All Things Gopher Players Appeals Process

Donate To GopherHole
Dean S said:
You people have no clue how memory works, at all. Memory is not real. It is not stored as a single, stable idea. It is malleable and dynamic. So, if she said 15 minutes ago that she was drunk and 15 seconds ago said she was sober, it is technically possible that both memories are perceived as true by the speaker. Memory is not a fact.
Click to expand...

So, do you still think they should all still be gone?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bizzle22 said:
I'm not coming at this from the perspective that her story is perfect. It's not. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to say she is lying about the whole thing. It is very possible that no sexual assault occurred and she still believes she was sexually assaulted. Those two are not mutually exclusive. People get that, right? I take issue with anyone who calls her an outright liar.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point.
 


bizzle22 said:
Look, I think the EOAA report is clearly biased and shouldn't be taken as fact. But to dismiss it altogether is silly.
Click to expand...

This is part of the reason why the process of the EoAA is so bad for everyone, including the victim. The EoAA was written like an argument from her attorney. I'm not even talking about all of the content, just the style of it. Her actions are explained away (at times rightfully so), when they discussed her internal dialogue. The actions of the players were stated matter-of-factly.

So when the report reads like her mouthpiece and her credibility is questioned (lies or misremembering), it's hard to give it a whole lot of weight. I know it has no teeth, but especially in light of the police reports (which didn't read like a biased argument).

If the EoAA would have done their job correctly (I get that this is my opinion), their report wouldn't be so easily dismissed by people. It's their fault. IMO.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
My quick take: today's outcome suggests that the U had at least some justification for the suspensions of the original group of 5.

BUT - it also suggests that the U screwed up by adding the second group of 5. Those players had their names, pictures - and yes, their reputations, splashed across the media. A lot of people, including several on this board, concluded that they were "rapists," or at the very least, had committed violations serious enough to require suspensions.

Whoever at the U - Coyle, Kaler, etc, made the decision to suspend the second group of 5 should be facing some serious questioning from the Board of Regents.

If the story had started and ended with the first group of 5, this would not have become such a big story, or become so heated on the Hole and media in general. The second group of 5 was overreach by the U, and someone should have to answer for it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely accurate. As this is what was very likely perceived by the rest of the team which directly lead to the threat of a bowl boycott.
 


Ozzy&Ray said:
The girl has allegedly now admitted consensual sex with numerous players. If true, should those players still be expelled?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yep


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Wrong. The EOAA makes recommendations based on their investigation. Nothing more. The EOAA has not been involved since they completed their investigation. There has been a fundamental misunderstanding about the Title IX and Student Code of Conduct disciplinary process in GopherHole from the very beginning. Some of us have tried to correct that for some time but have been completely blown off by the fanboys who decided what happened back in September and haven't changed their opinions since.
Click to expand...

This is what you call "going down with the ship."
 

Spoofin said:
You are right. But now we have strayed from the drunk/not drunk topic, haven't we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The whole point of the drunk/not drunk topic is that even if she said she was drunk and then she said she wasn't it still doesn't mean she is lying.
 

Ozzy&Ray said:
You're not ok with Winfield, Green, & McCrary being cleared?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The committee which heard a lot more evidence than we have cleared them. They have also been cleared by police. That is good enough for me. I would definitely say I'm okay with them being cleared. I'm sure not everyone will be able to do it, but in my mind they have a clean slate. I'm happy they are Gophers!
 



MissouriGopher said:
No. The punishment stands if they choose not to defend themselves. Just like a default judgement in a court of law. The hearing was the first step. Now they (the accused and accuser) can file an appeal with the provost.

And for those telling me to read the cover letter, I've read the whole report.
Click to expand...

This is nothing like that. I'm trying hard to see the analogy you're drawing and I can't. You understand what a default judgment is? Are you a lawyer?
 

bizzle22 said:
The whole point of the drunk/not drunk topic is that even if she said she was drunk and then she said she wasn't it still doesn't mean she is lying.
Click to expand...

I'm confused.

My point was that she did lie about being/not being drunk. My point was never that she lied about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

bizzle22 said:
If you disagree that is fine. I don't believe it does. You took 6 shots 2 hours ago. Are you drunk? Would get different answers from different people.

I also agree with Shenault being cleared based on the poor questioning from the EOAA. (Just so you know I'm not really on one side over the other.) Can you guarantee me that they didn't also ask her a confusing question about her level of intoxication?
Click to expand...

She stated she was drunk numerous times in the report. She said she was still really drunk when they went up to the apartment. If she did truly say she was not drunk (at the hearing) well that's just another in a long line of inconsistencies and recovered memories. I see no reason why Hutton would make this one item up as the hearing was recorded and easily cross-checked and he could certainly just make up other things that would put her story in even greater doubt.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is part of the reason why the process of the EoAA is so bad for everyone, including the victim. The EoAA was written like an argument from her attorney. I'm not even talking about all of the content, just the style of it. Her actions are explained away (at times rightfully so), when they discussed her internal dialogue. The actions of the players were stated matter-of-factly.

So when the report reads like her mouthpiece and her credibility is questioned (lies or misremembering), it's hard to give it a whole lot of weight. I know it has no teeth, but especially in light of the police reports (which didn't read like a biased argument).

If the EoAA would have done their job correctly (I get that this is my opinion), their report wouldn't be so easily dismissed by people. It's their fault. IMO.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. The EOAA report did not help anyone for a variety of reasons.
 



Spoofin said:
I'm confused.

My point was that she did lie about being/not being drunk. My point was never that she lied about everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well I guess we are at a stalemate. Agree to disagree.
 

bizzle22 said:
So she thought about it more and decided that maybe she wasn't drunk. She's willing to admit that. So if she thought about it, decided she might not have been drunk, and continued to claim she was drunk then she's not a liar? I guess I don't fault someone for reflecting on a situation and determining things weren't exactly how she thought they were. Should we not believe her that some of those encounters were consensual? You can't pick and choose which parts to believe.
Click to expand...

Memory is indeed malleable. That can explain why she initially said she wasn't sure it was rape, then she thought it was after discussing it with her mother and likely her lawyer, a specialist in victim advocacy. Don't forget her mother called the police and facilitated the interview process.

Memory can be shaped by therapists, friends, and family long after the fact. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable and open to the power of suggestion.

This is why enerally more evidence than just "she said so" should be required when assessing multi-million dollar damages against young men.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Many GopherHolers think the girl is lying based on very little information other than their own biases and desire to see the U win more football games. I think many of the players are lying based on 80 pages of evidence in the EOAA report and my own knowledge and intuition about male behavior when they are caught doing something bad or illegal. I have only met one person in my life who I believe wouldn't lie to try to avoid the possible loss of a college scholarship and maybe a pro football career. And that includes myself.

I like my opinion compared to the fanboys in GopherHole who said the girl was lying back in September and haven't changed their opinion since even though the EOAA report has a mountain of evidence against the players. Not one of them has been willing to even consider the possibility that any of the players might be lying to save their necks. It is hypocrisy and dishonesty of the worst kind.
Click to expand...

You're really good at hyperbole. Remember, you said young men can't help themselves when in these type of situations so they all have to be guilty. You also said there is no reason not to believe everything in the EOAA report. You're the ultimate hypocrite.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Memory is indeed malleable. That can explain why she initially said she wasn't sure it was rape, then she thought it was after discussing it with her mother and likely her lawyer, a specialist in victim advocacy. Don't forget her mother called the police and facilitated the interview process.

Memory can be shaped by therapists, friends, and family long after the fact. Eyewitness reports are notoriously unreliable and open to the power of suggestion.

This is why enerally more evidence than just "she said so" should be required when assessing multi-million dollar damages against young men.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying her story is perfect (it's obviously not), but I am saying that I don't like the concept of calling her a liar. I don't believe she would go through all of this just to get these players in trouble. This has definitely been he!! on the players and their reputations, but make no mistake, people know who she is and her reputation has suffered as well. The lawsuits are an unfortunate part of it, but it doesn't mean she should stop telling what she believes to be the truth.
 

bizzle22 said:
Again, I'm not saying her story is perfect (it's obviously not), but I am saying that I don't like the concept of calling her a liar. I don't believe she would go through all of this just to get these players in trouble. This has definitely been he!! on the players and their reputations, but make no mistake, people know who she is and her reputation has suffered as well. The lawsuits are an unfortunate part of it, but it doesn't mean she should stop telling what she believes to be the truth.
Click to expand...

Because you disagree with the process, it does not mean you are calling her a liar. A process that supports finding of truth and fact actually protects the alleged victim.
 


I just have to ask this one question...not at all taking sides on this but I have a real issue with the fact that the victim reported...or at least the media did, that it was 10+ players. It just made things that much worse for the program, the U, and certainly the victim (especially with reports of some degree of consent). Now it sounds like the conclusion of the EOAA was that it was only 4 or maybe 5? (conflicting numbers reported by media/and on here)

Does anyone else have issues with this?
 

I don't understand the attorney/client relationship during this process. I realize the the process was not a court of law, but all of the rules seemed goofy. Suppose one of the accused couldn't afford an attorney? Hutton indicated the U of M was making sure the players were being charged retail price.
Does that mean if a player couldn't have afforded representation, they'd be on their own? I don't suspect there is the equivalent of a court appointed attorney, is there?
Could it be possible that a young, poor college student who is innocent could be hung to dry because he didn't have the fees to pay for an attorney?
 


bizzle22 said:
Again, I'm not saying her story is perfect (it's obviously not), but I am saying that I don't like the concept of calling her a liar. I don't believe she would go through all of this just to get these players in trouble. This has definitely been he!! on the players and their reputations, but make no mistake, people know who she is and her reputation has suffered as well. The lawsuits are an unfortunate part of it, but it doesn't mean she should stop telling what she believes to be the truth.
Click to expand...

She told the police she didn't want anyone to get in trouble.
 


CurveballJesus said:
Not trying to be Buzz Killington here, but the young woman still has the option of appealing the decision to the provost. She may want it to just be done, but there will be a lot of pressure on her to keep it going since it has gotten so much publicity
Click to expand...

Ugh! Buzz! What the Hell man! Can't we just have this for a day or two?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

GopherBulldog said:
Because you disagree with the process, it does not mean you are calling her a liar. A process that supports finding of truth and fact actually protects the alleged victim.
Click to expand...

Honestly, as long as you aren't calling her a liar we are at least on the same page. The process isn't perfect by any means, but I don't think the whole thing needs to be blown up. I've previously outlined the changes I would make
 

WoodburyTim said:
She told the police she didn't want anyone to get in trouble.
Click to expand...
This is the most mind-boggling part of it. Why not go to your priest, pastor, therapist or some other confidant, if you don't want to get anyone in trouble, but don't want to bear the burden alone?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 

bizzle22 said:
So you agree?
Click to expand...

I agree that we shouldn't call her a liar, but that statement points to things getting a little out of her control. If she didn't want these people to get in trouble, then the next logical question is, what did she want? If you want the players to be accountable, I can understand that , but in her own words that wasn't the point, so what was it?
 

bizzle22 said:
Again, I'm not saying her story is perfect (it's obviously not), but I am saying that I don't like the concept of calling her a liar. I don't believe she would go through all of this just to get these players in trouble. This has definitely been he!! on the players and their reputations, but make no mistake, people know who she is and her reputation has suffered as well. The lawsuits are an unfortunate part of it, but it doesn't mean she should stop telling what she believes to be the truth.
Click to expand...

You surely understand reputation preservation is a motive for lying.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom