Accused ex-Gophers do documentary on the alleged gang rape, get ripped for smirking

Apparently this needs to be said again:

If the players are telling the truth, the woman was a willing participant.

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

but - unless you were there and you know 1st-hand what happened, there is a possibility that the players are telling the truth. there is also a possibility that the players are lying. that's why these cases are so hard to prove in court.

Now, in the court of public opinion, group sex seems icky to a lot of people, whether it was consensual or not. But I don't presume to judge other people's lifestyles or behavior. If someone feels they are qualified or justified to pass judgement on other people, that's your thing.

Again, first, let's not think that because more than one person testifies on one side, does not mean it is more believable, especially when they are co-defendants. And, the only person in the room that can say if she consented is the accuser. And, in her testimony, she never did. Doesn't matter what the men said at all. The only question that remains is whether there is any evidence which backs up her position. The only evidence that is available that suggests no legal consent occurred is the alcohol. According to state law, consent may not be granted held up when alcohol is involved. Very long standing history in the courts regarding this principle.

I pass judgement on people without a court granting me permission every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It is American as apple pie and yogurt parfaits.

The Founders gave Americans the right to have jury trials for a reason, because they trusted the publics judgement on matters of law. So, judging people is a good attribute to have, not a bad one. Or, there would be no reason at all for juries to exist.
 
Last edited:

Again, first, let's not think that because more than one person testifies on one side, does not mean it is more believable, especially when they are co-defendants. And, the only person in the room that can say if she consented is the accuser. And, in her testimony, she never did. Doesn't matter what the men said at all. The only question that remains is whether there is any evidence which backs up her position. The only evidence that is available that suggests no legal consent occurred is the alcohol. According to state law, consent may not be granted held up when alcohol is involved. Very long standing history in the courts regarding this principle.

I pass judgement on people without a court granting me permission every day of the week and twice on Sunday. It is American as apple pie and yogurt parfaits.

The Founders gave Americans the right to have jury trials for a reason, because they trusted the publics judgement on matters of law. So, judging people is a good attribute to have, not a bad one. Or, there would be no reason at all for juries to exist.

I think it was also basically proven from both the video tape and from the amount the accuser herself said she had - that she wasn’t drunk. But please, carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I think it was also basically proven from both the video tape and from the amount the accuser herself said she had - that she wasn’t drunk. But please, carry on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is right, you can tell by looking at someone. That is why a breath alcohol test should have been administered by the police, but they didn't do this basic police work. Very trustworthy of them to protect the accused by failing to do this very simple police work. And, what do you know of the law of the land and a BAT test? Next to nothing by your brilliant deduction that alcohol can be judged by a video tape.
 

That is right, you can tell by looking at someone. That is why a breath alcohol test should have been administered by the police, but they didn't do this basic police work. Very trustworthy of them to protect the accused by failing to do this very simple police work. And, what do you know of the law of the land and a BAT test? Next to nothing by your brilliant deduction that alcohol can be judged by a video tape.

Video tape and listening to the accuser on the amount/timeframe she drank may not prove she wasn’t drunk definitively, but it is evidence to suggest she wasn’t. What you got for evidence on your accusation? A theory of Police Coverup? Brilliant indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Doesn’t matter if a crime was committed. What matters is they were deemed to have broken the code of conduct and were thusly expelled.
 


No. Not coverup. Failure to follow through.

Video tape and listening to the accuser on the amount/timeframe she drank may not prove she wasn’t drunk definitively, but it is evidence to suggest she wasn’t. What you got for evidence on your accusation? A theory of Police Coverup? Brilliant indeed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A failure to do proper police procedure over decades on rape cases is evident from the rape test kits not processed. It is also evident in the fact that few BATs were performed on the accused and the accusers. I can go on and on about procedure, but I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think women who drink heavily are appropriate sex pickup partners?

2. Do you think drinking is an excuse for consent?

3. Do you fully understand the cues women give for consent? And, what makes you an expert in this field?

4. Have you participated in many social events where booze was a big part of the events?

5. How many times in your life do you think you were led on by a drunk woman and were lied to when she refused your advances?

Be careful what you answer because it can identify you as a serial rapist. I'll leave that up to you. But, your posts suggest that you have been involved in situations where alcohol and sex were involved. You defend the indefensible way too easily. Statistically, many men have been mistaken about what women want when they are drunk because of mistaken beliefs around alcohol and sex. And, I have no doubt that you fall or fell into that category and continue to defend those same stereotypes, all I have to do is read your junk on GH.

In fact, most LAWYERS continue to hold those same mistaken beliefs on alcohol and women's sexual desire for sex and the cues they will send or not.

I find it ironic what people think of as evidence because of mistaken stereotypes and their own history with booze and sex.
 

A failure to do proper police procedure over decades on rape cases is evident from the rape test kits not processed. It is also evident in the fact that few BATs were performed on the accused and the accusers. I can go on and on about procedure, but I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think women who drink heavily are appropriate sex pickup partners?

2. Do you think drinking is an excuse for consent?

3. Do you fully understand the cues women give for consent? And, what makes you an expert in this field?

4. Have you participated in many social events where booze was a big part of the events?

5. How many times in your life do you think you were led on by a drunk woman and were lied to when she refused your advances?

Be careful what you answer because it can identify you as a serial rapist. I'll leave that up to you. But, your posts suggest that you have been involved in situations where alcohol and sex were involved. You defend the indefensible way too easily. Statistically, many men have been mistaken about what women want when they are drunk because of mistaken beliefs around alcohol and sex. And, I have no doubt that you fall or fell into that category and continue to defend those same stereotypes, all I have to do is read your junk on GH.

In fact, most LAWYERS continue to hold those same mistaken beliefs on alcohol and women's sexual desire for sex and the cues they will send or not.

I find it ironic what people think of as evidence because of mistaken stereotypes and their own history with booze and sex.

Simple answer? No. I have never been in such a situation. Ever. Not even close. I’m sorry you find my desire for evidence and proof so puzzling. Tells me a lot about you - and I am willing to bet I am spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 







IIRC from previous discussions in GH and elsewhere, normally upperclassmen escort prospective recruits during their visits under Jerry Kill. For some reason - the Gophers coaching staff under Claeys allowed Sophomore Central Lakes JC transfer Carlton Djam (because of his high incoming GPA?) to escort a seventeen year recruit (his name have been redacted everywhere) during his recruiting visit.

This should have never happened. It points to Tracy Claeys' lack of overall coaching experience to allow this lack of control. Don't get me wrong. Claeys was a good Xs & Os guy and a good person. He is simply inexperienced in other matters of running a football program.

This sex scandal is a huge black mark to the U and the football program. There is no way that Tracy Claeys would have remained head coach.

The crux of the incident is summarized below by Casey Common and Michael Rand of the Strib.

From the Strib December 16, 2016:
How did this start?

A female University of Minnesota student told police she was sexually assaulted by several men the night of Sept. 1 in the off-campus Minneapolis apartment of Gophers football player Carlton Djam.

The woman said she had five or six shots of vodka before accompanying Djam to his apartment, and she did not remember parts of the night when she spoke to police. At some point, they began having sex, but the police report said “she doesn’t have a recall about how the sex acts started.”

According to that police report and the student’s testimony, more men came into the room and became involved in the sex acts. She estimated that at least a dozen men took turns assaulting her. “I was shoving people off me,” she told police. “They kept ignoring my pleas for help.” She said she wasn’t forced to stay but didn’t feel like she could leave.

Police interviewed Djam and four other football players, who all said they had consensual sex with the student. A Minneapolis police investigator who viewed videos provided by Djam said “the sexual contact appears to be entirely consensual.”


Is this rape or consensual sex? It is a case of who do you want to believe.

http://www.startribune.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-gophers-football-controversy/407110386/

Is this different from the Brock Turner case? He was a star athlete and a member of Stanford University Varsity Swim team who sexually assaulted an unconscious drunken woman behind a skip. In this case, it is rape IMHO.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...you-by-giving-you-an-inadequate-a7069111.html
 
Last edited:

Somehow I doubt Claeys was handpicking each assignment. That’s usually why you have a whole team of people that work on recruiting weekends. Maybe an upperclassman was supposed to do it originally, but got sick or had a family emergency? So they asked Djam last second? I’m making that up, to demonstrate my point. I don’t know for sure, but it seems plausible to me.

And well never know of course, but it’s pretty incredible to think that one little foolish decision to have Djam escort this recruit, which at the time I’m sure was both overlooked and seemingly meaningless, brought down an entire coaching regime.
 



Simple answer? No. I have never been in such a situation. Ever. Not even close. I’m sorry you find my desire for evidence and proof so puzzling. Tells me a lot about you - and I am willing to bet I am spot on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's talk about alcohol toxicity and human performance for a minute. You said you could tell from the video that she wasn't drunk. Well, let's put that to the test with this scenario. A person becomes alcohol toxic, and motor skills are impaired. Can you tell the class the signs of motor impairment exhibited by a person with alcohol toxicity?

Or, what are the signs of alcohol toxicity on speech?

Decision making?

Sexual desire?

Alcohol toxicity on self perception and awareness?

You talk about no evidence, but you haven't provided the class with your credentials or reasons either. So, fess up Sherlock! What makes you think you are right about the woman in the video not being drunk?
 

You said you could tell from the video that she wasn't drunk.

No I did not. I said the video tape was evidence supporting the fact she was not drunk — NOT my interpretation, that was the interpretation of the police. Maybe you should have them teach your class.

I also said the fact that she herself claimed to have something like 5 drinks, over several hours IIRC, before the incident is evidence that supports she was not drunk.

I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you exactly what happened. Not sure why you are so certain she was heavily intoxicated and the police covered it up.

My opinion on this subject is crystal clear - I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Guilt was not proven. I believe the EOAA investigation and the Us handling of that was an absolute sh!t show. The leader leaving her job and a large lawsuit against the U seems to support that others agree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Guilt was not proven.

Guilt was proven. They were found guilty of breaking the student code of conduct, and sentenced to expulsion.

You either lack the brain power to grasp this, because you’re a simpleton who thinks that the much higher criminal burden of proof should supersede the U’s process.

Or you’re a pudding brain ass___e who wants to make it so that frat boys can get away with raping drunk girls and the school can’t expel them unless charged with a crime.

Either way, an awful look and you should be ashamed.
 

Remember when G4L said when a poster resorts to calling you stupid it means they lost the argument. See post 196 where he calls someone stupid and lost the argument.
 

The simpletons meet Thursday’s at Sally’s, 6pm. It makes sense to meet on Campus as a large percentage of us seem to be on GH and therefore Gopher fans.

Not sure where the pudding brain ass___es meet, but it will be great to meet some new folks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Or you’re a pudding brain ass___e who wants to make it so that frat boys can get away with <b>raping drunk girls </b>and the school can’t expel them unless charged with a crime.

I have actually asked people to take it easy on you as I figure you have enough challenges in life, but you continue to make that difficult.

You do understand the bolded part above is a criminal accusation, correct?

You do realize it is that exact criminal accusation that Dean and I were debating, right?

You do understand the difference between that accusation and the code of conduct that the EOAA concluded the players violated, right?

If this simpleton can understand that then you certainly can too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A failure to do proper police procedure over decades on rape cases is evident from the rape test kits not processed. It is also evident in the fact that few BATs were performed on the accused and the accusers. I can go on and on about procedure, but I have a few questions for you.

1. Do you think women who drink heavily are appropriate sex pickup partners?

2. Do you think drinking is an excuse for consent?

3. Do you fully understand the cues women give for consent? And, what makes you an expert in this field?

4. Have you participated in many social events where booze was a big part of the events?

5. How many times in your life do you think you were led on by a drunk woman and were lied to when she refused your advances?

Be careful what you answer because it can identify you as a serial rapist. I'll leave that up to you. But, your posts suggest that you have been involved in situations where alcohol and sex were involved. You defend the indefensible way too easily. Statistically, many men have been mistaken about what women want when they are drunk because of mistaken beliefs around alcohol and sex. And, I have no doubt that you fall or fell into that category and continue to defend those same stereotypes, all I have to do is read your junk on GH.

In fact, most LAWYERS continue to hold those same mistaken beliefs on alcohol and women's sexual desire for sex and the cues they will send or not.

I find it ironic what people think of as evidence because of mistaken stereotypes and their own history with booze and sex.

Lol! Nerd alert!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


You do understand the difference between that accusation and the code of conduct that the EOAA concluded the players violated, right?

Yet you want to make it so that a lack of criminal charges means the school can’t expel. That’s the entire kit and caboodle of this situation and discussion.

So one way or another, you’re not being honest and/or are arguing in bad faith.
 

While trying to stay out of the pi**ing match -

Dean - with all due respect, from your posts, it appears you are proceeding from the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth.

she may be - but, there is at least a possibility that she may not be telling the truth. She would not be the first woman who got involved in a situation, had second thoughts, and changed her story to make herself look like a victim - not like a willing participant.

Again, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

I am not saying the players are blameless. Even if they are all telling the truth, they made some questionable decisions. But I am not going to brand them as rapists without proof. And the authorities could not find enough proof to take the case to trial.

this whole case is one big gray area. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe about it. That does not make your opinion a fact, or the truth.

in the end, unless the players or the accuser change their stories, we will probably never know what happened with any degree of certainty.
 

While trying to stay out of the pi**ing match -

Dean - with all due respect, from your posts, it appears you are proceeding from the assumption that the accuser is telling the truth.

she may be - but, there is at least a possibility that she may not be telling the truth. She would not be the first woman who got involved in a situation, had second thoughts, and changed her story to make herself look like a victim - not like a willing participant.

Again, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened.

I am not saying the players are blameless. Even if they are all telling the truth, they made some questionable decisions. But I am not going to brand them as rapists without proof. And the authorities could not find enough proof to take the case to trial.

this whole case is one big gray area. You are entitled to believe what you want to believe about it. That does not make your opinion a fact, or the truth.

in the end, unless the players or the accuser change their stories, we will probably never know what happened with any degree of certainty.

Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.
 
Last edited:

Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.

Actually Cruze, much of your post is wrong.

First, you have neglected to mention the EOAA is a sham. The process it follows is being exposed and sued across the Country because it is a sham. They conduct what is essentially a criminal investigation without proper training on how to do it and in many cases outside the lines of what we as American’s accept as fair - because they can and it supports their agenda. It is the very definition of a good idea gone terribly bad.

Next, you have based all your reasoning on the EOAA report. It too is a sham. You have neglected that many of the things in that report have been disputed and accept them as fact. You have neglected to mention that the students were denied being allowed to have others (lawyers, parents, etc.) in these interviews, that these interviews were never recorded, and some of the most critical evidence the EOAA said was told to them - the players have denied saying. Additionally, the report itself in areas flat out says the EOAA is making assumptions on some things based on the fact they found the accuser more credible. Yeah, that seems like a good approach.

Also, your first point is false. These other players were charged by the EOAA. See point one. It was the review boards that started unraveling much of this sham and removing charges from many players.

In the end, you are in the same boat as SON (and all of us) of not knowing exactly what happened. The difference is SON (and many of us) acknowledge that and choose not to participate in a lynch mob. By using the EOAA (sham) report as your guide, all you have done is assume the accuser is telling the truth and the players have lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Actually Cruze, much of your post is wrong.

First, you have neglected to mention the EOAA is a sham. The process it follows is being exposed and sued across the Country because it is a sham. They conduct what is essentially a criminal investigation without proper training on how to do it and in many cases outside the lines of what we as American’s accept as fair - because they can and it supports their agenda. It is the very definition of a good idea gone terribly bad.

Next, you have based all your reasoning on the EOAA report. It too is a sham. You have neglected that many of the things in that report have been disputed and accept them as fact. You have neglected to mention that the students were denied being allowed to have others (lawyers, parents, etc.) in these interviews, that these interviews were never recorded, and some of the most critical evidence the EOAA said was told to them - the players have denied saying. Additionally, the report itself in areas flat out says the EOAA is making assumptions on some things based on the fact they found the accuser more credible. Yeah, that seems like a good approach.

Also, your first point is false. These other players were charged by the EOAA. See point one. It was the review boards that started unraveling much of this sham and removing charges from many players.

In the end, you are in the same boat as SON (and all of us) of not knowing exactly what happened. The difference is SON (and many of us) acknowledge that and choose not to participate in a lynch mob. By using the EOAA (sham) report as your guide, all you have done is assume the accuser is telling the truth and the players have lied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is completely unrelated to this case as I share some similar concerns to you about this particular case....


But I would like your thoughts...should public high schools be allowed to suspend kids without kids being able to cross examine witnesses? Have a lawyer present if they want one? Etc?
I’m just curious
 

But I would like your thoughts...should public high schools be allowed to suspend kids without kids being able to cross examine witnesses? Have a lawyer present if they want one? Etc? I’m just curious

I’m not familiar with the rules around this. Generally speaking, my issue isn’t the rules on why someone could be suspended, but by what process (or lack there of). If no proof other than an accusation then I would say no. If Jim says Billy threw eggs at the window and Billy says he didn’t - and there are no cameras or proof, then I don’t think Billy should be suspended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Let's talk about alcohol toxicity and human performance for a minute. You said you could tell from the video that she wasn't drunk. Well, let's put that to the test with this scenario. A person becomes alcohol toxic, and motor skills are impaired. Can you tell the class the signs of motor impairment exhibited by a person with alcohol toxicity?

Or, what are the signs of alcohol toxicity on speech?

Decision making?

Sexual desire?

Alcohol toxicity on self perception and awareness?

You talk about no evidence, but you haven't provided the class with your credentials or reasons either. So, fess up Sherlock! What makes you think you are right about the woman in the video not being drunk?

You’ve already disqualified yourself by stating it’s rape and consent is impossible if alcohol is involved. It’s astonishing how much ignorance there is on these topics, yet people are absolutely certain they are correct and shout it from the rooftops.

The proof that trained bs sniffers viewed (law enforcement) indicated she wasn’t close to incapacitated.
 

Just about everything in your post is wrong. A lot is known about what happened.

1. Players were expelled from the U for sexual assault largely based on evidence provided by other players who were in the apartment that night. The first two or three players who had sex with the accuser were not charged with sexual assault because the girl was deemed to have consented to it. Information provided by other players persuaded the U that the girl never consented to sex or withdrew her consent for the players who were expelled.

2. Players were suspended for sexual harassment largely based on admissions by those players or by evidence provided by other players who were eye witnesses. Among the actions that were deemed by the U to be sexual harassment were entering the bedroom to watch the sexual activity without the consent of the girl, and taking video of the sexual activity without her consent.

3. Players were suspended for lying to EOAA investigators largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who were eye witnesses or had reliable information about what the suspended players did that night.

4. Players were suspended for obstructing the EOAA investigation largely based on admissions by those players and by evidence provided by other players and people who had reliable information about what the suspended players did during the course of the investigation.

You realize she accused the first two of rape as well, right? The police disagreed. That was only the first hmmm moment. There would be more.

The rest of your post is nothing but defense of rationalizations of an overzealous investigator and spineless school administration.
 

I’m not familiar with the rules around this. Generally speaking, my issue isn’t the rules on why someone could be suspended, but by what process (or lack there of). If no proof other than an accusation then I would say no. If Jim says Billy threw eggs at the window and Billy says he didn’t - and there are no cameras or proof, then I don’t think Billy should be suspended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent analogy.

The idea that an accuser is always telling the truth and the accused always lying is chilling, to say the least.

Fairness should be the goal, at all times, whether we're talking about judging in a court of law or enforcing 'rules' made up by some committee.
 
Last edited:




Top Bottom