Seth Green
- Thread starter XMan
- Start date
Nobody has been charged
fmlizard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,908
- Reaction score
- 6,587
- Points
- 113
Good question. What was Antonio Shenault's role that he got probation and everyone else got the book thrown at them? Wondering just how involved some of the expanded group was, and if that sense of injustice was fueling the boycott.
I'm sure we've all noticed too that the most promising players in this bunch like Shenault, Winfield, Green were in the expanded group. Hardin's the only one in the core group who was likely a big part of the future plans.
I'm sure we've all noticed too that the most promising players in this bunch like Shenault, Winfield, Green were in the expanded group. Hardin's the only one in the core group who was likely a big part of the future plans.
stocker08
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2009
- Messages
- 36,691
- Reaction score
- 20,977
- Points
- 113
My guess is he provided the statement saying that the women involved "didn't seem like she was into it".......which helps provide the narrative that the EOAA wanted to push.
Iceland12
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,542
- Reaction score
- 2,310
- Points
- 113
That was kind of the reason the protest happened in the 1st place. A number of players who were not involved, 4-6(?) were being lumped-in wth the 4-5 who were literally directed involved with the sexual conduct. The main request was to get those players reinstated.
Read Ruesse's column. The campaign wasn't aimed at the Frat Boys who have no fear of being caught or railroaded.
Now it's turned into " good, back to basics", "get them all out of here" or "YES! Another reason to fire Claeys!"
The only difference now is the players got at least a promise of "due process" and the fire Claeys crowd gets to act a little indignant.
Brent4Liberty
New member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
I don't think he was charged with a crime but for some reason he was lumped in on the title 9 investigation
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
oh.
die hard gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 9,273
- Reaction score
- 818
- Points
- 113
From a KSPT report, it sounded as if Shenault was the one who wasn't even there but I'd be pretty pleased if Seth was the one who wasn't there. I was the most disappointed to see Seth's name of the 10 players as I consider him the highest character guy of that bunch, or at least he is in a position where he needs to be the highest character guy around. Really hope he wasn't there.
MNfootballfan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 2,295
- Reaction score
- 909
- Points
- 113
In the police report it said green was sober and may have knew who was in the apartment. Didn't sound like him or Winfield did anything?
GoGophersUMN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 333
- Points
- 83
Not sure who is who but it looks like the most controversial punishment is of player A9 (page 77 on the report if anyone is interested).
He claimed that he went to play video games with another accused player somewhere in Radius that wasn't involved with the incident but that he never stepped into the 2 apartments in question. The player who player A9 claimed to play video games with doesn't remember that happening. A non-accused player said that player A9 slept overnight in one of the apartments in question but not the one where the main incident occurred. One of the victim's friends also claimed that she saw player A9 in that same apartment looking at a phone. The victim doesn't remember the player being there but looked at the the player's picture online and later said that she thinks he might have been there.
The EOAA said that they do not think he committed sexual assault or sexual harassment, but that he did lie to investigators. They believe that he was there in one of the apartments (but not the one where the incident occurred) and that he lied by saying that he wasn't. They think that by not admitting to being there and naming other players who were there, he made the investigation much harder.
Not sure if it's him or what punishment they assigned to him, but it seems like they decided that he lied when the evidence was very inconclusive.
He claimed that he went to play video games with another accused player somewhere in Radius that wasn't involved with the incident but that he never stepped into the 2 apartments in question. The player who player A9 claimed to play video games with doesn't remember that happening. A non-accused player said that player A9 slept overnight in one of the apartments in question but not the one where the main incident occurred. One of the victim's friends also claimed that she saw player A9 in that same apartment looking at a phone. The victim doesn't remember the player being there but looked at the the player's picture online and later said that she thinks he might have been there.
The EOAA said that they do not think he committed sexual assault or sexual harassment, but that he did lie to investigators. They believe that he was there in one of the apartments (but not the one where the incident occurred) and that he lied by saying that he wasn't. They think that by not admitting to being there and naming other players who were there, he made the investigation much harder.
Not sure if it's him or what punishment they assigned to him, but it seems like they decided that he lied when the evidence was very inconclusive.
Spoofin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 39,474
- Reaction score
- 18,517
- Points
- 113
Not sure who A9 is but this summary outlines the bias of this report that some are willing to overlook. No one should be suspended because the EOAA finds it "likely" they knew something about something that hasn't been proven to have happened. We need to start separating some of these 10 and concentrating on the due process this kangaroo court ignores.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Couldn't agree more. The EOAA has evolved into a kangaroo court that conducts witch hunts. From listening to Pat this morning, their report that came out last year in the StarTribune, may have contributed to Coach Kill's health demise.
Winnipegopher
Wag more, bark less
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,582
- Reaction score
- 108
- Points
- 63
Yes, now that the report has been released, they need to put in the player's names. It is unfair to those minimally involved.
GoGophersUMN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,073
- Reaction score
- 333
- Points
- 83
Agreed. People are acting like all 10 players are in the same situation. They aren't.
5 players allegedly committed sexual assault. They deserve a right to a fair hearing but they're in a lot of trouble no matter what.
4 players did not touch the woman (as far as we know) but were allegedly in the room when the alleged sexual assault happened. They certainly should have done something to stop it if they were there, but a 1 year suspension for just that is completely unfair.
1 player allegedly lied about the players who were allegedly in the room when the alleged sexual assault happened. He got either 1 year of probation or 1 year of suspension. Either is way too harsh when the situation is so unclear.
People need to get it out of their heads that the players were mainly the first five.
The less directly involved would also be better served by having a different lawyer than the lawyer representing the more centrally involved players. If one of my kids were on the fringe of what happened, I sure as heck would not want him represented by the same guy representing the core group. The players do not all have the same interests, and if they were smart, they would not all have the same lawyer.
UpnorthGo4
Science Denial Denier
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,193
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
All 10 will get a hearing with the opportunity to be heard and with the right of appeal. Those are their due process rights.
If any player lied to the police or EOAA investigators that is a punishable violation of the Student Code of Conduct.
The players who were charged but didn't participate in the sex were charged with sexual harassment and other violations of the Code of Conduct relating to their conduct while they were in the apartment. I don't think they would have been charged if they didn't open the door to the bedroom to watch and comment about what was going on. That is considered sexual harassment and an invasion of the girl's right of privacy.
Players A7 and A10 was the only players not charged with a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. Apparently, they went to the apartment and left without participating in or watching and commenting on the sexual activity which would have been sexual harassment.
This seems to be the next big question that everybody is fighting about.
What sort of University punishment should one of these players get if they were fully aware that this was happening, may (or let's say may not, in this case) have been in the periphery while it was happening, deleted a bunch of incriminating stuff from their phone afterwards, and then lied during questioning for the investigation? Nothing? 3 Months Suspension? 12 Months Suspension? Expulsion? Depends On Whether They Are Projected To Be A Starter?
Maybe this can be the next, saddest, and crappiest to date, somehow, Gopherhole Poll.
What sort of University punishment should one of these players get if they were fully aware that this was happening, may (or let's say may not, in this case) have been in the periphery while it was happening, deleted a bunch of incriminating stuff from their phone afterwards, and then lied during questioning for the investigation? Nothing? 3 Months Suspension? 12 Months Suspension? Expulsion? Depends On Whether They Are Projected To Be A Starter?
Maybe this can be the next, saddest, and crappiest to date, somehow, Gopherhole Poll.
Depends on if you can prove they knew or f you think they "probably knew"
MissouriGopher
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2014
- Messages
- 415
- Reaction score
- 139
- Points
- 43
Seems like an easy defense for the accusation of lying. Their lawyer can argue that the interviews were conducted a month+ after the incident, the players hadn't thought of it in awhile, and they were put in a stressful situation without the opportunity to speak with a lawyer to collect their thoughts. But IANAL so I could be mistaken.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mnsportsgeek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 13,760
- Reaction score
- 2,208
- Points
- 113
This is what I keep thinking about.
If the report is true, 5 players should be in jail. Not just expelled, IMO.
But the other 5 players have a legitimate argument. Are they golden boys in all of this? Certainly not. But I can see why they may feel cheated.
UpnorthGo4
Science Denial Denier
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,193
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
The EOAA only charged one player who wasn't in the apartment that night. That was player A9. He was charged with lying about not being in another apartment that night and obstructing the EOAA's investigation.
Spoofin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 39,474
- Reaction score
- 18,517
- Points
- 113
Well, again, that was inferred in the "opinionated" report under the "likely" category. As much as you want that as fact, it just isn't fact. I feel the EOAA could feed you anything and you would eat it. After all, didn't you declare the day <I>before</I> the report was even released that you "sure weren't going to believe a group of football players over this girl". At least you had an open mind.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like they say, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Pompous Elitist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 23,573
- Reaction score
- 7,514
- Points
- 113
"Probably knew" what? That at hasn't been established or proven.
That's exactly my point
UpnorthGo4
Science Denial Denier
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 5,193
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 36
The EOAA talked to all of the players and many other witnesses. It is all detailed in the report. Maybe you should read it. While you are at it you should also educate yourself about administrative hearings and due process. We will all benefit from it. You are one of the numerous posters who always spouting off your opinion while providing very little information to back it up. It may work in GopherHole but not so well in real life.
Pompous Elitist
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2013
- Messages
- 23,573
- Reaction score
- 7,514
- Points
- 113
I've read it in great detail. The girl has hopelessly compromised memory and almost framed Kiondre in all this.
The investigator repeatedly injected her own thoughts and inferences into what she was told. There are no transcripts or interviews available.
It's been well-established that the bar for conviction is absurdly low in this non-legal proceeding that egregiously labels people as committing serious crimes. It is a travesty of supposed justice that anyone that has taken the time to educate themselves about (legal scholars) say should end.
Spoofin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2013
- Messages
- 39,474
- Reaction score
- 18,517
- Points
- 113
Well, you addressed absolutely nothing in my post and said some random things that you somehow deemed clever. Maybe they were clever for you. Who knows. You are a real asset to this board.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Say buddy, are you aware that your e and t keys are sticking?