Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[B. McBannerson]

Eh.....I don't think you can say this either. No evidence of wrongdoing implies that Knight was a complete angel and these women are making up wild stories (which could be true). Much more likely IMHO is 1. That there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing (no DA is going after Bobby Knight without video evidence and a signed confession). 2. There was evidence of wrongdoing but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense (based on the accusations it sounds a lot more like a civil case). 3. The FBI investigation was internal not criminal. There may have be no interest by anyone in pressing charges but the FBI still has follow up on any case of alleged sex discrimination in its workplace (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination). They invited Coach Knight and thus could be held responsible for his actions while he was their guest.

There is also the less likely but still possible scenario of some big fish somewhere up the chain telling the investigators to drop it. I don't think that's the case here, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

The bottom line is that we have no idea what happened. Only the people who were present do. Given the enormous reputational, career, emotional, and even physical risk it takes to report someone for sexual harassment....and given Coach Knight's previous comments regarding sexual assault....I'm inclined to believe that something inappropriate happened between him and these women. Obviously, that's not nearly enough evidence for any sort of action to be taken against him in a criminal court. But it is enough evidence for this internet bum to have an opinion about it.

Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?

Why are you inclined not to believe this?  Is there a past history of lying with these four women and basketball coaches?

I am inclined to believe because statistically claims of sexual assault are true 92 to 98% of the time depending on the study you read. While possible,  it is very rare for someone to make up a sexual assault claim. I don't know of any history of sexual assault with Coach Knight but as I mentioned in the first couple of posts he had made some comments in the past that leads me to believe that he has a very dismissive view of the impact of sexual assault. Again,  this isnt even close to enough evidence for a criminal case. But it is more than enough for a random guy on the internet to have an opinion. (Especially when the random guy does Title IX investigations for a living).

[Pakuni]

“There is absolutely no credible evidence to support this in our opinion, these allegations,” said James Voyles, an Indianapolis lawyer who represents Knight. The FBI agents, he added, “reported to their superiors that there was no basis for any further action, period.”

All we have is what the media reported and decided to publish.  Unless someone here has a full transcript of everything his attorney said.  We don't receive full access, only what the media publishes for us to view. 

Investigation dropped.  No evidence of wrongdoing

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/politics/article/Report-FBI-investigated-claims-that-Bob-Knight-11273772.php

False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.

What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior

[Jockey]

False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.

What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior

Stop with the logic and common sense, already.

[B. McBannerson]

Eh.....I don't think you can say this either. No evidence of wrongdoing implies that Knight was a complete angel and these women are making up wild stories (which could be true). Much more likely IMHO is 1. That there wasn't enough evidence of wrongdoing (no DA is going after Bobby Knight without video evidence and a signed confession). 2. There was evidence of wrongdoing but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal offense (based on the accusations it sounds a lot more like a civil case). 3. The FBI investigation was internal not criminal. There may have be no interest by anyone in pressing charges but the FBI still has follow up on any case of alleged sex discrimination in its workplace (sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination). They invited Coach Knight and thus could be held responsible for his actions while he was their guest.

There is also the less likely but still possible scenario of some big fish somewhere up the chain telling the investigators to drop it. I don't think that's the case here, but it is well within the realm of possibility.

The bottom line is that we have no idea what happened. Only the people who were present do. Given the enormous reputational, career, emotional, and even physical risk it takes to report someone for sexual harassment....and given Coach Knight's previous comments regarding sexual assault....I'm inclined to believe that something inappropriate happened between him and these women. Obviously, that's not nearly enough evidence for any sort of action to be taken against him in a criminal court. But it is enough evidence for this internet bum to have an opinion about it.

I don't think it implies he is an angel, only they don't have any evidence of wrongdoing.

His comments 25 years ago mean he might have done it? Words = actions?  That is a dangerous jump in my opinion.

Don't we have an example currently with Charles Payne being accused of sexual assault that is falling apart rapidly because her story doesn't add up?

[B. McBannerson]

False. There's a difference - a big difference in cases of this nature - between no evidence of wrongdoing and no evidence to support bringing criminal charges.

What do you believe more likely ...
1. A guy with a decades-long history of oafish behavior acted oafishly
2. Four women working for an intelligence agency got together and conspired to make false allegations in an effort to ruin Bob Knight's good name, and they even enlisted a male co-worker to give a statement saying he witnessed said behavior

OK, I can buy into your first part, but you lose me with your more likely to believe part. Very dangerous leap.  Rolling Stone still paying the price.  Some studies suggest up to 10% of sexual assault claims are false. Not an insignificant number.  The number unreported sexual assaults is significantly higher, most people recognize this.  The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice?  Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy?  Not sure any of us will know.

My original reply to you was his attorney's lack of a denial. Do you still believe this after the quote provided?  Do we know everything his attorney said when one considers the media doesn't provide everything, only what they decide is fit to print?

[Lennys Tap]

I am inclined to believe because statistically claims of sexual assault are true 92 to 98% of the time depending on the study you read.

I'm calling BS on your studies. Many (most?) of these encounters are behind closed doors and come down to he said/she said. I don't think it's remotely possible to make a determination of who is being truthful in WAY more than 8% (let alone 2%!) of these cases.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I don't think it implies he is an angel, only they don't have any evidence of wrongdoing.

But it doesn't imply that. They have evidence. They have 5 witnesses who said he did it. That is evidence. We also have no idea what other evidence may or may not have been turned up. You can say not enough evidence. Or you can say no evidence of any criminal act. But you can't say no evidence any wrongdoing. He could have absolutely done the things the women accused him of and not have criminal charges pressed.

His comments 25 years ago mean he might have done it? Words = actions?  That is a dangerous jump in my opinion.

Words don't equal action. But they do speak to character. And they can be red flags for possible escalation to action. Men who commit acts of violence against women usually express opinions, comments, and humor that reflect that willingness to inflict violence before they escalate to violence. As I've said repeatedly that's not evidence for a court of law. But for a random guy on the internet to have an opinion? Its a factor.

Don't we have an example currently with Charles Payne being accused of sexual assault that is falling apart rapidly because her story doesn't add up?

I haven't been following the Payne case but a quick google search didn't seem to reveal anything about the case falling apart. Even if it is, am I allowed to bring examples of the 92 to 98% of cases that are true? For every false accusation (and not all of the claimed false accusations are actually false) there are 9 to 10 legitimate accusations. Again, that doesn't matter in a court of law. But in court of public opinion, why would you automatically jump to the side of the accused especially when that stats don't support him?

The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice?  Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy?  Not sure any of us will know.

You are only giving two of the less likely options. The more likely options as I stated before are (not in any particular order):

1. Not enough evidence. DAs only take on cases they think they can win. Unless there's video evidence (or children are involved), sex crimes are the hardest to prove. You need overwhelming evidence for DAs to move forward with charges.

2. There was wrongdoing but not a criminal act. Look at the accusations. What he is being accused of is NOT criminal sexual assault in any state that I am aware of. But that doesn't mean that what he is accused of isn't wrong. This kind of case would most likely be settled in civil court.

3. This wasn't a criminal investigation. I could have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone state that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation. It just said they interviewed him in Montana. It is likely that the four women weren't even pressing charges against but still reported what happened to the FBI. The FBI would then be mandated to do their own internal investigation of the accusations which would involve interviewing Knight.  Unless charges are pressed, the FBI has no ability to hold Knight accountable, so there would be no reason for them to contact Knight again. I could be wrong, but if charges were pressed, I don't think the FBI would be the ones handling the case.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm calling BS on your studies. Many (most?) of these encounters are behind closed doors and come down to he said/she said. I don't think it's remotely possible to make a determination of who is being truthful in WAY more than 8% (let alone 2%!) of these cases.

Well the Department of Justice conducted one of them, the FBI another. So you'll need to take it up with them. There are dozens of others from less well known organizations that came to the same conclusion. All the ones I have seen fall into that 92-98% range though 4to5 references one that is 10%, I haven't seen that one personally.

To clarify what a false accusation is it is a situation where either: 1. the sexual act in question was fabricated or 2. consent was given for the activity but the complainant then lied about it later.

I'll give one example of something not covered by a false accusation. If someone makes an accusation but it ends up not meeting the legal definition of sexual assault. In Texas, you can have sex with someone under the influence up until the point that they are unconscious. If someone accuses someone of sexual assault because they were extremely drunk but not unconscious, that is not a false report. That is someone not understanding the law. This is an extremely common occurrence. The laws on this in many states are sorely in need of updating.

What % of sexual assault reports do you think are false accusations? If you have studies that show something different I would be happy to read them.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

4to5, you asked me

Why are you inclined to believe this? Is there a past history of sexual assault with this coach and women?

I gave you my answer. I also asked you in response

Why are you inclined not to believe this?  Is there a past history of lying with these four women and basketball coaches?

I am curious as to your answer. I would understand a neutral "We have no idea what happened, we shouldn't jump to conclusions in either direction. But you seem to (and please correct me if I'm wrong) be leaning towards the side of Knight is innocent. What evidence is there that makes you inclined to believe that these four women (and one man) are lying and Knight is telling the truth?

[Lennys Tap]

Well the Department of Justice conducted one of them, the FBI another. So you'll need to take it up with them. There are dozens of others from less well known organizations that came to the same conclusion. All the ones I have seen fall into that 92-98% range though 4to5 references one that is 10%, I haven't seen that one personally.

To clarify what a false accusation is it is a situation where either: 1. the sexual act in question was fabricated or 2. consent was given for the activity but the complrightnt then lied about it later.

I'll give one example of something not covered by a false accusation. If someone makes an accusation but it ends up not meeting the legal definition of sexual assault. In Texas, you can have sex with someone under the influence up until the point that they are unconscious. If someone accuses someone of sexual assault because they were extremely drunk but not unconscious, that is not a false report. That is someone not understanding the law. This is an extremely common occurrence. The laws on this in many states are sorely in need of updating.

What % of sexual assault reports do you think are false accusations? If you have studies that show something different I would be happy to read them.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are saying that between 2-8% of claims can be PROVEN to be false, that sounds about right. Of course that doesn't even remotely suggest that 92-98% can be PROVEN to be true. In a great deal of these cases (30,40,50%? I honestly don't know) the truth of the accuser or the accused simply can't be ascertained. Ergo, the figures you cite are at best misleading.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. If you are saying that between 2-8% of claims can be PROVEN to be false, that sounds about right. Of course that doesn't even remotely suggest that 92-98% can be PROVEN to be true. In a great deal of these cases (30,40,50%? I honestly don't know) the truth of the accuser or the accused simply can't be ascertained. Ergo, the figures you cite are at best misleading.

Well if you want to go by only the % that can be proven in court then only 2% of cases are true. Beyond a reasonable doubt is simply too high of a standard to reach in sexual assault cases without video evidence.  But that is the standard that needs to be used in criminal cases.

The 92 to 98% number refers to cases where the complainant isn't lying about the assault. Something they perceived as a sexual assault occurred.  There are a million reasons why after that why the accused might not be found guilty.

The important takeaway is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things, especially in sexual assault cases.

[Lennys Tap]

Well if you want to go by only the % that can be proven in court then only 2% of cases are true. Beyond a reasonable doubt is simply too high of a standard to reach in sexual assault cases without video evidence.  But that is the standard that needs to be used in criminal cases.

The 92 to 98% number refers to cases where the complrightnt isn't lying about the assault. Something they perceived as a sexual assault occurred.  There are a million reasons why after that why the accused might not be found guilty.

The important takeaway is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things, especially in sexual assault cases.

So in 2-8% of the cases the accuser is proven to be lying. Something happened and they perceive it as sexual assault. And, according to you, in 2% of the cases (I think you're low here) the accused (assuming he or she denies that sexual assault took place) is proven to be lying. That leaves 90-96% of the cases where (according to your stats) neither party is "lying", where it becomes he said/she said. My common sense tells me that in most (what % I have no idea) of these cased the accuser is more believable than the accused, but it also tells me that in some portion of the 90-96% of the cases in which a "liar" cannot be determined the accused is the more likely to be misremembering some of the facts. But what it really says is that your original statement is, at the very least, misleading.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Lenny, you are all over the map here. I'll try to break it down and respond.

So in 2-8% of the cases the accuser is proven to be lying.

2-8% (depending on the study) intentionally accuse someone of sexual assault knowing a sexual assault didn't occur.

Something happened and they perceive it as sexual assault.

In 92-98% of accusations (depending on the study). They believe in their heart of hearts that the person they are accusing sexually assaulted them.

And, according to you, in 2% of the cases (I think you're low here) the accused (assuming he or she denies that sexual assault took place) is proven to be lying.

Not in 2% of accusations. In 2% of sexual assaults. The 98% also includes sexual assaults that go unreported.

That leaves 90-96% of the cases where (according to your stats) neither party is "lying", where it becomes he said/she said.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. The 2% conviction rate and the 2-8% false reporting rate don't go together. They are two separate stats. And if they did 90-96% of those involved would not "wouldn't be lying." In a significant % of those, the accused would be lying. It is possible that neither said is "lying." Two people could have the same experience and one could view at as a sexual assault while the other thinks it was consensual sex. That doesn't mean an assault didn't occur.

It is also possible that one or both are intentionally or unintentionally lying about pieces of the case. People are human. Accused people lie about details to make themselves seem more innocent....even if they actually are innocent. Accusers lie about details to make their case seem stronger....even if the person they are accusing did do the crime.

My common sense tells me that in most (what % I have no idea) of these cased the accuser is more believable than the accused

I think you are dead wrong about this. There is a massive bias against people who accuse someone of sexual assault.

but it also tells me that in some portion of the 90-96% of the cases in which a "liar" cannot be determined the accused is the more likely to be misremembering some of the facts.

The liar cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to convict, you must be 99% sure that someone is guilty. That is very hard to reach in these cases. Take the Knight example. I am obviously a sympathizer and I don't like Knight. Even with that, I am maybe 65% sure that he sexually harrassed those women. If this was a criminal case and all I had was the information we know, I would vote not guilty without a second thought. Wouldn't even need to break for lunch.

But what it really says is that your original statement is, at the very least, misleading.

If "92-98% of accusations are true" is too misleading for you, I will repharse. 92-98% of accusations are genuine. Meaning the accuses in their heart of hearts believes that the person they accused committed a sexual assault against them.

General disclaimer, all the studies and stats I have been using this conversation are about sexual assault. Knight is accused of sexual harassment. Similar but different.

[Pakuni]

OK, I can buy into your first part, but you lose me with your more likely to believe part. Very dangerous leap.  Rolling Stone still paying the price.  Some studies suggest up to 10% of sexual assault claims are false. Not an insignificant number.  The number unreported sexual assaults is significantly higher, most people recognize this.  The feds investigated this, found no reason to pursue. The feds were out to get these four women and this one man and not pursue justice?  Or were the claims perhaps a bit flimsy?  Not sure any of us will know.

My original reply to you was his attorney's lack of a denial. Do you still believe this after the quote provided?  Do we know everything his attorney said when one considers the media doesn't provide everything, only what they decide is fit to print?

Oh, come on. Rolling Stone?
These two instances are in no way similar. A complete red herring on your part.
But speaking of things that are"dangerous," dangerous is citing one irrelevant and not comparable case as a means to discredit any potential assault victim. I'm not a fan of those who cry "rape culture" at everything, but when people trot out things Rolling Stone or Duke to discredit women, I can at least see where they're coming from.

No, the feds weren't out to get anyone here. Did you bother to read the Washington Post story? They investigated and decided - properly, it seems to me - that while Knight's behavior was inappropriate, it didn't rise to a criminal offense. Hence, they essentially let him off with a warning:

"The case was presented to U.S. Attorney Dana Boente for a final decision. Boente, however, instructed the FBI to interview Knight first to see whether he would say anything incriminating or possibly confess, the federal law enforcement official said.
Failing that, the law enforcement official said, the FBI agents were told to send a message to Knight that if there were any more complaints he could be arrested."

This is not the same, as you keep wrongly implying, as the feds saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing or they found no reason to pursue.

[Lennys Tap]

The liar cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to convict, you must be 99% sure that someone is guilty. That is very hard to reach in these cases.

Nonsense. 99% certainty is not what beyond a REASONABLE doubt means - you're confusing reasonable doubt with beyond a shadow of doubt. Using your definition our prisons would be nearly empty.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, you are all over the map here. I'll try to break it down and respond.


In 92-98% of accusations (depending on the study). They believe in their heart of hearts that the person they are accusing sexually assaulted them.


If "92-98% of accusations are true" is too misleading for you, I will repharse. 92-98% of accusations are genuine. Meaning the accuses in their heart of hearts believes that the person they accused committed a sexual assault against them.

What one believes occurred "in their heart of hearts" does not constitute veracity or lack thereof. I'm sure that many of the accused also believe "in their heart of hearts" that no sexual assault occurred.

"Genuine" is accurate. Truth isn't.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Nonsense. 99% certainty is not what beyond a REASONABLE doubt means - you're confusing reasonable doubt with beyond a shadow of doubt. Using your definition our prisons would be nearly empty.

Are you sure? What is the percentage then? I have always been taught that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is 99% and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" was 100% (i.e. there is indisputable video evidence)

This was the first thing that came up from a quick google search:

https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

those legal authorities who venture to assign a numerical value to “beyond a reasonable doubt” place it in the certainty range of 98 or 99 percent.

[Pakuni]

Are you sure? What is the percentage then? I have always been taught that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is 99% and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" was 100% (i.e. there is indisputable video evidence)

This was the first thing that came up from a quick google search:

https://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/beyond-a-reasonable-doubt/

The thing of it is, there's no clear legal definition - at least in terms of percentage - of "reasonable doubt" and there are differences in how juries are instructed from state to state. Juries are often told that reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt, but beyond that each individual juror decides what reasonable is for him or her.
So, it can mean 99 percent to TAMU and 85 percent to Lenny, and neither would be wrong.

Here's the standard instruction used in federal courts:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

What one believes occurred "in their heart of hearts" does not constitute veracity or lack thereof. I'm sure that many of the accused also believe "in their heart of hearts" that no sexual assault occurred.

"Genuine" is accurate. Truth isn't.

As I mentioned, there are many cases where both parties feel like they are telling the truth. They merely have different definitions of what a sexual assault is or what consent is. Usually this plays out in favor of the accused because most state definitions of sexual assault are woefully out of date IMHO. Though I will say that I am confident that every student I have had a hand in finding responsible for sexual assault knew that they had done something wrong. Many, most even, wouldn't define what they did as sexual assault but they knew they did something they shouldn't have. Trying to comprehend that their actions constituted a sexual assault is a moral dissonance that most cannot come to terms with.

Heart of hearts does constitute veracity in this instance. Those survivors were sexually assaulted. It may not have risen to the legal definition of sexual assault, but someone still had sex with them (or performed a sexual act) when it was unwanted and without their consent. Just because it didn't raise to the legal definition of sexual assault doesn't mean that the survivor isn't just as traumatized and victimized as someone whose case did meet the legal definition. I've mentioned before, in Texas, you can have sex with someone who is throwing up, pissing themselves drunk as long as they are still conscious. Legally, they are not a victim but something awful still happened to them. There was a case (I think it was North Carolina) where a woman had a pole shoved into her rectum. The court ruled that it was not a sexual assault because at the time the law did not mention anything about sodomy with inanimate objects. Legally, she was not a victim of sexual assault but she was still victimized. There are states where you don't have to define what sex you are consenting to. So if you consent to sex thinking it will be vaginal and someone instead forces anal sex on you, you consented and therefore are legally not a victim. I think this has been updated in every state now, but for a long time sexual assault was defined by many states as a man attacking a woman. Therefore if you were a man who was assaulted by another man, a man assaulted by a woman, or a woman assaulted by another woman, legally you were not considered a victim of sexual assault. These are the more extreme instances but a majority of these cases revolve around alcohol (i.e. how drunk is too drunk), someone assuming consent (i.e.well we were kissing so I assumed I could have sex with them but didn't ask) and relationships (i.e. that's my husband/wife/significant other/f-buddy, I don't need their consent). The legal standards in these cases are very high in most states but that doesn't mean that the accuser hasn't been traumatized by the accused's actions.

The point that I have been trying to make, is that not guilty and innocent are two very different things. People point to cases where accusations are made but no charges are filed and say that means that the accused is innocent and the accuser was lying. That could absolutely be true. But there are dozens of reasons why someone could commit a terrible action against another human being but not be brought to justice.

Now, while I don't agree with all the laws, they are the ones we have. People can't be held to a different standard then what is written down. And beyond a reasonable doubt is the only acceptable standard when someone's freedom is on the line. But the fact that around 98% of sexual assaults go unpunished (total, not just ones that get reported) is a problem. We have to find ways to improve this process. Fortunately, people smarter than anyone here (myself included) are working on that.

And again, we've been talking about sexual assault. Knight is being accused of sexual harassment.

[Lennys Tap]

The thing of it is, there's no clear legal definition - at least in terms of percentage - of "reasonable doubt" and there are differences in how juries are instructed from state to state. Juries are often told that reasonable doubt does not equal no doubt, but beyond that each individual juror decides what reasonable is for him or her.
So, it can mean 99 percent to TAMU and 85 percent to Lenny, and neither would be wrong.

Here's the standard instruction used in federal courts:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

Agree that "reasonable doubt" is in the eye of the beholder, but if judges instructed juries to acquit if they thought there was even 1 chance in 100 that the defendant wasn't guilty conviction rates would plummet. That kind of certainty is rare.

[B. McBannerson]

Oh, come on. Rolling Stone?
These two instances are in no way similar. A complete red herring on your part.
But speaking of things that are"dangerous," dangerous is citing one irrelevant and not comparable case as a means to discredit any potential assault victim. I'm not a fan of those who cry "rape culture" at everything, but when people trot out things Rolling Stone or Duke to discredit women, I can at least see where they're coming from.

No, the feds weren't out to get anyone here. Did you bother to read the Washington Post story? They investigated and decided - properly, it seems to me - that while Knight's behavior was inappropriate, it didn't rise to a criminal offense. Hence, they essentially let him off with a warning:

"The case was presented to U.S. Attorney Dana Boente for a final decision. Boente, however, instructed the FBI to interview Knight first to see whether he would say anything incriminating or possibly confess, the federal law enforcement official said.
Failing that, the law enforcement official said, the FBI agents were told to send a message to Knight that if there were any more complaints he could be arrested."

This is not the same, as you keep wrongly implying, as the feds saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing or they found no reason to pursue.

I am not trying to discredit all women.  It was a perfectly acceptable example of women claiming sexual assault that didn't happen. No need to extrapolate that it is disparaging or discrediting all women, it isn't.

There are wrongful claims made by men and women.   

If what Mr. Knight did was sexual assault, then the US Attorney didn't do the right thing by dropping it.  Makes these women look like they made a claim that wasn't worthy of consideration and may prevent future women from coming out to make claims. How is that a good thing, unless the there were tremendous inconsistencies or holes that would not lead to anything being done. I suspect the latter.

[mu03eng]

Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.

Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.

TAMU, thoughts?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html

[jsglow]

Interesting read eng.  I think that's what many of us have been complaining about with respect to Title IX.

[Lennys Tap]

Sorry for the Zombie thread, but didn't want to create a whole new thread for people to go ballistic in.

Very interesting story, I'm sure it'll get a lot of play in the press as a misapplication of justice. I get that it's anecdotal, but if the facts as presented by the kicker and the victim (his girlfriend) are correct....I have a tough time defending Title IX as a legitimate means of punishment for transgressions.

TAMU, thoughts?

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-matt-boermeester-removed-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html

Interesting read. Wish I could say I was surprised.