Report: FBI Investigated Claims That Bob Knight Groped Women

[Golden Avalanche]

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

So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?

Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?
 
And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?

[GGGG]

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

Just remember that one side can talk and the other cannot.

[mu03eng]

So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?

Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?

Conversely, if the facts presented are correct, no one else witnessed it as not horsing around (i.e. only one person witnessed it as some sort of assault). And the level of assault was such that the only action that was taken was to tell someone else who told the AD. No police were called, etc.

And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?

So we're ok with doubting the victim? So unknown person witnessed something and that means that even the victim should be doubted? And I have no idea what the victim is allowed to do and on what timeline from a public statement standpoint. Perhaps there was an appeals process, that took until now to resolve and she didn't want to jeopardize the outcome by speaking publicly. It would be a pretty remarkable jedi mind trick to get someone who was a victim to hire a lawyer and public speak out as a not a victim (not impossible, just seemingly unlikely)

[mu03eng]

Just remember that one side can talk and the other cannot.

Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.

[Lennys Tap]

Facts twisted to fit the preferred narrative. Pretty simple, painfully obvious.

[rocket surgeon]

columbia settles their lawsuit with paul nungesser over the "mattress girl" fiasco.  that was a story, while it was ongoing, had me 2nd guessing the title IX thing big time.  if i was an attorney, paul nungesser's position was red meat.  so who pays the bill?  might as well put it in the student funds, right under b-ball season tix, ayy'na?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/14/columbia-settles-mattress-girl-settles-lawsuit/

[GGGG]

Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.

But that doesn't mean she's telling the truth.

Yeah, I do think USC likely over-extended on this, but you are very likely not going to ever hear why they ruled how they did.

[Lennys Tap]

But that doesn't mean she's telling the truth.

? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.

[GGGG]

? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.

I am making the assumption that other witnesses aren't corroborating her account and that is the basis of USC's decision.  It might well be the wrong one.  None of us know.

[Lennys Tap]

I am making the assumption that other witnesses aren't corroborating her account and that is the basis of USC's decision.  It might well be the wrong one.  None of us know.

Maybe the newspaper account (which specifically says a witness, not witnesses) isn't true, but why would you assume that?

[GGGG]

Maybe the newspaper account (which specifically says a witness, not witnesses) isn't true, but why would you assume that?

Assume that the witness didn't corroborate her account?  Because I have no other idea why he would be be dismissed.  I mean, why would they kick a guy out of school if both the alleged victim and the witness said he didn't do anything wrong?  My guess is that the witness testified that he saw something much more severe than the alleged victim testified to.

[Lennys Tap]

Assume that the witness didn't corroborate her account?  Because I have no other idea why he would be be dismissed.  I mean, why would they kick a guy out of school if both the alleged victim and the witness said he didn't do anything wrong?  My guess is that the witness testified that he saw something much more severe than the alleged victim testified to.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

But it's much easier for a "witness" to misinterpret something he THINKS he sees with no context. The alleged victim has gone to great lengths to assure anyone willing to listen that she wasn't assaulted and is not afraid of her alleged assailant. Isn't it clear evidence of bias when the Title IX folks try to twist arms and create victims?

[GGGG]

Sorry I misunderstood you.

But it's much easier for a "witness" to misinterpret something he THINKS he sees with no context. The alleged victim has gone to great lengths to assure anyone willing to listen that she wasn't assaulted and is not afraid of her alleged assailant. Isn't it clear evidence of bias when the Title IX folks try to twist arms and create victims?

I don't know what it is clear evidence of since I have no idea what USC based their decision upon.

Most "Title IX folks" I have dealt with don't try to twist arms or create victims.  I do know that a lot of them feel inadequate to the task at hand.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't know what it is clear evidence of since I have no idea what USC based their decision upon.

Most "Title IX folks" I have dealt with don't try to twist arms or create victims.  I do know that a lot of them feel inadequate to the task at hand.

Well, unless the journalist is lying or the person who claims that she at no time was anything resembling a victim is lying I think a fair person could conclude that USC didn't let facts interfere with their preferred narrative.

[4everwarriors]

Apparently, Pete Rose couldn't keep his schmeckel in its garage, hey?

[GGGG]

Well, unless the journalist is lying or the person who claims that she at no time was anything resembling a victim is lying I think a fair person could conclude that USC didn't let facts interfere with their preferred narrative.

Or maybe it was just a poor decision where they weighed the testimony of the witness more than they should have.  No reason to assume the motivations were around some "narrative."

[Lennys Tap]

Or maybe it was just a poor decision where they weighed the testimony of the witness more than they should have.  No reason to assume the motivations were around some "narrative."

