Lee Hutton on with Doogie

Donate To GopherHole
Spoofin said:
Too classic. Those that have eaten everything the EOAA has fed them are now accusing LH of lying. Take what he says about the incident with a grain of salt, but why on earth would he lie about the threats that can be easily proved/disproved. That isn't a he-said/she-said situation.


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

I don't know that he'd lie... but there is no risk to him if he just makes that up, no way to know either way for anyone else.

We're in the world of alternate facts these days.... can say anything, nothing happens.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
LOL.

People were making fun of you asking for a source.

The source of the allegations that they received threats was LH. Whether or not you believe him, that's up to you. But he is the source. LOL.
Click to expand...

SOURCE?????
 

e.bigelow said:
The interview.
Click to expand...

Have a good friend who worked in the Administration at the U. He got a look at some of the e-mails and letters that Clem Haskins and McKinley Boston use to get. Some real disgusting stuff in there. The worst. There was also a interview quite a few years back that also involved Tony Dungy. In it, Dungy talked about the hate mail he got when he lived here.

If Tony Dungy got hate mail, anybody really doubt that the pictured players named in this incident and anybody who took their side, didn't get more than their share too? Including death threats?
 

Just listened to the entire interview. While I don't quite believe everything that LH is saying, I can't also believe he is completely lying or fabricating everything he is saying either. Even if some small portions of what LH is saying are true, I have some big concerns with the administration and the whole EOAA process. Seems very open to letting personal opinions of the people on the EOAA panel to affect, or skew, there judgement, when you would think they would try to be a little more unbiased in there investigation.

Most concerning was the time allotted to the accuser compared to the time allotted initially to the accused to give their statements. That was a ridiculous imbalance.
 

I Want 2 Win said:
Email death threats that he said were from faculty, but did a complete backpeddle when Doogie asked if it was confirmed who it was from. Seems like he is just throwing out a bunch of stuff trying to get people on his side. Until he actually presents the threats, I would say take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

Yep. Should totally take it with a grain of salt.

...If only there were a way to cut through the baloney and get to the truth in this crazy situation?

You know: some sort of public forum where people are sworn to tell the truth and face penalties if they do not? Maybe a place where the evidence and facts are recorded and available for critique and review by all parties involved? Maybe one where a neutral professional is placed in a position to ensure that both sides of an adversarial conflict proceed fairly?

Nah, that's absurd.
 


A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
I don't know that he'd lie... but there is no risk to him if he just makes that up, no way to know either way for anyone else.

We're in the world of alternate facts these days.... can say anything, nothing happens.
Click to expand...

He's not some fly by night ambulance chaser. He's a prominent partner in a major law firm. He didn't back peddle on the U emails, he clarified that they were to the managing partner and others in his law firm and asking them to terminate his employment. Don't think he would make a statement like that, that others in his law firm got threatening emails, if he couldn't prove it.
 

PMWinSTP said:
He's not some fly by night ambulance chaser. He's a prominent partner in a major law firm. He didn't back peddle on the U emails, he clarified that they were to the managing partner and others in his law firm and asking them to terminate his employment. Don't think he would make a statement like that, that others in his law firm got threatening emails, if he couldn't prove it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more along the lines of anonymous death threats. No way for someone outside to disprove it, easy thing to say.

To be clear... I have no idea if it happened or not, I'll take his word on it because it really doesn't matter.

I just take issue with the idea that somehow it must be true because it could be easily be disproved, I don't think it is easy at all for anyone to disprove, but easy to claim for sure.
 







If the Antonio Shenault situation is as Mr Hutton described, oh boy.

The "lie" that he told the investigator that got his picture on TV, online and newspapers with headlines screaming SEXUAL ASSAULT was because she didn't know the difference between the "morning/night of September 2nd."

This is becoming more and more of a clown show.
 

e.bigelow said:
Just listened to the entire interview. While I don't quite believe everything that LH is saying, I can't also believe he is completely lying or fabricating everything he is saying either. Even if some small portions of what LH is saying are true, I have some big concerns with the administration and the whole EOAA process. Seems very open to letting personal opinions of the people on the EOAA panel to affect, or skew, there judgement, when you would think they would try to be a little more unbiased in there investigation.

Most concerning was the time allotted to the accuser compared to the time allotted initially to the accused to give their statements. That was a ridiculous imbalance.
Click to expand...

They've been over this! Everyone on the EOAA board has been highly trained to deal with incidents of this nature. In fact, so well trained they are able to make sure their personal opinions do not interfere with their outstanding investigation skills. These individuals are ELITE in their field!
 



CurveballJesus said:
If the Antonio Shenault situation is as Mr Hutton described, oh boy.

The "lie" that he told the investigator that got his picture on TV, online and newspapers with headlines screaming SEXUAL ASSAULT was because she didn't know the difference between the "morning/night of September 2nd."

This is becoming more and more of a clown show.
Click to expand...

If you look at some of the leaks out of Baylor (granted Baylor had what sounds like some horrific ****).... some of the Title IX investigators have talked and it really sounds like the investigators at Baylor were totally naive, entirely unqualified. One noted that she was particularly shocked that at a Baptist univeristy there would be so many issues. How naive is that?


I really wonder if these offices are staffed with folks who, just sort of have an interest in Title IX or something... I'm not sure folks with a lot of interest are the best choices, maybe the worst choices...


That's bad for everyone, either way.
 

WorkingMyTailOff said:
Lol if you don't think he has an agenda
Click to expand...

LOL if you think that I don't think he has an agenda. A big part of that is to shine as much light on this whole process as possible and forcefully defend his clients. He's doing both. Did you listen to the podcast?
 

What is it they say? The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle?
 

There is a lot of stuff on here that raises questions. Again - assuming Hutton is giving an accurate account - he says the EOAA investigator interviewed the female accuser 7 times. She interviewed each Gopher player once for 15 minutes each. A Gopher player says that, in his interview, he gave his account of the evening, but in the official report, it said something different. The investigator said that she determined the player was lying. Also, the interviews were not taped, so the only record of the interviews is in the investigator's written notes, which according to Hutton are not complete.
 

So it turns out she recanted that she was drunk. So she either lied to law enforcement or lied in recanting. Wait, maybe that was part of her recovering memory...
 



Iceland12 said:
Have a good friend who worked in the Administration at the U. He got a look at some of the e-mails and letters that Clem Haskins and McKinley Boston use to get. Some real disgusting stuff in there. The worst. There was also a interview quite a few years back that also involved Tony Dungy. In it, Dungy talked about the hate mail he got when he lived here.

If Tony Dungy got hate mail, anybody really doubt that the pictured players named in this incident and anybody who took their side, didn't get more than their share too? Including death threats?
Click to expand...

As of a few years ago Hank Aaron was still receiving hate mail. Unfortunately stuff like this still happens.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/04/16/hank-aaron-atlanta-braves-receive-racist-hate-mail/?utm_term=.cf9d561e2790
 

PMWinSTP said:
So it turns out she recanted that she was drunk. So she either lied to law enforcement or lied in recanting. Wait, maybe that was part of her recovering memory...
Click to expand...

She also confirmed sex was consensual with several of the players that night.

Interesting that the female athlete present was barely pursued by the investigator and was not threatened with putting a hold on her file like was used on the FB players to compel them to talk with the investigator. Was not interviewed for the investigation after two email attempts to have her come in, but provided hearing testimony through an affidavit. Basically said she did not witness anything unusual pertaining to the accuser or in the apartment while she was there. Just a normal college weekend having fun (my words).
 

Spoofin said:
Too classic. Those that have eaten everything the EOAA has fed them are now accusing LH of lying. Take what he says about the incident with a grain of salt, but why on earth would he lie about the threats that can be easily proved/disproved. That isn't a he-said/she-said situation.


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

In a way I see this as his version of the EOAA report. Same idea, just the other side. But that's fine. I listened to the whole interview because both sides need to have their chance. I believe him about the death threats. People do dumb things, and I hope anyone who did make a real death threat has to answer for it.
 

Some of these guys should be getting apologies and not probation if any of what Hutton says is true. What a complete joke.
 

bizzle22 said:
In a way I see this as his version of the EOAA report. Same idea, just the other side. But that's fine. I listened to the whole interview because both sides need to have their chance. I believe him about the death threats. People do dumb things, and I hope anyone who did make a real death threat has to answer for it.
Click to expand...

I can see what you mean in regards to the incident. It is still hearsay. I tend to look at the procedural items he discussed differently and can fit them in to how the EOAA report is and how that type of organization has been shown to operate other places. At the end of the day, that system needs to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bizzle22 said:
In a way I see this as his version of the EOAA report. Same idea, just the other side. But that's fine. I listened to the whole interview because both sides need to have their chance. I believe him about the death threats. People do dumb things, and I hope anyone who did make a real death threat has to answer for it.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair assessment, but don't you see how that is a giant problem.

These shouldn't be two opposing entities.

This isn't like a civil case where there is the plaintiff's side of the story and the defendant's side of the story and the impartial court decides the merits of that situation. The EoAA should have been impartial (in a perfect world). They should not have been giving the alleged victim's side of the story.

I agree LH is biased. He is representing his clients. However, it's a bias we all accept and need in these systems.

The EoAA should NOT be biased. Their ONLY interest should be truth. They should not be advocates for a certain position.

So I agree with you (LH is biased, of course), but so is the EoAA and that is incredibly troubling.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
There is a lot of stuff on here that raises questions. Again - assuming Hutton is giving an accurate account - he says the EOAA investigator interviewed the female accuser 7 times. She interviewed each Gopher player once for 15 minutes each. A Gopher player says that, in his interview, he gave his account of the evening, but in the official report, it said something different. The investigator said that she determined the player was lying. Also, the interviews were not taped, so the only record of the interviews is in the investigator's written notes, which according to Hutton are not complete.
Click to expand...

I forgot about this. If true, I found the bold part to be ridiculous. I get they may have different standards of "proof" as opposed to a criminal trial, but in a high profile situation like this, how in the world do you not record your interviews to even protect yourself as the person doing the interviewing? That is just plain ridiculous and unfair to both the victim and her alleged accused.
 

e.bigelow said:
I forgot about this. If true, I found the bold part to be ridiculous. I get they may have different standards of "proof" as opposed to a criminal trial, but in a high profile situation like this, how in the world do you not record your interviews to even protect yourself as the person doing the interviewing? That is just plain ridiculous and unfair to both the victim and her alleged accused.
Click to expand...

Notes:

Bad guy did thing.

Milk

Eggs

Stick of bu---- bad guy might have been named--

Remember to send Netflix password to Mom.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I think that's a fair assessment, but don't you see how that is a giant problem.

These shouldn't be two opposing entities.

This isn't like a civil case where there is the plaintiff's side of the story and the defendant's side of the story and the impartial court decides the merits of that situation. The EoAA should have been impartial (in a perfect world). They should not have been giving the alleged victim's side of the story.

I agree LH is biased. He is representing his clients. However, it's a bias we all accept and need in these systems.

The EoAA should NOT be biased. Their ONLY interest should be truth. They should not be advocates for a certain position.

So I agree with you (LH is biased, of course), but so is the EoAA and that is incredibly troubling.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do see the issue there. It is more apparent to me after hearing LH. I haven't thought for one second that this is a perfect process, and it's flaws have definitely been magnified by the media attention this has received. The process needs fixing, but I still like the concept of a school being able to take action even if it the law doesn't have enough evidence to go forward. But no doubt this process needs to be fixed. First thing that comes to mind for me is having a neutral party oversee the hearing. I'd keep the students as the "jury", but have someone outside the university act as the "judge." Second thing would be having someone who will not take a side run the investigation. They collect the info and the university or EOAA (after some, let's call it "restructuring") decides whether to go forward with punishment. Maybe that is not perfect either, but it would be better than what we have. No doubt there need to be changes in the process. Hopefully that can be the one good thing that comes from all of this.

I wish Doogie would have pushed him more on the possible settlement or other resolutions. Sounded like LH didn't think there would be a settlement of any kind, but I'm still not clear on whether or not it is possible that some of the expulsions are reduced to suspensions or suspensions reduced to probation. Not sure if the committee has the power to do that. If I'm on that committee one of the things I would struggle with is that some of the punishments seem harsh. It seems to me that some of the players did commit violations but maybe don't deserve the punishment they received.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom