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

Donate To GopherHole
1385md said:
Do you mean besides the dozens of posters that insisted the EEOA had no business even looking into the issue since the cops didn't arrest the guys?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sure. Can you list 1 poster that has that stance?
 

TruDat said:
Yeah 90 seconds of video is an accurate reflection of what took place over 90 minutes. If we are going to talk about videos what about all the videos that were deleted?
Click to expand...

Do you think people who are drinking can have consensual sex?

The question is, 100% about consent. If she was into it, I am not sure why you would care about their consensual sexual activities.
If she wasn't into it, they should be kicked out of school (at a minimum) and hopefully the police re-open an investigation and they are thrown away forever.
 

TruDat said:
Yeah 90 seconds of video is an accurate reflection of what took place over 90 minutes. If we are going to talk about videos what about all the videos that were deleted?
Click to expand...

Ok I'm being 100% serious here I never heard there were deleted videos...any idea how many or any incite as to what they were? I'm guessing they were not good but curious if you have heard anything.
 

NotAFanOfBecky said:
Ok I'm being 100% serious here I never heard there were deleted videos...any idea how many or any incite as to what they were? I'm guessing they were not good but curious if you have heard anything.
Click to expand...

Ok.. First off. You CANNOT PERMANENTLY DELETE THE VIDEOS!!! If the law felt there were possibly deleted info, send the phone to Kroll On-Track and they will rebuild the deleted videos. They did this once before in another case. It's actually takes some one with technical know-how to permanently delete stuff from your phone. Even if you rebuild it. There was no mention from the media of deleted videos.
 

Mulligan said:
Unlike the very objective posters who are sure all of the sex was consensual; that what the U did is pretty much the same as what Stalin did (minus a few million dead people); and that the woman undoubtedly lied. Hell, I just saw the guy who has set himself up as the legal expert on due process make an analogy that what these 10 guys have gone through is sort of like the Medieval Trials by Ordeal. Must have missed when they put Djam on the rack or stuck the Iron Maiden on Winfield.

The extremes are on both sides so good luck with the "I'm on the only objective side," schtick you're so good at.
Click to expand...

Maiden rules!!!!!
 


1385md said:
I get your point, but most "due process" ty pes are coming off pretty poor. If not for EEOC, the severity of this would have never come to light. Yet many on here talk like the whole thing is just a bunch of " men-hating feminazis" that should be punished.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I agree, that due process concerns have been used to impugn the report. The gopherhole does not reflect the views of most Minnesotans on this matter. Most Minnesotans care more about what happened to this young lady then the legal disputes about EOAA investigations. People have a political axe to grind about these investigations, fine. But the outrage expressed on this board about the investigation highlights how out of touch many posters are with society. Most people don't view the players as the victims, most don't think the woman's name should be released, don't think she should be charged with a crime. Most are willing to look at the evidence assembled and say it was wrong. Not because of groupsex, or race. It was wrong because the evidence indicates at some point it wasn't consensual. And people that hinder the investigation of rape should be punished, even if they never touched her.
 

Gogogopher said:
I agree, the of due process concerns have been used to impugn the report. The gopherhole does not reflect the views of most Minnesotans on this matter. Most Minnesotans care more about what happened to this young lady then the legal disputes about EOAA investigations. People have a political axe to grind about these investigations, fine. But the outrage expressed on this board about the investigation highlights how out of touch many posters are with society. Most people don't view the players as the victims, most don't think the woman's name should be released, don't think she should be charged with a crime. Most are willing to look at the evidence assembled and say it was wrong. Not because of groupsex, or race. It was wrong because the evidence indicates at some point it wasn't consensual. And people that hinder the investigation of rape should be punished, even if they never touched her.
Click to expand...

The last sentence is what many are struggling with. The report does not find "evidence" that each of those not directly involved covered it up or were even there and could have stopped it. It's unfortunate that all have been generalized as rapists by so many here on Gopherhole, and elsewhere, when at least a few never engaged with the girl and there was no real proof to their involvement. This is where the due process and bias appears to be. Why a few can't at least acknowledge that is beyond me. Why paint all ten with such a broad brush?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


Ozzy&Ray said:
The last sentence is what many are struggling with. The report does not find "evidence" that each of those not directly involved covered it up or were even there and could have stopped it. It's unfortunate that all have been generalized as rapists by so many here on Gopherhole, and elsewhere, when at least a few never engaged with the girl and there was no real proof to their involvement. This is where the due process and bias appears to be. Why a few can't at least acknowledge that is beyond me. Why paint all ten with such a broad brush?


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

I agree all ten are not rapists. Some in their disgust with the events of the evening may have said this. I think more on this board have suggested the players were innocent- since they were not charged with any crime. Why can't posters admit there is ample evidence that this woman was assaulted by some Gopher players?
 



And the EEOA only found them to have violate the "harassment" statute, not the "assault" statute. A difference was clearly delineated in the report. A broad brush was NOT used.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 

Gogogopher said:
I agree all ten are not rapists. Some in their disgust with the events of the evening may have said this. I think more on this board have suggested the players were innocent- since they were not charged with any crime. <b>Why can't posters admit there is <u>ample evidence </u>that this woman was assaulted by some Gopher players?</b>
Click to expand...

You must be referring to something other than the EOAA report, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Gogogopher said:
I agree all ten are not rapists. Some in their disgust with the events of the evening may have said this. I think more on this board have suggested the players were innocent- since they were not charged with any crime. Why can't posters admit there is ample evidence that this woman was assaulted by some Gopher players?
Click to expand...
I will maintain we just don't know what really happened. I am not sure there is actual evidence. There is a lot of testimony but little actual evidence to prove a crime. From what I can tell the only evidence is the cell phone video and the visit to the doctor. They don't seem to prove rape or assault or the DA would have brought charges.

Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Do you think people who are drinking can have consensual sex?

The question is, 100% about consent. If she was into it, I am not sure why you would care about their consensual sexual activities.
If she wasn't into it, they should be kicked out of school (at a minimum) and hopefully the police re-open an investigation and they are thrown away forever.
Click to expand...
I am not even arguing concent. All I am saying is that none of the guys thought this might be a bad idea. The high school kid on the recruiting visit knew it might not be a good idea. Just wish one of the guys involved might have had this thought. Maybe we wouldn't be where we are now.
 



Dean S said:
Bias is in the eyes of the beholder unless you are speaking in terms of things that are testable. What are the tests of the EOAA having bias that are known? I have read terms like 'liberal', 'zealots', etc., all charged words. None of them are testable. Please, somebody, anybody, relate the bias and the tests to prove it is bias. After a week of reading posts, the only bias I can find is the bias against the bias of the EOAA.
Click to expand...

I think some of the accusations of bias are just a way of discounting the conclusions. But Reusse, who's opinion I generally respect, made a case for the existence of bias:

http://www.startribune.com/clash-of-powerful-social-forces-or-maybe-a-feud-roil-u-waters/407164706/

For anyone interested in the referenced Kimberly Hewitt email, here it is:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2461031/hewittemail.txt

After reading the email, I do not think Reusse has a convincing argument. Consider that Hewitt did not make the email public. Consider that her email went point by point about conclusions. Consider that she was taking action inside the department to address the issue. Here is a quote: "We have noticed a potential pattern that may or may not be indicative of a broader problem that we should work together to address."

Unfortunately the Norwood Teague resignation took place just a few weeks after this email was written. Who knows how that impacted ongoing discussions between the EOAA, the football coaches and the administration? Did it get in the way of progress to address the issue?

Let's not forget some very basic facts: A group of football players had serial sex with a woman. Among them, a minor recruit participated. Leaving all the other issues aside for now, clearly we have recent evidence supporting: "a concerning pattern of football player conduct."
 

Gogogopher said:
Why can't posters admit there is ample evidence that this woman was assaulted by some Gopher players?
Click to expand...

I think prior to the EEOA, there was a chance at this. I think the Investigation kind of slammed the door on getting there, IMHO.

Proper due process could have prevented this from happening. If the EEOA had boundaries it helps maintain discipline in the investigation.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is the process can be constructed in such a way to make investigating easier, better, and more efficient. Instead, we got people that wanted to get the Football team. In their haste, they made a lot of mistakes.

Yup, I am literally saying process helps all. In this case I think it helps the Girl just as much as the players.... if not more.
 





Let me take a stab at this:

The EOAA, in the earlier e-mail, stated their position that there was a problem with sexual misconduct by football players. (however, they were only able to corroborate 1 case of harassment)
The EOAA investigated the Sept 2nd incident.
They concluded there was sexual misconduct by football players.

Now - they may be right! There may have been sexual misconduct by football players.

But - from the outside looking in, there is at least a hint of suspicion when an investigating body reaches a conclusion that reinforces a previously held position.

A reasonable person can question whether they were pre-disposed to reach that conclusion. (like a self-fulfilling prophecy)

Again - when all is said and done, the report may prove to be accurate. If that happens, fine. I can accept the accuracy of the report - but I can still have concerns about the way those conclusions were reached. it's called nuance.
 

minny01 said:
So, are you saying that the authorities botched the investigation, and if so, how? and then, what evidence are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Was joking to make fun, but to get there one might be able.

I think one can rule out criminal charge.

Evidence was possibly there for Preponderance standard. However, One would have needed to roll the (maybe some) 4 suspended players. Tease it out of them. They botched it by trying to confirm her account so literally. They kept on searching for the 10-20 standard that just wasn't there.

They could have avoided this by starting with time.

A lot of people say 90 mins.... not true. EOAA says 1 hour 5 mins in Apt B total.

Got to establish the limits, do an analytic over the total time to see what was possible.

Just start backing out the known times, and find the remainder, then see if it makes sense. They did some of this, but should have presented as much as they could have.

I think they simply refused to contradict her in anyway.

Moreover, for someone making the case, this method also might exonerate, so......

They also dismissed her BAC by just glossing over the police lack of giving it to them. However, one does not need precision here to see if the memory was something to base the investigation on. I know, ones not suppossed to dismiss Sex Assault victims by focus on this, but when Girl's memory is the basis for your claims, you done put the focus on it already.

Widmark formula would have been fine as a tool, just don't anchor on it (I probably would have left this in the notes as not let anyone else anchoring bias).


I just used 120 ilb woman as an example
Range for 120 Ilb woman 5-6 shots 100 proof in half hour (1 shot, then 4 or 5 before leaving):

1 hr .24 to .29
2 hr .2 to .24
3 hr .17 to .2
4 hr .13 to .16

Could be that highest range was at 2:30 AM because one does not absorb it the same when they take a bunch at once. So one might need to adjust that chart.

There is also significant difference between EOAA and police on this subject. Her statement to police has her keep drinking. To EOAA she sounds like a college student, when they talk to adults that don't get it (the kind in college that think everyone in the world is an alcoholic if they have ever drank two in a sitting).

Figuring that out lets you know how to proceed. How much corroboration you need to do. Moreover, this is over if they can get to incapacitation. Don't think they thought they could though.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Let me take a stab at this:

The EOAA, in the earlier e-mail, stated their position that there was a problem with sexual misconduct by football players. (however, they were only able to corroborate 1 case of harassment)
The EOAA investigated the Sept 2nd incident.
They concluded there was sexual misconduct by football players.

Now - they may be right! There may have been sexual misconduct by football players.

But - from the outside looking in, there is at least a hint of suspicion when an investigating body reaches a conclusion that reinforces a previously held position.

A reasonable person can question whether they were pre-disposed to reach that conclusion. (like a self-fulfilling prophecy)

Again - when all is said and done, the report may prove to be accurate. If that happens, fine. I can accept the accuracy of the report - but I can still have concerns about the way those conclusions were reached. it's called nuance.
Click to expand...

Confirmation Bias.
 

1385md said:
I get your point, but most "due process" ty pes are coming off pretty poor. If not for EEOC, the severity of this would have never come to light. Yet many on here talk like the whole thing is just a bunch of " men-hating feminazis" that should be punished.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

"Due process types" -yeah they're terrible. Kind of like law and order types. Who do they think they are?

Regarding public opinion do you have any scientific polls to back your position? Another reader mentioned an unscientific poll at the Strib where the majority supported the due process types on the team. I already know how pagans feel about the football team.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
Let me take a stab at this:

The EOAA, in the earlier e-mail, stated their position that there was a problem with sexual misconduct by football players. (however, they were only able to corroborate 1 case of harassment)
The EOAA investigated the Sept 2nd incident.
They concluded there was sexual misconduct by football players.

Now - they may be right! There may have been sexual misconduct by football players.

But - from the outside looking in, there is at least a hint of suspicion when an investigating body reaches a conclusion that reinforces a previously held position.

A reasonable person can question whether they were pre-disposed to reach that conclusion. (like a self-fulfilling prophecy)

Again - when all is said and done, the report may prove to be accurate. If that happens, fine. I can accept the accuracy of the report - but I can still have concerns about the way those conclusions were reached. it's called nuance.
Click to expand...

I am wondering where this bias free ultimate investigation that establishes the truth or falseness of the report is going to come from? Most likely, its just not happening. So you will likely never accept the report. Most folks in the non-gopher hole world think the report is credible. Even an attorney who makes his living representing defendants in such cases, who rails against the problems with the current system, says the woman is credible.

"Minnesota's case is a particularly trying one, even for those like the authors with formal legal education. You and I collectively want a just, fair outcome, and that speaks to our inherent sense of decency and outrage: Here we have a very sympathetic, credible victim; we have a true question as to whether consent was obtained from the first two alleged offenders; we have a bevy of physical evidence; we have witnesses who may or may not have statements and testimony that meet the constitutional and procedural safeguards of admissibility; we have a University who has followed its own rules and the OCR's mandates to the absolute letter. Worse, given the inaction by Twin Cities prosecutors, the school may represent the only real justice available to this victim."


http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber

I think 1385md made a great point. There are a lot of people who are primarily concerned with their view of what due process is supposed to be. Many say if they are guilty throw the book at em. But it is unlikely they will accept anything as proof. I wonder how many folks have actually read the report, it's a dark read.
 

Gogogopher said:
I am wondering where this bias free ultimate investigation that establishes the truth or falseness of the report is going to come from? Most likely, its just not happening. So you will likely never accept the report. Most folks in the non-gopher hole world think the report is credible. Even an attorney who makes his living representing defendants in such cases, who rails against the problems with the current system, says the woman is credible.

"Minnesota's case is a particularly trying one, even for those like the authors with formal legal education. You and I collectively want a just, fair outcome, and that speaks to our inherent sense of decency and outrage: Here we have a very sympathetic, credible victim; we have a true question as to whether consent was obtained from the first two alleged offenders; we have a bevy of physical evidence; we have witnesses who may or may not have statements and testimony that meet the constitutional and procedural safeguards of admissibility; we have a University who has followed its own rules and the OCR's mandates to the absolute letter. Worse, given the inaction by Twin Cities prosecutors, the school may represent the only real justice available to this victim."


http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2016/12/19/14013744/longform-inside-the-star-chamber

I think 1385md made a great point. There are a lot of people who are primarily concerned with their view of what due process is supposed to be. Many say if they are guilty throw the book at em. But it is unlikely they will accept anything as proof. I wonder how many folks have actually read the report, it's a dark read.
Click to expand...

I've read the report. What you're not accepting is that it could in fact be less than true or outright falsehood. Your wanting it to be true does not make it so.

Even if this witness is sympathetic and 100% correct in the end, that doesn't justify the terrible process. This isn't just about this one case. There are thousands of these cases and a number of men have undoubtedly been unjustly smeared.

The authors of the rollbamaaroll article spent the majority of the article blasting the EEOA and the OCR. You left that part out.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
I've read the report. What you're not accepting is that it could in fact be less than true or outright falsehood. Your wanting it to be true does not make it so.

Even if this witness is sympathetic and 100% correct in the end, that doesn't justify the terrible process. This isn't just about this one case. There are thousands of these cases and a number of men have undoubtedly been unjustly smeared.

The authors of the rollbamaaroll article spent the majority of the article blasting the EEOA and the OCR. You left that part out.
Click to expand...

I mentioned he railed against the system. But at the same time as he argued about the deficiencies in the system, he suggested in this case they may have got it right.

Here is another article where the author believes the system is broken, but the Gophers case isn't a great example to prove this. Heres another lawyer suggesting as much:

"The problem with the Minnesota boycott isn’t really that the boycott failed. It’s that the Minnesota football players did not realize they’d picked the wrong case to stand up for. There is a widely known phrase in the law that essentially defines this case: “Bad facts make bad law, and good facts make good law.” Having defended students at more than 50 colleges across the country and reviewed the extraordinarily detailed 80‑page investigative report prepared by the university’s Title IX office, the facts described there were uniquely horrifying....Bad cases are deeply hurtful to the cause of fairness on campus."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ult-hearings/?utm_term=.f008393e7b85#comments

I haven't read any accounts of people dismissing the report, just read that on the gopherhole. A lot of gopher fans are disgusted with the whole situation, and may wish for more due process protection- but don't doubt that something very wrong went on that night.

Note: I edited the post because I forgot to include the link to the second quote from the washpo. Pompous Elitist rightly pointed out that the proper attribution was lacking.
 

Gogogopher said:
I mentioned he railed against the system. But at the same time as he argued about the deficiencies in the system, he suggested in this case they may have got it right.

Here is another article where the author believes the system is broken, but the Gophers case isn't a great example to prove this. Heres another lawyer suggesting as much:

"The problem with the Minnesota boycott isn’t really that the boycott failed. It’s that the Minnesota football players did not realize they’d picked the wrong case to stand up for. There is a widely known phrase in the law that essentially defines this case: “Bad facts make bad law, and good facts make good law.” Having defended students at more than 50 colleges across the country and reviewed the extraordinarily detailed 80‑page investigative report prepared by the university’s Title IX office, the facts described there were uniquely horrifying....Bad cases are deeply hurtful to the cause of fairness on campus."

I haven't read any accounts of people dismissing the report, just read that on the gopherhole. A lot of gopher fans are disgusted with the whole situation, and may wish for more due process protection- but don't doubt that something very wrong went on that night.
Click to expand...

He did not write that. Of course it is possible she is telling the truth, nobody is disputing that, but you're ignoring the 90% of the paper that tore down the EEOA process as inherently partisan and lacking due process and thus the EEOA report is inherently flawed.

Additionally, simply because it is somewhat difficult to defend the accused students under the current OCR mandates does not mean it should not be done or that the process should not be heavily reformed.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
He did not write that. Of course it is possible she is telling the truth, nobody is disputing that, but you're ignoring the 90% of the paper that tore down the EEOA process as impartial and thus the EEOA report is inherently flawed.

Additionally, simply because it is somewhat difficult to defend the accused students under the current OCR mandates does not mean it should not be done or that the process should not be heavily reformed.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...

Sorry i forgot to include the link for the post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ult-hearings/?utm_term=.f008393e7b85#comments

I have edited the original post to include the link.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
He did not write that. Of course it is possible she is telling the truth, nobody is disputing that, but you're ignoring the 90% of the paper that tore down the EEOA process as inherently partisan and lacking due process and thus the EEOA report is inherently flawed.

Additionally, simply because it is somewhat difficult to defend the accused students under the current OCR mandates does not mean it should not be done or that the process should not be heavily reformed.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...

I am not saying the process should not be reformed. What I am saying is there are legal professionals who agree with you about the problems with the system, but say the woman was credible. Where as some on this board pretend that the problems with the system automatically make the report wrong. The report was quite thorough, and beyond the gopherhole world, beyond college football fans, most accept it as credible- since there is no proof to the contrary.
 

The authors are essentially saying that because it was an alleged gang bang situation, black on white, etc it has very poor PR optics and that part is true. The media has taken sides and pulled out the pitchforks thus altering public opinion on the case. They also state at least twice they question the veracity of the EEOA report. These are attorneys that have been around the EEOA. They spent the other 90% of the article tearing down the EEOA. However, without the boycott the issue is probably never raised. It is likely now that this will be addresses politically and quite soon.

Again, I'm not sure you're making the point you want to make.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom