Memphis Newspaper Article on Mbakwe

Donate To GopherHole

IMHO

I agree with Caulkins.

IMHO, TM should not play until the felony accusation is settled.

Period.
 


Section201 said:
I agree with Caulkins.

IMHO, TM should not play until the felony accusation is settled.

Period.
Click to expand...

Me too. It is crazy that all these fans want him to be recruited regardless. With or without Calamari, Memphis is where fans of cheaters will be. It seems like UK will have new standards as well after this bastard leaves for NBA. It is like having money. Once you have it, you always want more. Memphis got used to winning at all costs and now some fans like to do the same thing.

Go Gophers
 

The-Real-Truth said:
Me too. It is crazy that all these fans want him to be recruited regardless. With or without Calamari, Memphis is where fans of cheaters will be. It seems like UK will have new standards as well after this bastard leaves for NBA. It is like having money. Once you have it, you always want more. Memphis got used to winning at all costs and now some fans like to do the same thing.
Click to expand...

I tried reading some of the article's comments without puking. Eventually I failed, but really it sounds much like Minnesota fans did last year -- mostly nonsense: "ooh, she's probably lying", "innocent until proven guilty", "give him a chance"... with a few sane posts mixed in between.

The article itself was fair and reasonable.
 


I have been pretty firm in my feelings that TM (or any Gopher player) shouldn't play if they are facing felony charges.

I understand that winning is important, but felony charges are very serious and should be treated that way. I don't believe in winning at any cost. Clearly there were people at the University of Minnesota who believed in that enough to institute the policy. I didn't think and don't think that the AD should wave that rule because TM is a good player.

I think Caulkins wrote a very good column.
 

I had not read such an explicit description of the crime. I think that anyone charged with such an act should not be allowed to play until his name has been cleared. Maturi made, and continues to make, the right call.

If Mbakwe is innocent then it is a very unfortunate and consequential misunderstanding. Unfortunately, that happens in life. If he is guilty then he can try to resume his basketball career when he gets out of jail.
 





let him play

I know, this has been beaten to death but I can't help respond to a one-sided message string....The charges, if true, are really really horrible and there is no punishment that I wouldn't support. I realize letting Trevor play feels like we are condoning a crime but at this point he is innocent of the crimes charged and punishing him based merely on an accusation, even if true, is taking judgment into our own hands just for the sake of appearances. It may not feel right but I'd rather err on the side of the presumption of innocence.
 

kindofgreen said:
I know, this has been beaten to death but I can't help respond to a one-sided message string....The charges, if true, are really really horrible and there is no punishment that I wouldn't support. I realize letting Trevor play feels like we are condoning a crime but at this point he is innocent of the crimes charged and punishing him based merely on an accusation, even if true, is taking judgment into our own hands just for the sake of appearances. It may not feel right but I'd rather err on the side of the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

The University didn't even have to allow him to enroll. By code, he was immediately suspended from any and all team activities. The U let him enroll. Maturi looked at the circumstances and then overruled the code and allowed him to practice with the team and sit on the bench for home games.

Apparently you're saying that the U's student code of conduct is wrong, and damn Minnesota for having any issue whatsoever if someone is charged with a felony. The reality is that Minnesota is not "taking judgment into our own hands" as you claim - rather, they are saying they want the appropriate folks (i.e., legal system) to make judgments before letting a guy take the court in a U of Minn uniform while on their dime.

The U made an exception to let Mbakwe participate as much as he has. This is not 'merely an accusation' - this is a serious matter in a criminal court, where life-changing charges have been filed and have been continued to be pursued for more than a year. This is very real.

When people are arrested for murder in Minneapolis, do you whine and say they should be able to walk the streets with $0 bail until and unless convicted? Or do you not 'err on the side of innocence' then?
 

Agreed. The innocent until proven guilty arguments on here are absurd.

Gopher Warrior said:
The University didn't even have to allow him to enroll. By code, he was immediately suspended from any and all team activities. The U let him enroll. Maturi looked at the circumstances and then overruled the code and allowed him to practice with the team and sit on the bench for home games.

Apparently you're saying that the U's student code of conduct is wrong, and damn Minnesota for having any issue whatsoever if someone is charged with a felony. The reality is that Minnesota is not "taking judgment into our own hands" as you claim - rather, they are saying they want the appropriate folks (i.e., legal system) to make judgments before letting a guy take the court in a U of Minn uniform while on their dime.

The U made an exception to let Mbakwe participate as much as he has. This is not 'merely an accusation' - this is a serious matter in a criminal court, where life-changing charges have been filed and have been continued to be pursued for more than a year. This is very real.

When people are arrested for murder in Minneapolis, do you whine and say they should be able to walk the streets with $0 bail until and unless convicted? Or do you not 'err on the side of innocence' then?
Click to expand...
 

Who is advising Mbakwe?

I’ll admit that I have no idea what evidence Matt Dunn is expected to provide, but if he knows anything of substance regarding the events of the night in question, Mbakwe’s attorney should have told him not to ever visit Memphis. Imagine this exchange in a Miami Court sometime in October 2010.



Dade County Assistant DA: Now Mr. Dunn, you were an assistant coach on Mr. Mbakwe’s team at the time of this incident, is that correct?

Dunn: Yes, sir.

Q: And you’re here to offer testimony on his behalf?

A: That’s correct.

Q: Your current position is as Director of the Finch Center at Memphis State University?

A: It’s not known as Memphis State any longer, but yes I am the Director of the Finch Center at the University of Memphis.

Q: And that’s the basketball practice facility?

A: The state of the art basketball facility and recreation center.

Q: You are employed by the Athletic Department?

A: Yes.

Q: And are part of the basketball staff?

A: Yes, I am equipment manager as well as Director of the Finch Center.

Q: Brought in by the basketball coach?

A: Yes, I was.

Q: And Mr. Mbakwe has recently decided to transfer from the University of Minnesota to Memphis to play basketball, true?

A: Yes.

Q: You and the folks at Memphis would like to see Mr. Mbakwe in a Memphis Tiger uniform, wouldn’t you?

A: Umm, yes.

Q: You believe that he’s a talented ballplayer who could help Memphis win games, isn’t that right?

A: Sure.

Q: And the more games you win, the better off you’ll be professionally, right?

Defense Attorney Samms: Objection!

Judge: Sustained.

Q: Coaches are retained or fired based on whether they win, correct?

A: That’s part of it, yes.

Q: A big part?

A: It can be.

Q: And as part of the current coach’s staff, you’d like to win as many games as possible, right?

A: Absolutely.

Q: And better players make winning more likely, don’t they?

A: They certainly don’t hurt. (Chuckles.)

Q: And Mr. Mbakwe can’t help you win games, can’t help you advance your career, if he’s in prison, can he?

Samms: Objection!!!


Fatal to the defense? No, certainly not. But why open him up to that cross exam if he’s a significant witness for the defense?
 



Gopher Warrior said:
The University didn't even have to allow him to enroll. By code, he was immediately suspended from any and all team activities. The U let him enroll. Maturi looked at the circumstances and then overruled the code and allowed him to practice with the team and sit on the bench for home games.

Apparently you're saying that the U's student code of conduct is wrong, and damn Minnesota for having any issue whatsoever if someone is charged with a felony. The reality is that Minnesota is not "taking judgment into our own hands" as you claim - rather, they are saying they want the appropriate folks (i.e., legal system) to make judgments before letting a guy take the court in a U of Minn uniform while on their dime.

The U made an exception to let Mbakwe participate as much as he has. This is not 'merely an accusation' - this is a serious matter in a criminal court, where life-changing charges have been filed and have been continued to be pursued for more than a year. This is very real.

When people are arrested for murder in Minneapolis, do you whine and say they should be able to walk the streets with $0 bail until and unless convicted? Or do you not 'err on the side of innocence' then?
Click to expand...

Well-done. Of all the crap spouted on here about Mbakwe and Royce White, that might be the most reasonable thing written yet. Thank you.

I'll say it again. I won't be surprised if neither ever plays a minute for us. I've felt that way since the second we recruited them. It's not second-guessing. It's a very logical outcome. Tubby took the risk. That's fine. But it doesn't look like it will work. Now he needs to make up for it and lead this current team to the big year they are capable of.
 

A good wake-up message

Thanks for the link.
I'm not in the mood to cut and paste (G.Warrior made the points)and make my case but IMO the U has stood by TM in an ethical way, supported him despite the seriousness of the accusations but maintained the need to uphold the integrity of the U of M as an institution - some forget that this is major research center with concerns beyond (believe it or not!) basketball. While I'm not a fan of Maturi (communication is not his forte which is hard to conceive of sometimes), I believe he has walked a difficult line in this case.
And the reward of this loyalty (yes, I would call it loyalty)?
Trevor is looking elsewhere. Why?
I'd rather not think about it.
But season tickets reorders are due next week.
 

kindofgreen said:
punishing him based merely on an accusation, even if true, is taking judgment into our own hands just for the sake of appearances.
Click to expand...

This "punishing him" argument that people keep using is one of the things that bugs me about this whole thing. Although Mbakwe feels like he is being punished, in no way is that what the U is doing. He's in school, he's still on the team, and he has still kept his scholarship while serious charges against him are resolved. As has been pointed out numerous times, there's a clear policy that's being followed. The U certainly isn't responsible that this has been dragged out this long. The U has been fair to him, even if it turns out that life hasn't been fair for Trevor.

None of us knows what really happened, but rereading the account of the crime makes me wonder how people could argue to let him play. He's still innocent; but he's also still charged and the U is simply protecting itself. The sanctimonious "innocent until proven guilty" arguments are just about all a cover for "hey, he's a hell of a power forward, so what?"
 

Well, this puts to rest any ridiculous claims that Joel and/or Tubby are being unreasonable with this. If anything, Joel and Tubby should be commended for taking the position they have.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
The University didn't even have to allow him to enroll. By code, he was immediately suspended from any and all team activities. The U let him enroll. Maturi looked at the circumstances and then overruled the code and allowed him to practice with the team and sit on the bench for home games.

Apparently you're saying that the U's student code of conduct is wrong, and damn Minnesota for having any issue whatsoever if someone is charged with a felony. The reality is that Minnesota is not "taking judgment into our own hands" as you claim - rather, they are saying they want the appropriate folks (i.e., legal system) to make judgments before letting a guy take the court in a U of Minn uniform while on their dime.

The U made an exception to let Mbakwe participate as much as he has. This is not 'merely an accusation' - this is a serious matter in a criminal court, where life-changing charges have been filed and have been continued to be pursued for more than a year. This is very real.

When people are arrested for murder in Minneapolis, do you whine and say they should be able to walk the streets with $0 bail until and unless convicted? Or do you not 'err on the side of innocence' then?
Click to expand...

Do you have any links for this? I was only able to find:

http://gopheracademics.umn.edu/site/code_of_conduct

and

http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Code_of_Conduct.html

Which would seem to imply that things would be settled on a "case by case basis".
 

harrys ghost said:
Do you have any links for this? I was only able to find:

http://gopheracademics.umn.edu/site/code_of_conduct

and

http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Code_of_Conduct.html

Which would seem to imply that things would be settled on a "case by case basis".
Click to expand...

"C. Local, State and Federal Laws

Student-athletes who are alleged (including arrested or charged) to have broken local, state and federal laws will be subject to team and department sanctions upon a case by case review. Violations involving physical and/or sexual violence, use of illegal weapons, or driving while under the influence will be subject to immediate suspension from team activity pending further investigation....For the purposes of this code of conduct, suspension from the team means that student-athletes may not practice, compete or travel with any University of Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletics team....Exceptions to any of these terms may be made by the Athletics Director or his/her designee."

'Overruled' was perhaps not the best word choice by me as the Student-Athlete Code of Conduct generally gives the AD great discretion... but my point was that in order for Mbakwe to participate, Maturi had to act - absent Maturi's actions, Mbakwe would have remained suspended from the team per the Code, because of the nature of the charges (i.e., 'involving physical and/or sexual violence').
 

Maturi can be faulted for many things (Brewster, Brewster, Brewster and keeping Monson at least three years beyond the point when it was clear that he was not up to the job). However, his handling of Mbakwe, White and even Jimmy Williams has been correct. I think that he and Tubby are on the same side of at least the first two issues, at least to a certain extent. Looking at the big picture, he has maintained institutional control over a power coach (not painting Tubby as a bad guy--he's not-- but his focus is winning games) and, as far as we know, all of the teams in the department are clean.

People like to complain about him but his overall record, if you look at all of his responsibilities, is quite good.
 

jamiche said:
Maturi can be faulted for many things (Brewster, Brewster, Brewster and keeping Monson at least three years beyond the point when it was clear that he was not up to the job). However, his handling of Mbakwe, White and even Jimmy Williams has been correct. I think that he and Tubby are on the same side of at least the first two issues, at least to a certain extent. Looking at the big picture, he has maintained institutional control over a power coach (not painting Tubby as a bad guy--he's not-- but his focus is winning games) and, as far as we know, all of the teams in the department are clean.

People like to complain about him but his overall record, if you look at all of his responsibilities, is quite good.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. I agree that he has handled the White/Mbakwe/Williams situations correctly. None of them have been easy situations to deal with, but I think he has done it correctly. The one thing that has bothered me about his dealing with them is the way he seems to vacillate and hesitate to make some of these tough decisions...I wish he'd be more authoritative.

I had high hopes for Brewster, and even though things haven't worked out really well so far, I think he was probably worth the chance. I think Maturi could have done a few things differently, though, in terms of hiring coordinators and putting controls on Timmy. I also think his handling of the Monson and Mason situations could have hardly been worse, and were part of the reason he needed to hire Brewster in the first place.
 

jamiche said:
Maturi can be faulted for many things (Brewster, Brewster, Brewster and keeping Monson at least three years beyond the point when it was clear that he was not up to the job). However, his handling of Mbakwe, White and even Jimmy Williams has been correct. I think that he and Tubby are on the same side of at least the first two issues, at least to a certain extent. Looking at the big picture, he has maintained institutional control over a power coach (not painting Tubby as a bad guy--he's not-- but his focus is winning games) and, as far as we know, all of the teams in the department are clean.

People like to complain about him but his overall record, if you look at all of his responsibilities, is quite good.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the fact that the U is out $1.25M and counting in the Jimmy Williams deal indicates that the situation was not handled correctly. If Tubby does not have hire/fire authority, which it is clear he does not, that should have been made clear to him up front.
 

I believe it is apparent that TM enrolled at the U of M in order to play basketball. It has been pointed out that the code of conduct could have been used to prevent his enrolling. Trevor has stated that he would not have enrolled here if he had known he would be prevented from playing. In fairness to him he should have been told that he would not have been allowed to play before enrolling. He then could have found a school which would not have found it necessary to treat him as guilty until proven otherwise in order to protect its reputation and the U would have had one less distracting mess to deal with.
 

harrys ghost said:
I would argue that the fact that the U is out $1.25M and counting in the Jimmy Williams deal indicates that the situation was not handled correctly. If Tubby does not have hire/fire authority, which it is clear he does not, that should have been made clear to him up front.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't have final hire/fire authority. He reports to the AD who reports to the president. That's called institutional control. The Jimmy Williams fiasco was on Tubby.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
I tried reading some of the article's comments without puking. Eventually I failed, but really it sounds much like Minnesota fans did last year -- mostly nonsense: "ooh, she's probably lying", "innocent until proven guilty", "give him a chance"... with a few sane posts mixed in between.

The article itself was fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...

I don't remember any Gopher fans on this board accusing her of lying. Several posters rightfully pointed out that personal identifications in criminal cases are notorious for being erroneous. This is especially true when when the ID runs across racial lines (which may or may not be the case here). Here's a link to 60 Minutes story.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/06/60minutes/main4848039_page5.shtml
 

Speedy Trial.

The Sixth-Amendment right to a speedy trial encompasses three goals: to prevent unnecessary incarceration before trial; to lessen the anxiety that attends public accusation; and to limit the ways in which delay might hinder preparation of the defense. The defendant must invoke the right, which attaches only after the prosecution has accused someone of a crime. Lower courts have generally held that trials should be held within six to eight months of the charges; undue delay before an accusation violates the due-process clause (U.S. v. Lovasco, 1977). In adjudicating speedy trial claims, the Supreme Court has developed a three-part test that considers the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the defendant (Barker v. Wingo, 1972). Though the remedy for a violation of the speedy-trial right is dismissal of the case with prejudice, Barker and other cases provide ample flexibility for trial-court justices to balance the competing interests at stake.

Barker stated that the length of time within which trials must commence is a matter of legislative discretion. Following Barker, Congress passed the 1974 Federal Speedy Trial Act, which covers only federal cases. The act requires district courts to develop plans for trying cases within one hundred days of arrest or a summons. Within a decade, over two-thirds of the states had passed similar legislation. The federal and state laws are riddled with exceptions, and courts are reluctant to exact the ultimate remedy. The defendant must show that undue delay is intentional; and commentators point out that the laws’ provisions constantly rub up against the institutionalized delay that is endemic to the system.

Read more: Fair Trial, Criminal - Impartiality., Speedy Trial., The Right to Confront Witnesses., Prejudicial Publicity and Cameras in Court http://law.jrank.org/pages/18569/Fair-Trial-Criminal.html#ixzz0q893MyDv

The Right to Confront Witnesses.

The right to a fair trial also embraces the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The accused also has a right to be informed of the charges against him, in language with sufficient specificity to allow him to be able to prepare a defense (Douglas v. Alabama, 1965). Another preliminary right in this regard is the right to be present at one’s trial, which means the right to be mentally competent and physically present at each critical stage in the trial process. The right may be waived, however, except in capital cases. And defendants may also be removed from the courtroom for disruptive or abusive behavior. The defendant may waive the right to be present, but only if the trial court informs him or her of the potential consequences (Taylor v. U.S., 1973).

Read more: Fair Trial, Criminal - Impartiality., Speedy Trial., The Right to Confront Witnesses., Prejudicial Publicity and Cameras in Court http://law.jrank.org/pages/18569/Fair-Trial-Criminal.html#ixzz0q89Fm3Zf
 

Spot-on column. Makes perfect sense. Well done Mr. Calkins (except for calling Maturi "Joe") .
 

jamiche said:
Of course he doesn't have final hire/fire authority. He reports to the AD who reports to the president. That's called institutional control. The Jimmy Williams fiasco was on Tubby.
Click to expand...

Gee, too bad they couldn't convince a jury of that. :rolleyes:
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom