hadn't been formally charged or arrested for anything and never ended up being formally charged or arrested for anything by the ACTUAL law.
Click to expand...

There are many things in the student code which are not ACTUALLY illegal but which could get you dismissed from school. Plagiarism, cheating on exams, etc. There are probably also many "team rules" that are not crimes but could get you dismissed from the team. Breaking curfews, etc.

The Gopher "team rules" aren't publically available, but I would have hoped that getting a 17 year old recruit drunk, then encouraging him to participate in group sex, and also shooting video of it, all just hours after the first game, would be a major violation of team rules.

I still have a feeling that if the 4 were dismissed right away by Coyle/Claeys, this cascade of events may not have happened. It just doesn't make sense that they didn't dismiss them regardless of charges, because of the involvement with the recruit. How could they just let them play out the season? I think that's where the EOAA started stepping it up, because they probably felt the entire thing was being brushed off. Coyle and Claeys may have been banking on that - Coyle because he is new and does not seem to like confrontation, and Claeys because he was trying to win at all costs this year.
 

When suing "everyone" does one have to pay per defendant? 7.5 billion seems like a lot of fees.
 

Catechol said:
There are many things in the student code which are not ACTUALLY illegal but which could get you dismissed from school. Plagiarism, cheating on exams, etc. There are probably also many "team rules" that are not crimes but could get you dismissed from the team. Breaking curfews, etc.

The Gopher "team rules" aren't publically available, but I would have hoped that getting a 17 year old recruit drunk, then encouraging him to participate in group sex, and also shooting video of it, all just hours after the first game, would be a major violation of team rules.

I still have a feeling that if the 4 were dismissed right away by Coyle/Claeys, this cascade of events may not have happened. It just doesn't make sense that they didn't dismiss them regardless of charges, because of the involvement with the recruit. How could they just let them play out the season? I think that's where the EOAA started stepping it up, because they probably felt the entire thing was being brushed off. Coyle and Claeys may have been banking on that - Coyle because he is new and does not seem to like confrontation, and Claeys because he was trying to win at all costs this year.
Click to expand...

Rather naive. Why do you think schools send recruits out with players? Players get PAID to entertain recruits. Do the schools want players to break the law? Most probably not. But they want the recruits to have a "wonderful" time and they leave wonderful to be determined by a kid still in high school and one still in college.....see where I'm going with this? That usually involves drinking, always parting, frequently coed coochie and unfortunately sometimes a orgy that turned into a sexual assault accusation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

gophmeister said:
A lot of what Hutton is saying is just bluster. He can sue but remember what happened to OJ in the civil trial. His grandstanding has made this situation worse for his clients.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how the OJ civil trial has much to do with these ones.

The players have very legitimate cases. I really think the most damning part of the whole thing has been Kaler referring to the "alleged victim" as a victim and discussing how the report was the reason the players changed their mind.

Calling her a victim is calling them rapists. It's a really tough situation for the U and maybe Kaler was just speaking before he thought.

As far as a lawsuit against the girl, unfortunately, this could get nasty. This is really part of the reason why a just and sincere investigation (rather than whatever you want to call the EOAA) would have benefit the victim as well. You always want to have a sincere and just process, when that breaks down, it pours gasoline on a tough situation.

I think the U is extremely vulnerable to liability in this case. Kaler could be liable personally (that's much harder). As far as the girl's liability, I really don't know enough (we never got a report from an entity that was pro-athlete). I hope this can be resolved before the girl is sued, that would just be nasty for everyone, but I think we might be past the point of no return on this.
 



I think that this is mostly posturing. I expect most of the players to leave and, once they do that, their motivation to continue a lawsuit will largely disappear. Few of them have any ties to Minnesota beyond their attendance at the U. If Hutton thinks that there is a basis for a suit against the U for releasing private information, he could bring it and he might get some fees out of it and some recovery for the players.

There's probably no reason not to try for the restraining order, although the likelihood of a successful resolution probably isn't very good. Even if they could get a hearing and an order in time, I doubt that the U would play them in the game at this point.

But if he sues the woman involved in the incident, I think he's an idiot. And if he thinks that he can represent all ten players in that suit, he's probably an unethical idiot. None of the players has been charged with a crime. In the big picture, that's the most important thing for them. In a claim against the U for releasing their private data or denying due process, the focus will mainly be on the process, not the underlying facts. In a defamation type suit against her, the truth of what she said is at issue. That means that she, and each of them, are going to have to answer detailed questions about what occurred. That will result in thousands of pages of sworn testimony about that event and the things that followed. Whatever your personal view, they are all going to come out as losers in the court of public opinion if that happens. The players will potentially be subjecting themselves to depositions where they will be asked about the events of that night and the following days. In effect, they will be asked whether they, or any of their teammates, committed crimes. Some may face criminal prosecution for their conduct, depending on how that testimony goes. Just because they haven't been charged yet doesn't mean they won't ever be if there are new revelations, and you can't take the Fifth to protect your teammates. They should each have their own lawyer if they go down that route.

And what is the point of a suit against her? If it's to restore their reputations, I don't see how spending weeks publicly championing their participation in a consensual gang bang helps with that. They may end up on the right side of the law, but the public perception will remain largely against them. If it's for money, what good will a judgment against a college age student do them? I don't know anything about her, but unless she's a Kardashian she probably doesn't have the ability to pay any type of an award. It is more likely that one or more of the players end up charged with a crime than that any of them wind up with some sizeable settlement or collectable judgment from the young woman. Oh, and suing her also undercuts the whole "it's just about due process" theme.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
I think that this is mostly posturing. I expect most of the players to leave and, once they do that, their motivation to continue a lawsuit will largely disappear. Few of them have any ties to Minnesota beyond their attendance at the U. If Hutton thinks that there is a basis for a suit against the U for releasing private information, he could bring it and he might get some fees out of it and some recovery for the players.

There's probably no reason not to try for the restraining order, although the likelihood of a successful resolution probably isn't very good. Even if they could get a hearing and an order in time, I doubt that the U would play them in the game at this point.

But if he sues the woman involved in the incident, I think he's an idiot. And if he thinks that he can represent all ten players in that suit, he's probably an unethical idiot. None of the players has been charged with a crime. In the big picture, that's the most important thing for them. In a claim against the U for releasing their private data or denying due process, the focus will mainly be on the process, not the underlying facts. In a defamation type suit against her, the truth of what she said is at issue. That means that she, and each of them, are going to have to answer detailed questions about what occurred. That will result in thousands of pages of sworn testimony about that event and the things that followed. Whatever your personal view, they are all going to come out as losers in the court of public opinion if that happens. The players will potentially be subjecting themselves to depositions where they will be asked about the events of that night and the following days. In effect, they will be asked whether they, or any of their teammates, committed crimes. Some may face criminal prosecution for their conduct, depending on how that testimony goes. Just because they haven't been charged yet doesn't mean they won't ever be if there are new revelations, and you can't take the Fifth to protect your teammates. They should each have their own lawyer if they go down that route.

And what is the point of a suit against her? If it's to restore their reputations, I don't see how spending weeks publicly championing their participation in a consensual gang bang helps with that. They may end up on the right side of the law, but the public perception will remain largely against them. If it's for money, what good will a judgment against a college age student do them? I don't know anything about her, but unless she's a Kardashian she probably doesn't have the ability to pay any type of an award. It is more likely that one or more of the players end up charged with a crime than that any of them wind up with some sizeable settlement or collectable judgment from the young woman. Oh, and suing her also undercuts the whole "it's just about due process" theme.
Click to expand...

(1) Whether they attend the U or not, they still have a few gigantic motivations for their lawsuit. I don't think leaving or staying has any impact on that. In fact, if they leave, I think there is a much better chance that they sue.

(2) He certainly could represent all 10 men. I think there are some logistical issues. The 5th doesn't apply to civil cases (it protects you against criminal liability), I don't really know where you were going there. They are going to come out as losers in the court of public opinion regardless. They couldn't be lower than they are right now. The only info the public has is the police report and her story (EOAA). If they ran their own investigation and released that report, it would likely sway some people. They'll never be in worse standing in the court of public opinion than they are right now.

(3) I don't mean this to offend you, but if you can't see the difference between being a part of a consensual sexual act and a group sexual assault - - I don't know what to tell you. The reason for their suit against her is probably to get their side of the story out there. They get to release a report.

(4) It doesn't undercut the Due Process theme at all. I can't see a potential lawsuit against her has anything to do with Due Process. I already said that I hope it doesn't happen, but I don't see any connection here.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It is not a perfect world and you are right there are terrible people among us. What we cannot forget is that we may be the one unlawfully accused for any great number of reasons and that is a tragedy as well.
Click to expand...

Of course, a wrongful prosecution (like in the famous Duke case) is an awful thing, but how common is it really? Is it happening regularly at the University of Minnesota?

Again from the same Startribune article I posted previously: "But the job frustrated Randolph. He’d worked more than 50 cases, but not a single one had resulted in charges. Too often he found the rape reports boiled down to he-said, she-said accusations that involved too much alcohol and too little evidence. Sometimes, it was difficult even for Randolph to determine who was telling the truth, let alone convince a jury of proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://www.startribune.com/after-au...e-her-rapist-u-student-fought-back/398051931/

Now some might see this as a vindication of sorts for the players. Like the other 50 cases, the police chose not to charge in this case. But that would be missing the point.

Approximatly 50 cases handled at the University by a police officer, zero prosecutions. More than 1000 incidents reported to the Aurora Center at the University since 2010, zero prosecutions.

There are a lot of reasons for a victim of sexual assault at the University or Minnesota to conclude that seeking justice is just not worth it. And a lot of reasons to regret having tried to seek justice afterward.

I am not making a statement about this particular case or about the fairness of the EEOC process. That needs to be fully and fairly evaluated. And I am not happy with the adminstration's handling of the situation.

But I think us males are far more likely to have a sister, daughter, or female friend victimized by sexual assualt without justice than we are to be wrongly accused.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
(1) Whether they attend the U or not, they still have a few gigantic motivations for their lawsuit. I don't think leaving or staying has any impact on that. In fact, if they leave, I think there is a much better chance that they sue.

(2) He certainly could represent all 10 men. I think there are some logistical issues. The 5th doesn't apply to civil cases (it protects you against criminal liability), I don't really know where you were going there. They are going to come out as losers in the court of public opinion regardless. They couldn't be lower than they are right now. The only info the public has is the police report and her story (EOAA). If they ran their own investigation and released that report, it would likely sway some people. They'll never be in worse standing in the court of public opinion than they are right now.

(3) I don't mean this to offend you, but if you can't see the difference between being a part of a consensual sexual act and a group sexual assault - - I don't know what to tell you. The reason for their suit against her is probably to get their side of the story out there. They get to release a report.

(4) It doesn't undercut the Due Process theme at all. I can't see a potential lawsuit against her has anything to do with Due Process. I already said that I hope it doesn't happen, but I don't see any connection here.
Click to expand...

I will try to respond to you point by point. Then I have a couple of sincere questions for you.

1) You may be right, and I think we are going to find out, but if each of these players had their own lawyer, I believe that some of them would be best served by making the claim against the U, resolving that quickly, and then moving on. I agree that this is going to follow them forever, but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily get a net benefit out of a favorable outcome if that's balanced against having the whole thing resurface several times as the legal process plays out.

2) My point is that on the state of the record right now, the authorities have decided not to charge. If that record gets expanded, those decisions could be revisited. The things that some of these players are accused of would, if proven, constitute a crime. There is some risk in inviting that expansion of the record. Maybe they are confident enough in the facts that they aren't concerned, but I would at least give it some thought. I think it's feasible to represent all ten in a "due process" argument, less advisable in some type of defamation claim. In a civil trial where the truth of the allegations is at issue, they are going to be asked about not only their own behavior, but also that of the others. As an example (made up just to illustrate the point), they may be asked if they participated in filming the sex acts of the recruit or sharing that video. I understand that the recruit is a minor. If they were involved in the creation or dissemination of that video, they may have committed a crime. They could take the Fifth in response to the questions about themselves, but not as to the others. They could also be sued by the minor if they shared the video, depending on the content.

I do think you are wrong that they couldn't possibly be viewed more poorly by the public than they are right now. If they sue the woman involved for monetary damages, I think they will be perceived even worse than they are now.

3) I understand the difference between consent and non-consent, my point is that it's not going to make a difference to the big picture. The can issue their own report, but it isn't going to change the public perception much. They already have the ability to publish their own stories, and it looks like people close to them are the likely source of the leaks of the reports. In a civil suit against her, they can depose her and she will undoubtedly offer testimony which contradicts what's in reports, but so will the players. Even if everyone is trying to be 100% accurate, there are going to be discrepancies. And then the other people with whom they communicated about this will also be deposed. It wouldn't be surprising if half the team ended up on a witness list, would it? It's almost certain that there will be other inconsistencies that stem from that, there are too many people involved for there not to be. It will be a muddled mess and, in the end, I think everyone will look worse.

4) I'm not suggesting that they couldn't legally make such a claim, just that it will distract from their stronger claims and, as such, seems like a bad idea to me where the possible risk far outweighs the possible benefit. There is some hope of keeping the focus on the corrupt, unconstitutional process that the U followed here if the defendants are the University, Kaler and Coyle. If they sue the young woman, I am afraid that will get all the attention.

Here are my questions for you: In your mind, what is the legal theory against the woman involved and what is the benefit of making such a claim, even if it exists?
 



It's put up or shut up time for Hutton.... otherwise it is just talk.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
It's put up or shut up time for Hutton.... otherwise it is just talk.
Click to expand...

Pure fantasy on the part of the accused, that there is a jury out there that hears this story and wants to take money from the woman and give it to them.

The boycott failed because they couldn't get their own team mates to continue to demand their reinstatement. Now picture them telling their story to your Aunt from Richfield.
 

Suing "everyone"? Golly I hope he doesn't sue me.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
Here are my questions for you: In your mind, what is the legal theory against the woman involved and what is the benefit of making such a claim, even if it exists?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that I have said that I hope they don't bring a lawsuit against the girl. I don't think it's a good move for them and I really don't want her to be dragged through that either. It's a messy and nasty type of case.

The "WHY" might be a better place to start than the legal theory. They might want to bring a case up because it is a good way for them to be able to present a one-sided report of their own. One sided reports are garbage, but the court of public opinion eats them up. I have little to no doubt that they could conduct an investigation and and put out a report that makes her look REALLY bad. Essentially, the EOAA was a legal equivalent of slinging mud (it was obviously biased). This would be just slinging that mud back, in order to fight back in the court of public opinion. As gross as this sounds, this is exactly why the EOAA investigation is AWFUL for everyone involved. . . accused, the girl, the University and justice as whole.

The theory:
(1) slander/defamation ;
(2) there could be another theory depending on the language of their exculpatory clause (which I don't think is really enforceable); or
(3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

There might be other ones and if there are attorneys on here that work more tort law, they would probably have a better answer.

They do have theories of which to sue. She is going to be dragged through the mud if this happens. I really do hope the U finds a just a way to resolve this issue so that this does not come about.
 

Maybe HuttonIII can find out how the EOAA has the power to prevent any player from participating in the bowl game? Where does that power come from? What would ACTUALLY happen if Kahler said the University will make that decision. I know some people keep insisting that the federal government would withhold funding. Would they really? Any proof if this happening previously? Different than the Baylor situation where police charges were made. Remember the victim accepted the first form of punishment as satisfactory.
 

saintpaulguy said:
The boycott failed because they couldn't get their own team mates to continue to demand their reinstatement. Now picture them telling their story to your Aunt from Richfield.
Click to expand...

You keep eating the crap sandwiches the U admin is feeding the media. The story from the players is that after the full report was distributed they had a meeting that night and voted to end the boycott and if failed. It wasn't until early the next morning, after further discussion with Kaler and one of the 5 players who didn't have sex with the woman but was still suspended gave a speech to the players telling them to not pass up the chance and do more damage to the team just to support them playing in the bowl game...they got the commitment from Kaler on fair hearings and better communication going forward and that was the best the could get. But the players didn't change their tune after the full report because they knew it was a total work of fiction by a biased and vindictive group of liberal man haters with an agenda all their own.
 

Jack jones said:
Maybe HuttonIII can find out how the EOAA has the power to prevent any player from participating in the bowl game? Where does that power come from? What would ACTUALLY happen if Kahler said the University will make that decision. I know some people keep insisting that the federal government would withhold funding. Would they really? Any proof if this happening previously? Different than the Baylor situation where police charges were made. Remember the victim accepted the first form of punishment as satisfactory.
Click to expand...

The EOAA is part of the university.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
You keep eating the crap sandwiches the U admin is feeding the media. The story from the players is that after the full report was distributed they had a meeting that night and voted to end the boycott and if failed. It wasn't until early the next morning, after further discussion with Kaler and one of the 5 players who didn't have sex with the woman but was still suspended gave a speech to the players telling them to not pass up the chance and do more damage to the team just to support them playing in the bowl game...they got the commitment from Kaler on fair hearings and better communication going forward and that was the best the could get. But the players didn't change their tune after the full report because they knew it was a total work of fiction by a biased and vindictive group of liberal man haters with an agenda all their own.
Click to expand...

+1
 

Jack jones said:
Maybe HuttonIII can find out how the EOAA has the power to prevent any player from participating in the bowl game? Where does that power come from? What would ACTUALLY happen if Kahler said the University will make that decision. I know some people keep insisting that the federal government would withhold funding. Would they really? Any proof if this happening previously? Different than the Baylor situation where police charges were made. Remember the victim accepted the first form of punishment as satisfactory.
Click to expand...

You really, really, really want to win this bowl game.
 

Jack jones said:
Maybe HuttonIII can find out how the EOAA has the power to prevent any player from participating in the bowl game? Where does that power come from? What would ACTUALLY happen if Kahler said the University will make that decision. I know some people keep insisting that the federal government would withhold funding. Would they really? Any proof if this happening previously? Different than the Baylor situation where police charges were made. Remember the victim accepted the first form of punishment as satisfactory.
Click to expand...

If the University allowed the players to participate in a bowl and the EoAA report came out the administration would be getting roasted far worse than the are now. The media, advocacy groups and the court of public opinion would've had a field day with that type decision.

You can believe whatever you want about the EoAA report but if the players were allowed to play in the bowl game the U would appear to be taking the stand that football is more important over the university, an alleged sexually assault and the safety of the students that attain the U.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
You keep eating the crap sandwiches the U admin is feeding the media. The story from the players is that after the full report was distributed they had a meeting that night and voted to end the boycott and if failed. It wasn't until early the next morning, after further discussion with Kaler and one of the 5 players who didn't have sex with the woman but was still suspended gave a speech to the players telling them to not pass up the chance and do more damage to the team just to support them playing in the bowl game...they got the commitment from Kaler on fair hearings and better communication going forward and that was the best the could get. But the players didn't change their tune after the full report because they knew it was a total work of fiction by a biased and vindictive group of liberal man haters with an agenda all their own.
Click to expand...

Your source is?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Keep in mind that I have said that I hope they don't bring a lawsuit against the girl. I don't think it's a good move for them and I really don't want her to be dragged through that either. It's a messy and nasty type of case.

The "WHY" might be a better place to start than the legal theory. They might want to bring a case up because it is a good way for them to be able to present a one-sided report of their own. One sided reports are garbage, but the court of public opinion eats them up. I have little to no doubt that they could conduct an investigation and and put out a report that makes her look REALLY bad. Essentially, the EOAA was a legal equivalent of slinging mud (it was obviously biased). This would be just slinging that mud back, in order to fight back in the court of public opinion. As gross as this sounds, this is exactly why the EOAA investigation is AWFUL for everyone involved. . . accused, the girl, the University and justice as whole.

The theory:
(1) slander/defamation ;
(2) there could be another theory depending on the language of their exculpatory clause (which I don't think is really enforceable); or
(3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

There might be other ones and if there are attorneys on here that work more tort law, they would probably have a better answer.

They do have theories of which to sue. She is going to be dragged through the mud if this happens. I really do hope the U finds a just a way to resolve this issue so that this does not come about.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems like we agree that it's probably not a great idea as a legal strategy to go down this path. I see similar pitfalls in trying to establish an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as a defamation claim. I can't envision most jurors listening to all the testimony and concluding that they want to compensate these players for their emotional distress when they compare it to her level of distress. (I realize that isn't the way it would be presented, but I believe that is what they would think about.) Maybe there is evidence of which I am not aware that makes things look worse for her, but suing her still seems like a really bad idea to me.

I hope my example helped explain my thoughts on the Fifth Amendment issue.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems like we agree that it's probably not a great idea as a legal strategy to go down this path. I see similar pitfalls in trying to establish an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as a defamation claim. I can't envision most jurors listening to all the testimony and concluding that they want to compensate these players for their emotional distress when they compare it to her level of distress. (I realize that isn't the way it would be presented, but I believe that is what they would think about.) Maybe there is evidence of which I am not aware that makes things look worse for her, but suing her still seems like a really bad idea to me.

I hope my example helped explain my thoughts on the Fifth Amendment issue.
Click to expand...

That's the key. We don't really know the evidence from the players' side. Maybe she texted them afterwards. I don't know, it'd be pure speculation, so I'll stop before people say that I am slinging mud on the girl.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
You keep eating the crap sandwiches the U admin is feeding the media. The story from the players is that after the full report was distributed they had a meeting that night and voted to end the boycott and if failed. It wasn't until early the next morning, after further discussion with Kaler and one of the 5 players who didn't have sex with the woman but was still suspended gave a speech to the players telling them to not pass up the chance and do more damage to the team just to support them playing in the bowl game...they got the commitment from Kaler on fair hearings and better communication going forward and that was the best the could get. But the players didn't change their tune after the full report because they knew it was a total work of fiction by a biased and vindictive group of liberal man haters with an agenda all their own.
Click to expand...

It is also being reported that the players met again on Sunday night because they were upset that Kaler said that one of the reasons that they decided to play was because they had read the EOAA report. Not true at all. They were ready to vote to not play, but cooler heads prevailed.
 

If I understand correctly when something is reported by the media in regard to what the administration has stated on this situation the administration isn't telling the truth. However, when the media reports on what the players have stated on the situation it's all suppose to be taken as true.
 

Kaler has been a bit manipulative and not factual during this bowl process.

minny01 said:
It is also being reported that the players met again on Sunday night because they were upset that Kaler said that one of the reasons that they decided to play was because they had read the EOAA report. Not true at all. They were ready to vote to not play, but cooler heads prevailed.
Click to expand...

Kaler said that one of the reasons that they decided to play in the bowl was because they the players had read the EOAA report. Not true at all, this is also something I have heard also, that Kaler stating that at his media briefing about the players reading the EOAA report and deciding to play in the bowl was because of that report, was a total fabrication on Kaler's part.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom