PMWinSTP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 15,631
- Reaction score
- 5,197
- Points
- 113
Didn't know we had access to this info??
Did you listen to the interview? If not, see post #84/85.
Didn't know we had access to this info??
He was grabbed out of a relative's house, beaten, mutilated, and murdered. And that's supposed to instruct future lawyers what a violation of due process is? Okay, but I've never been in law school and I can tell you this kid didn't get due process.
Didn't know we had access to this info??
You are correct.
However, one didn't need the appeal.
The EOAA report changed the accuser's friends testimony to make it consistent with her testimony.
There are other instances too.
Not trying to change your mind on the conclusion of the case or what happened; just trying to point out the EOAA report helps no one.
They hurt victims of sexual assault with their tactics.
Again, as Bob has pointed out several times, The EOAA is not supposed to be the accuser's advocate, it should be a neutral fact finding third party. It wasn't, and that's a big problem. Her attorney should play the role of her advocate.
Why should she need an attorney? She alleges to be a victim of a crime, and really is not a party to the hearings. She is a witness.
A college campus is supposed to be a place where open, honest debate occurs, and where impartial analysis of evidence occurs.
Why should she need an attorney? She alleges to be a victim of a crime, and really is not a party to the hearings. She is a witness.
Equal protection and due process are not the same thingThere was a case that followed that whole ordeal. That case was absolutely unfair.
The 14th Amendment:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Emmett Till was denied equal protection under the law because he was an African American. If Emmett Till had been white, the trial would have looked completely different. That's a violation of the Due Process clause.
The part where his due process rights were violated would be in the 5th not the 14th
Equal protection and due process are not the same thing
The part you bolded is not the due process clause
The part where his due process rights were violated would be in the 5th not the 14th
The part where his due process rights were violated would be in the 5th not the 14th
Green, Shenault, McCrary, Willams and Winfield were all just witnesses too, I bet they wish they had an attorney during the investigation
The University appears to disagree that they were simply witnesses, in that they ended up being parties to the complaint.
I believe Hutton was on the case back in September, and was involved with the dismissal of the restraining order. If these five did not seek counsel once they brought into the investigation, they should have.
The University appears to disagree that they were simply witnesses, in that they ended up being parties to the complaint.
I believe Hutton was on the case back in September, and was involved with the dismissal of the restraining order. If these five did not seek counsel once they brought into the investigation, they should have.
That's the point. Per the players (specifically the second 5), they were told that they were witnesses who needed to be interviewed. This outcome is exactly why everyone should have counsel going into any type of questioning as a part of an investigation with these types of possible ramifications, even if you know you had nothing to do with what is being investigated.
Except for Dean, he apparently has no use for lawyers.
The young woman likely had her counsel present at the hearing so her lawyer could stop her from saying something that could come up in a subsequent civil suit that could hurt her.
Posted a bit earlier that I'm not sure that as an option for them as witnesses...
As I heard the interview, the Emmitt Till reference was pointing out that people can make allegations, and later recant or change their stories - sometimes years later - but the initial impact cannot be erased. As I heard it, he was saying that the 10 players have had their reputations permanently affected by this case, and he certainly feels that the accuser's story is not accurate or consistent.
Also worth noting, Hutton said that all the players he represents are ready to appeal the findings of the panel. So, unless he's bluffing, expect this to wind up in the court system.