Sorry, but if the "poor decision" included trying to convince a non victim that she was a victim (as the non victim clearly alleges) it means the "poor decision" was made well before the investigation was concluded. That's evidence of bias, an agenda or a preferred narrative. All essentially the same thing.

[GGGG]

Sorry, but if the "poor decision" included trying to convince a non victim that she was a victim (as the non victim clearly alleges) it means the "poor decision" was made well before the investigation was concluded. That's evidence of bias, an agenda or a preferred narrative. All essentially the same thing.

Bias maybe.  But bias does not mean agenda.  Bias could be a sign of incompetence as much as anything.

[Lennys Tap]

Bias maybe.  But bias does not mean agenda.  Bias could be a sign of incompetence as much as anything.

We'll agree to disagree. To me, when decision makers approach those decisions with bias it's evidence of an agenda.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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

Without actually reading the report I can't really comment one way or the other. It is possible this was a miscarriage of justice. Much more likely in my opinion is that this is a battered woman who has decided to defend her abuser. Hardly an uncommon occurrence. USC would have to have the most incompetent Title IX office in history if they truly suspended someone with no evidence other than one third hand account from a neighbor and no complaint from the complainant. If I had to guess, I would say the young woman in this situation revealed a lot more during the investigation than she is admitting to now. And that's really the problem with these stories. One side is allowed to say whatever they want and the university can't say anything because of privacy laws.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Facts twisted to fit the preferred narrative. Pretty simple, painfully obvious.

The preferred narrative at universities is that sexual violence never occurs on campus. It would have been very much in their interest to let this case go away. It is certainly possible that justice was misapplied but your fear of universities looking to expel innocent people for sexual violence is a myth.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

? So if a woman says she was physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, etc., Title IX folks (according to TAMU anyway) believe that she is virtually always telling the truth. But a woman who says a bystander misinterpreted something (eyewitnesses are dead wrong routinely) and that no such assault took place is suspected of lying because she doesn't give the answers the people in charge preferred? That seems crazy on the face of it.

This isn't what I said at all. We don't believe the victim automatically. We start at 0% and the burden of proof is on the university. We must get from 0% in our belief all the way to a preponderance of the information (50.1%). The fact that multiple studies show that only 3% - 8% of accusations end up being false reports is a separate set of facts that has no bearing on the disciplinary system.

[B. McBannerson]

So the two in question were physically "horsing around" in public and the only witness procured was one neighbor?

Couldn't find another student who was nearby and saw it as "horsing around" rather then nefarious?
 
And it took nearly six months for one of the principals involved to publicly state her position?

How do we know it took 6 months?  Do you know the location and time of day to suggest there should have been someone else around? 

Isn't the bigger question why are Title IX offices doing these investigations and not law enforcement? Why are Title IX offices seemingly the end all, be all instead of law enforcement? 

http://thebiglead.com/2017/07/31/girlfriend-of-dismisssed-usc-kicker-says-title-ix-office-stereotyped-her-put-words-in-her-mouth/

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah, but the one side speaking is the victim herself. I can't find anything that came from the kicker.

I don't know what to tell you Eng. Domestic violence is a funny thing. I once met a victim at the hospital after they were sent there by their boyfriend with a broken arm and several broken ribs. She told me that her and her boyfriend had gotten into a fight and he had beaten her senseless. A little over a month later, she was screaming at me and told me I was ruining her life because my investigation had led to her boyfriend being expelled. They had stayed together and apparently all had been forgiven.

The woman from the story above was not an isolated incident. Honestly, I see more domestic violence cases where the abused (usually a woman) defends their abuser (usually a man) or at least pleads for leniency than I do ones where the abused participates against their abuser. There are many reasons for this and I would be happy to supply some research and anecdotals on why abused often defend their abuser.

If the statement by the young woman is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth than USC royally screwed up. If it had been my case, I wouldn't have let it proceed past investigation much less bring it through the conduct process. I don't know anyone personally at USC but I can't imagine that they are that incompetent. Its possible, but it is very likely that there is a lot more to the story than what is being shared. Without seeing the report it is impossible to know. But I understand why a reasonable person would have the opinion that USC screwed up.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Isn't the bigger question why are Title IX offices doing these investigations and not law enforcement? Why are Title IX offices seemingly the end all, be all instead of law enforcement? 

Who said law enforcement isn't investigating? University investigations go on in addition to and concurrently with law enforcement, not instead of. Universities aren't investigating and enforcing violations of law. They are investigating and enforcing violations of the student code of conduct. Law enforcement has no place there. Law enforcement is free to and usually does investigate as well, but they are looking for violations of the law which is very different from violations of the student code of conduct. Universities have the right to set and enforce their own rules and they can be different from state law. Students sign contracts agreeing to abide by these rules when they enroll at the school.