Lee Hutton on with Doogie

Donate To GopherHole

I’ve not read the EOAA report, but I did read a summary thereof some time ago. It’s my recollection that the EOAA investigator placed great reliance on “Fragmented Memory” to conclude that the accuser was more credible than the 10 players found to have violated the University’s Code of Conduct. But critically important to such memory problems is a traumatic event. See http://time.com/3625414/rape-trauma-brain-memory/ I think highly relevant to whether the accuser was in fact traumatized at the time of the September 2 incident were the video tapes that persuaded the Minneapolis Police Department that the sexual activities at issue were consensual, but were excluded at last week’s hearing. I think that exclusion was prejudicial error. Not only were the tapes relevant to the issue of trauma, but to the issue of consent to subsequent sexual activity.
I’ve previously expressed my concerns with the Title IX procedures employed by EOAA. The inability to cross-examine the accuser, which apparently did occur at last week’s hearing, the lack of discovery, the limited right to counsel, and the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. That standard – permitting the investigator to recommend that an accused be held accountable if he or she believes that the allegation is more likely than not – permits such a finding in virtually any case in which a complaint alleges a sexual assault, especially when combined with the Fragmented Memory theory. Couple that with claims that 98 percent of sexual assault claims are true (if I understood Lee Hutton correctly, he suggested that 57 percent are false), that we are dealing with a “rape culture” (survivor advocates claim 1 in 4 coeds are the victims of sexual assault, while the Foundation for Individual Rights on Campus says its 1 in 40 see https://www.thefire.org/fire-guides...pus-full-text/#__RefHeading__2500_21279467420), and the threat in the Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter (https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html) that colleges and universities that fail to pursue sexual assault claims aggressively will lose their federal funding, the deck seems to be steeply and unfairly stacked against an accused.
While Lee Hutton was pessimistic that last week’s hearing would result in a favorable result, I would hope that ultimately a federal court would at least remand the case for proceedings in which the accused would be according procedural and substantive due process. I would also hope that the five players added to the EOAA report would be cleared of wrong doing before then.
That, however, does not resolve the question as to whether any, or all of these players, will be reinstated to the football program. While my view may not be popular, I agree with Kaler that participation in intercollegiate athletics is a privilege; not a right. I strongly believe, based on what I know and understand, that the five added to the EOAA report should be reinstated. As to the remaining five, I’m not so sure.
 

Mulligan said:
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.
Click to expand...

There 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.
 

Gogogopher said:
Didn't know we had access to this info??
Click to expand...

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.
 

A big thing for me was when he said the girl recanted that she was drunk.

In the police report, there were two tests that came up negative for alcohol.
Always thought that was odd.

I thought this must be some attempt to test the players for intoxication from the Semen samples....

Is it possible she wasn't even drinking? that would make this case explode, possibly criminal... the other direction. It would be even more absurd if it was widely known.
 


atsgopher said:
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.
Click to expand...

This case has set back the rights of rape victims and the general so called women's movement many years at the U of M. The whole "campus rape culture" is a misuse of the Statistics and any good Statistics prof would shoot huge holes in the "rape culture" case in a very short time.

A very good Statistics Professor I studied under pointed out that that most of the time underlying assumptions are the basis for much "research" that is published, and the actual numbers plugged into the worksheet arei irrelevant, because the research has been so compromised by the "underlying assumptions" and other bias and questionable practices in place. The "campus rape" culture, where 1 in 4 women is a victim, is a classic example.

A college campus is supposed to be a place where open, honest debate occurs, and where impartial analysis of evidence occurs. In the current PC, intolerant environment the table has turned. Dissenting voices are silenced, the opposition is vilified, and if all else fails, call a protest and the whole thing shuts down. The whole idea of "liberal discourse and free debate is dead. Dissenting voices are shut down do to group think and an assumed allegiance to core left leaning values. No one dares get out of line. In secret, people their own thoughts, that is why the polls were all wrong and Trump won big, and almost won Minnesota of all places. (Wi, PA, Iowa, Va, Michigan were all considered left leaning)

The paragraph above was political, but unfortunately the political realities of the Obama Dept. of Education "dear colleague" letter are all very political and explain the rapid drop in the US into this alternate world of justice these ten Gopher football players are now embroiled in. If you disagree, think how you would feel if you were a parent of one of the second 5 "accused", accepted your son's story, and saw the forces of the U of M, and general tyranny do their best to crush your child, as has happened to these ten players.

The one thing that I did not mention in the previous post, is that Lee Hutton also talked of the dangers of making moral judgments, as in this case where group sex occurred. He referenced all the negativity towards the players for making alleged bad judgments and being horrible humans because they were part of the so called "train". He mentioned the view very negative and vocal view society had of interracial relationships, gay sexual activities, and other matters in not so distant years. Being critical of these things used to be common and a badge of honor for some. Now these view will get you shunned or fired.

Group sex, like it or not, is not illegal, especially at a liberal urban university where we are told to accept many things we do not personally buy into. This whole story makes the suspension of Dorsey, McBraier and Mason last year so infuriating. Unless they lied to Ricky P, they never should have been suspended!
 

PMWinSTP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Greenbayguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

A lot of victim's in these sorts of ordeals have attorneys. She has an attorney. If she has an advocate, it should be her attorney. If she had decided not to have an attorney, that's ok too. However, the point is that the EoAA should not act as her advocate.
 

I read all the headlines, and saw all the stories day after day I the local media about this case, with the faces of the ten black players front and center , with Rape, Rape, Rape in boldface.

Now, when evidence if emerging that the woman, who was previously portrayed as being incoherent, intoxicated, and not able to "consent", there is nary a peep from the media. I am sure Lee Hutton was available to discuss this case on a more prominent media platform than Dougie's podcast, but all the public will remember is the original media blast.

These are big developments, the "victim" is completely non-credible and this new information about her complete lack of impairment, combined with the original Henn. County- Mike Freeman report along with the MPD investigation makes this case a complete level, regardless of thresholds for "conviction"

Why is not news that he woman essentially declared in testimony during the EOAA Appeal that she was not significantly impaired by alcohol. This was the a key to the case, according to some. The timeline never matched up for me, and this testimony confirms that.

If this case was not rotten from the start on her side, the MPS and Mike Freeman would have been all over these football players, even if the case was fairly weak, they would have moved forward. Anyone who can try to defend what happened at the hands of Kaler and EOAA, is just faking it now.
 



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.
 

10 black men accused of raping a white woman. Sound familiar to anyone?
 

Wow, and now we just heard that after her third or fourth round of testimony that she was by her own account not in fact, incoherent, intoxicated, or incapacitated that night. One of the underpinnings of the public "outrage" and the advocacy group view with this case was that the 10 predatory black men ravaged this innocent white women, against her will.

Now we learn she admitted she was not intoxicated, and was fine with the first three guys, but everything changed with the last two? Did anyone ask the minor if he consented? Was that a focus of the investigation? Was a 21 year old member of the Cheer Team a person with a higher sense of expectation of conduct? Was she not much like a 21 year old teacher having sex with a 17 year old student. Maybe that should be the case investigated next. In theory she had a position of authority within the U of M and should be prosecuted.
 

oak_street1981 said:
A college campus is supposed to be a place where open, honest debate occurs, and where impartial analysis of evidence occurs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this has not been the case at our academic institutions for quite a while. Accept our PC point of view or shut and get out.
 



We always have had the police report, which watched a video at the start of the sex, that said she wasn't drunk. This "she was hammered" line has been a false narrative I have seen on here over and over as well. Could be why she wouldn't let the EOAA or appeals "court" see the video.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Greenbayguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Green, Shenault, McCrary, Willams and Winfield were all just witnesses too, I bet they wish they had an attorney during the investigation
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
There 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.
Click to expand...
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
 


Some guy said:
Equal protection and due process are not the same thing
The part you bolded is not the due process clause
Click to expand...

I think you're analysis is off a bit.

There is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, they both live under the umbrella of Due Process.
 

Some guy said:
The part where his due process rights were violated would be in the 5th not the 14th
Click to expand...

Due Process analysis requires reading the 5th and the 14th together. However, the 14th is certainly more applicable for the Emmett Till.
 

Some guy said:
The part where his due process rights were violated would be in the 5th not the 14th
Click to expand...

I hope this isn't the result of a U of M law school education. Our fine institution already looks bad enough lately.
 

CurveballJesus said:
Green, Shenault, McCrary, Willams and Winfield were all just witnesses too, I bet they wish they had an attorney during the investigation
Click to expand...

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.
 

Greenbayguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they came in as witnesses, I'm not sure the policy gives them that ability...it allows for both the reporting and accused students to bring an advisor, advocate, attorney or support person to the investigation meetings. If witnesses, they do not fall into either specified categories.

It's also clear according to Hutton, that the investigation treated the female student athlete present differently as a witness than these five.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The accuser's changing testimony shows she was not being forthright with the investigator.
 

Greenbayguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

CurveballJesus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Posted a bit earlier that I'm not sure that as an option for them as witnesses...
 

PMWinSTP said:
Posted a bit earlier that I'm not sure that as an option for them as witnesses...
Click to expand...

They could have had an attorney present (this would be an even bigger S-storm if the investigator had barred attorneys for the players from being present at the interview), but were told that they didn't need one (while technically true, it's incredibly misleading). There is no Civil Gideon.
 

If this is a just a morality issue the women in the case should be expelled as well. No criminal charges and her changing the story.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forgot to link this story for those who were wondering why the Emmett Till link was made. Recent news, recent admission of false testimony.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-emmett-till-accuser-false-testimony-20170128-story.html
 


All the disciplinary threads trend from raising some issues to more and more straight up bonkers or made ups stuff as they go....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom