1500 ESPN and Paul McEnroe from Ch 5

Donate To GopherHole
MaxyJR1

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
11,686
Reaction score
5,919
Points
113
He is on right now and hopefully someone will be able to get a link to it and podcast later. He has read and is breaking down the 82 page EOAA report. Started at 11:30am.

-It's Coded and does not use names. Police report uses names.
-Graphic and Dark
-Contrasts to Police Report
-EOAA report comes to conclusions, opinions, recommendations. He says calling it opinionated is being kind.
-2-3 players who did not have contact likely knew about it and lied when asked. Violation of Code.
-Many gray areas around consent. Woman took notes and texted people after the incident and called police.

Channel 5 will be putting the full police report and EOAA report on their site this afternoon for public consumption.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
He is on right now and hopefully someone will be able to get a link to it and podcast later. He has read and is breaking down the 82 page EOAA report. Started at 11:30am.

-It's Coded and does not use names. Police report uses names.
-Graphic and Dark
-Contrasts to Police Report
-EOAA report comes to conclusions, opinions, recommendations
-2-3 players who did not have contact likely knew about it and lied when asked. Violation of Code.
-Many gray areas around consent. Woman took notes and texted people after the incident and called police.

Channel 5 will be putting the full police report and EOAA report on their site this afternoon for public consumption.
Click to expand...

"Likely knew and lied when asked." Can the EOAA prove that?
 

I'm still unclear on the EOAA process where they come up with "recommendations" but then the players are immediately suspended.

That sounds like a weird process.
 

Well this may provide some of the answers we want.
 

tikited said:
"Likely knew and lied when asked." Can the EOAA prove that?
Click to expand...

That was the reporters speculation on why they are involved. Someone at some point connected them to the event.
 




<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Yes he did. The report says that a player heard the woman say no or stop.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
That was the reporters speculation on why they are involved. Someone at some point connected them to the event.
Click to expand...

And were able to prove they lied? I have questions about how the EOAA can be 100% certain of this. Innocent till proven guilty must not matter anymore. Even if all the others did lie... it should have to be proven so/not based on assumptions, gut feelings, context clues, etc..
 



MaxyJR1 said:
He is on right now and hopefully someone will be able to get a link to it and podcast later. He has read and is breaking down the 82 page EOAA report. Started at 11:30am.

-It's Coded and does not use names. Police report uses names.
-Graphic and Dark
-Contrasts to Police Report
-EOAA report comes to conclusions, opinions, recommendations. He says calling it opinionated is being kind.
-2-3 players who did not have contact likely knew about it and lied when asked. Violation of Code.
-Many gray areas around consent. Woman took notes and texted people after the incident and called police.

Channel 5 will be putting the full police report and EOAA report on their site this afternoon for public consumption.
Click to expand...

It's also very important to note that the Hennepin County police did NOT release the video recordings to the EOAA. They made their report without a very key piece of evidence, one that likely prevented criminal charges.
 

tikited said:
And were able to prove they lied? I have questions about how the EOAA can be 100% certain of this. Innocent till proven guilty must not matter anymore. Even if all the others did lie... it should have to be proven so/not based on assumptions, gut feelings, context clues, etc..
Click to expand...

The EOAA doesn't have to be 100% certain. That standard is for the criminal courts. It has been mentioned several dozen times during the last 24 yours that non-criminal administrative hearings (where possible prison time is not involved) have much lesser standard of proof.

The standard in non-criminal hearing is "preponderance of the evidence". The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
 

Pewterschmidt said:
It's also very important to note that the Hennepin County police did NOT release the video recordings to the EOAA. They made their report without a very key piece of evidence, one that likely prevented criminal charges.
Click to expand...

What prevented criminal charges was that the video only showed 2 or 3 minutes of the 90 minutes of sexual activity. The police did NOT clear the players of criminal wrongdoing. They only they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

Pewterschmidt said:
It's also very important to note that the Hennepin County police did NOT release the video recordings to the EOAA. They made their report without a very key piece of evidence, one that likely prevented criminal charges.
Click to expand...

The video was 90 seconds of a 90 minute episode
 



What a Mess!!

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
 

If the EOAA uncovered new evidence, do they not have a duty to turn it over to the police?

Its not a university issue at that point, it's back to being a criminal issue.
 

cjcarter8 said:
If the EOAA uncovered new evidence, do they not have a duty to turn it over to the police?

Its not a university issue at that point, it's back to being a criminal issue.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question.

But if it is all about lies as other folks have indicated, it may not be relevant to the real courts... at the same time, that's for the cops to decide....
 

cjcarter8 said:
If the EOAA uncovered new evidence, do they not have a duty to turn it over to the police?

Its not a university issue at that point, it's back to being a criminal issue.
Click to expand...

Reporter said that evidence is likely too muddy at this point to go back. The criminal part was dropped basically because they didn't think they could convict. That doesn't mean that any wrong doings didn't happen
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon said:
That's an interesting question.

But if it is all about lies as other folks have indicated, it may not be relevant to the real courts... at the same time, that's for the cops to decide....
Click to expand...

Paul McEnroe said it is unlikely the police will take up the criminal investigation again because the case and evidence have been "tainted".
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Paul McEnroe said it is unlikely the police will take up the criminal investigation again because the case and evidence have been "tainted".
Click to expand...

Maybe, but who gets to decide that?

I find evidence "naw they won't want this".... is that the right call?
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
What prevented criminal charges was that the video only showed 2 or 3 minutes of the 90 minutes of sexual activity. The police did NOT clear the players of criminal wrongdoing. They only they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

The police haven't "cleared" you of sexual assault either. So I guess....
 

Couldn't Djam turn over the video? Or were they even part of the investigation?
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The EOAA doesn't have to be 100% certain. That standard is for the criminal courts. It has been mentioned several dozen times during the last 24 yours that non-criminal administrative hearings (where possible prison time is not involved) have much lesser standard of proof.

The standard in non-criminal hearing is "preponderance of the evidence". The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
Click to expand...

Yes, we thank you for continually pointing out what the process is. Many are questioning that process.
 

So removing yourself and not being a party to the incident by leaving is lying.

tikited said:
"Likely knew and lied when asked." Can the EOAA prove that?
Click to expand...

How can they prove this likely knew about conduct and lied about at least three of the individuals, one that wasn't there (this is opinion based, hard to bear out by facts, and witnesses of at least three people accused disagree, when professional investigators didn't conclude that in interviews of witnesses. The lack of being allowed a hearing on your side as an individual basis and to be able to defend yourself before the suspensions of at least five people is troubling to me. People that have been wrongfully, or rightfully accused have the right to defend themselves against these accusations of violations of the code of conduct. The University of Minnesota has had a pile of code of conduct violations, sexual misconduct by students, including those Fraternity members(That Dayton intern person) that was not acted upon in the same manner as this situation likely because it didn't involve athletics. President Kaler made this decision, to suspend based on recommendations of the EoAA, again without due process of the students to defend themselves against this, preponderance of the evidence thing. I don't like that they announced these suspensions to the media without the formal hearing process taking place. They could have suspended these players from the bowl game for violation of team rules and left it at that, for me that is what should have been done. Limiting comment on this Title IX investigation in athletics until the appeal process and the final formal disciplinary action had taken place should have been the prudent thing to do.
 


tikited said:
And were able to prove they lied? I have questions about how the EOAA can be 100% certain of this. Innocent till proven guilty must not matter anymore. Even if all the others did lie... it should have to be proven so/not based on assumptions, gut feelings, context clues, etc..
Click to expand...

What if Player A says he wasn't there, but Players B, C, D, E, and F say he was. Someone has to be lying, right? I'm not saying this is what happens, but it doesn't seem to be worth speculating how they came to their conclusions when the report is supposedly going to be available shortly.
 

justthefacts said:
What if Player A says he wasn't there, but Players B, C, D, E, and F say he was. Someone has to be lying, right? I'm not saying this is what happens, but it doesn't seem to be worth speculating how they came to their conclusions when the report is supposedly going to be available shortly.
Click to expand...

Because the memories of individuals as witnesses are commonly flawed. Hands up don't shoot? Not all the people who incorrectly said that they saw that were lying.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
What prevented criminal charges was that the video only showed 2 or 3 minutes of the 90 minutes of sexual activity. The police did NOT clear the players of criminal wrongdoing. They only they didn't have enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this but it isn't true. You need probable cause to charge someone.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The EOAA doesn't have to be 100% certain. That standard is for the criminal courts. It has been mentioned several dozen times during the last 24 yours that non-criminal administrative hearings (where possible prison time is not involved) have much lesser standard of proof.

The standard in non-criminal hearing is "preponderance of the evidence". The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence
Click to expand...

You should jump over to the other thread where it talks about the threshold for arrest is merely probable cause, which is lower than preponderance of the evidence. They were not arrested.
 

cjcarter8 said:
If the EOAA uncovered new evidence, do they not have a duty to turn it over to the police?

Its not a university issue at that point, it's back to being a criminal issue.
Click to expand...

It appears that once the investigation is complete they generate reports for the Clery Act crime statistics. I don't know if this could be gathered by the authorities to choose to prosecute or not.
 

I have not been 'cleared' by police in this matter yet either so I must be guilty too.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom