with big story on how the school handled the reports. I cannot post a link here at work but it is on the AP sports wire.
Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621,0,7693231,full.story
Thought about posting this in the Dave Singleton thread since it took *that* turn but it needs its own line.
QuoteIn repeated statements to authorities, the woman in the Feb. 27 incident described accepting an invitation to the athlete's campus apartment that day. Though the two had a sexual relationship in the past, he suddenly had stopped calling or spending time with her, she said.
Once there, they began to have consensual sex, she said. However, the woman said, she tried to get off the bed and leave after he made disparaging comments to her and wouldn't explain why he had stopped contacting her.
She said she told him to stop but that he refused. She said she fought back but that he was too strong for her and held her down.
The woman agreed to speak to the Tribune on the condition that her name not be used.
Neither the athlete nor his Milwaukee-based lawyer returned calls seeking comment. The athlete, whom the Tribune is not identifying because he has not been charged with a crime, has told authorities and school administrators that the sex was consensual, according to multiple sources.
After leaving the athlete's apartment, the woman said, she returned to her dorm and tried to sleep. After a fitful few hours, she confided in a resident assistant about the previous night's events. The RA sent her directly to the security department, where, the woman says, two on-duty officers told her they were not sure that the encounter could be classified as a crime.
....
The woman said she met with [STEPHANIE] Quade, who encouraged her to focus on her schoolwork and mental health rather than pursuing charges, the woman said. Quade also asked if she had thought about praying about the situation, the woman said. She said she left the meeting in tears.
"I felt like they were trying to get me to be quiet and disappear," she said. "I've never been made to feel so dumb, so stupid and so much like I didn't matter."
Paints things in a different light. We should be glad this story is being published in June, not March.
Not good at all. Administration looks at best inept, at worst it looks like it tried to hide and protect the players. Hopefully it is a wake up call for the administration, players and head coach. Players and administration need to be on best behavior for the near future. Classy bunch we have there. It doesn't reflect well on MU from top to bottom.
For those of you who say that MU Public Safety shouldn't report this stuff to the police....well...the State of Wisconsin disagrees:
"The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities. School officials also did not tell police about a sexual attack allegation involving four athletes in October."
Wow is that pathetic. I have said all I am going to say about this in previous threads, but the mere fact that they have consistently, knowingly or unknowingly, violated state law really shows they completely mismanaged this from the beginning.
"In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years."
This to me says it all...For 10 years this was occurring, but nothing was said by the police. Then student athletes, specifically high profile basketball athletes are accused, and BAM it becomes a huge issue and MU is put under fire. Are you telling me that for 10 years the MPD was completely unaware of this fact?
Quote from: jhags15 on June 21, 2011, 09:42:05 PM
"In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years."
This to me says it all...For 10 years this was occurring, but nothing was said by the police. Then student athletes, specifically high profile basketball athletes are accused, and BAM it becomes a huge issue and MU is put under fire. Are you telling me that for 10 years the MPD was completely unaware of this fact?
yup direct the blame away from the slime ball players and inept administration to the MPD.
Quote from: jhags15 on June 21, 2011, 09:42:05 PM
"In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years."
This to me says it all...For 10 years this was occurring, but nothing was said by the police. Then student athletes, specifically high profile basketball athletes are accused, and BAM it becomes a huge issue and MU is put under fire. Are you telling me that for 10 years the MPD was completely unaware of this fact?
I get it, this probably should have been been discovered long ago and yes most likely came to light because it involved student athletes. Seriously though...it is a shame either way and I certainly don't think you can place the blame on MPD for this one.
One question I have is why she never went straight to the police. I am sure if I was ever the victim of a crime on campus I would be notifying the police before calling upon public safety. I just find it strange that she let this incident remain hidden from the proper authorities for such an extended period of time.
I count one player involved in the story listed above. How did this incident gain three more supporting actors from the team?
The handling of the February incident is embarrassing. Some heads should roll - starting with Stephanie Quade and the head of Public Safety.
Also, I hope that the individual involved in the February incident is no longer on team. I don't know enough about the October incident to comment on that one, but I'm hoping the allegations are far less serious in nature.
Maybe Stephanie Quade needs to pray on that!
Is anybody going to point out that they were in the middle of consensual sex when this allegedly happened? Come on. I'm not condoning or condemning, but let's get real here.
Also no coincidence that the Tribune runs this story as all local teams are being pummeled regularly by MU. New coaches at both depaul and Loyola whispering in their ear perhaps?
None us of will ever know whether the act was consensual or not. However, the handling of the situation is what I find most appalling.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on June 21, 2011, 09:53:57 PM
Is anybody going to point out that they were in the middle of consensual sex when this allegedly happened? Come on. I'm not condoning or condemning, but let's get real here.
Also no coincidence that the Tribune runs this story as all local teams are being pummeled regularly by MU. New coaches at both depaul and Loyola whispering in their ear perhaps?
I agree PRN - the woman said it started as consensual..and the two had a previous sexual relationship. So the girl agrees to bang the athlete but somewhere in the middle of it starts busting his balls for...why didn't you call me..etc...and in those moments decides she doesn't want to continue sex?? Plus DPS Head completely denied her account of the immediate aftermath. And yeah..vaginal scarring probably can happen if you haven't had sex in awhile and are hooking up with a tall hoops player!
The woman sounds at best unstable. She had every right to go the police immediately on her own regardless of what MU DPS did/did not do. If she wasn't happy with their assessment - why not go to police. She certainly has no problem making herself out to be the victim in all of this...when in my view she is equally responsible....you don't start having sex with a dude, that you've had sex with in the past, and then start getting into a fight/altercation with him while inside of you...
Quote from: 94Warrior on June 21, 2011, 09:58:40 PM
None us of will ever know whether the act was consensual or not. However, the handling of the situation is what I find most appalling.
For that you will be skewered, called every name in the book, etc, etc. How dare you question MU and how they handled this. How DARE the Chicago Tribune do this.....bastards. They do not know they are dealing with!!! :-\ Good to see a few people found sanity, including those in the article and even a few here in this thread. MU looks terrible in this whole thing and if people don't think the perception is of a cover-up, you're kidding yourselves. Whether there was one or not, that's a perception because of how badly they screwed the pooch to run and tell the Athletic Department what happened but didn't tell the Police as they were REQUIRED to by law.
But no, those of us that dare bring up the reality of what others are seeing, what the perception is in parts of the community, in this article, in other forms of the media, we're just a-holes bent on seeing things one way. The reality is, we're showing what others are absolutely thinking and seeing and chastised for having the nads to state it, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and pretend that perception doesn't exist.
MU BLEW IT BIG TIME on this!
Quote from: Ners on June 21, 2011, 10:15:06 PM
I agree PRN - the woman said it started as consensual..and the two had a previous sexual relationship. So the girl agrees to bang the athlete but somewhere in the middle of it starts busting his balls for...why didn't you call me..etc...and in those moments decides she doesn't want to continue sex?? Plus DPS Head completely denied her account of the immediate aftermath. And yeah..vaginal scarring probably can happen if you haven't had sex in awhile and are hooking up with a tall hoops player!
The woman sounds at best unstable. She had every right to go the police immediately on her own regardless of what MU DPS did/did not do. If she wasn't happy with their assessment - why not go to police. She certainly has no problem making herself out to be the victim in all of this...when in my view she is equally responsible....you don't start having sex with a dude, that you've had sex with in the past, and then start getting into a fight/altercation with him while inside of you...
That's it, rip down the woman....it's usually their fault. Hell, I'll bet she asked for it. ::)
Because we all know a woman never changes her mind and could very easily tell someone to stop in the middle of it. Considering your short span of a few seconds, I doubt that happens to you often but for those that last more than a few it's more than possible. But that's right, she's unstable. ::)
Quoteslime ball players
It sounds to me like the player(s) is/are being condemned on one side's version of the night's events. If her version is accurate, then he is a slime ball but there could be a LOT more to this than meets the eye. I would have a hard time convicting the young man for sexual assault just based on her own version of the event.
And to make sure I'm being PC, I too think the incident could have been handled better and am sympathetic for the girl's predicament.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on June 21, 2011, 09:53:57 PM
Is anybody going to point out that they were in the middle of consensual sex when this allegedly happened? Come on. I'm not condoning or condemning, but let's get real here.
Also no coincidence that the Tribune runs this story as all local teams are being pummeled regularly by MU. New coaches at both depaul and Loyola whispering in their ear perhaps?
What is there to get real about. You make it sound like when two people are going at it that one party can't say stop...is that what you are saying? I hope not, but that sure as heck sounds like what you are saying.
Yes, it's a Loyola conspiracy. WOW ::)
I think its unfair to judge the player based on one side of the story.
MU screwed the pooch, but this was a hit piece. Nancy Snow's quote added nothing to the story. Saying the October incident was 4 athletes "sexually attacking" someone is meant to be sensational, and is not close to accurate.
Like I've said all along, MU handled this poorly. But this article had a good deal of slant to it as well.
QuoteMU BLEW IT BIG TIME on this!
This is a little over the top.
Are you saying the Oct incident involving 4 players was far less serious in nature?
Because I find the allegations related to the Feb incident involving 1 player to be very serious.
Regardless, someone in administration or public safety needs to be held accountable. Because 'sorry, we'll try to do better in the future' is not good enough.
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 21, 2011, 10:35:39 PM
MU screwed the pooch, but this was a hit piece. Nancy Snow's quote added nothing to the story. Saying the October incident was 4 athletes "sexually attacking" someone is meant to be sensational, and is not close to accurate.
Like I've said all along, MU handled this poorly. But this article had a good deal of slant to it as well.
Quote from: 94Warrior on June 21, 2011, 10:48:12 PM
Are you saying the Oct incident involving 4 players was far less serious in nature?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
I'm really not sure what happened, and I don't think anyone on this board does. Whatever happened, it is unfortunate that a media outlet grabbed it and ran with the story. I feel bad for the young lady, but again, I don't really know the facts. Hopefully, the truth will eventually come out, but until then all of these posts are just guesses. One side can not tell the entire story. I'm sure whoever the student/athlete is they have been advised not to speak because it never went to court. That is not the athletes fault! It's just common sense. That doesn't place blame on one side or the other. Eventually, everyone has to answer to our maker. Until then, I don't feel it is wise to pass judgement on an issue you know very little about. News media, and the rumors that go with it are not necessarily accurate. I hope all works out for all parties involved.
A couple things certain. This kind of negative attention doesn't help Marquette as a university or basketball program. Second, Chicos has proven consistently over the past couple of years that he has truly become a Marquette basher. Everyone of his posts seems to dwell on negatives. I once thought you were a supporter of the university, but I can see that is not true anymore. What went wrong? Please don't say you haven't become ultra negative, because that would be hiding from the truth.
I hope Jimmy Butler's draft night can be special, and we can move ahead and focus on the positives of what is accomplished on the Marquette campus, and in the Marquette Basketball program. There are many, many things to be excited about.
Go Marquette!
Quote from: Ners on June 21, 2011, 10:15:06 PM
I agree PRN - the woman said it started as consensual..and the two had a previous sexual relationship. So the girl agrees to bang the athlete but somewhere in the middle of it starts busting his balls for...why didn't you call me..etc...and in those moments decides she doesn't want to continue sex?? Plus DPS Head completely denied her account of the immediate aftermath. And yeah..vaginal scarring probably can happen if you haven't had sex in awhile and are hooking up with a tall hoops player!
The woman sounds at best unstable. She had every right to go the police immediately on her own regardless of what MU DPS did/did not do. If she wasn't happy with their assessment - why not go to police. She certainly has no problem making herself out to be the victim in all of this...when in my view she is equally responsible....you don't start having sex with a dude, that you've had sex with in the past, and then start getting into a fight/altercation with him while inside of you...
are you kidding me? you won't let anything disrupt your enjoyment of marquette basketball, will you?
Quote from: MUMBA on June 21, 2011, 10:57:46 PM
are you kidding me? you won't let anything disrupt your enjoyment of marquette basketball, will you?
Absolutely not. Nor do I ever choose to find people guilty until proven innocent, nor do I continue to believe in one's guilt when never charged with a crime. We've heard the woman's side now...but nothing from the player, nor will we ever. We know this was a consensual sexual relationship in the past, and was that evening..until a certain point (apparently)...that is far from rape in my view..
WE ARE MARQUETTE
The story was definitely written to make MU look as bad as possible but that doesn't take away from the fact that the situation(s) was handled terribly by DPS and MU. Don't fool yourselves, its not just a basketball or Athletic Department thing. I heard from multiple girls while atudying abroad that the system for reporting sexual abuse/assault was very poor, with DPS being slow to respond and often taking no action at all.
I don't want to make this into a whole Chicos vs Ners debate where we take shots at Buzz and Crean and whoever else might pop up. This goes beyond basketball. I just hope Marquette learns from this recurring mistake and makes the campus a safer place.
Just wanted to make it clear that Buzz was HC for 3 of those 10 years....
Quote from: Ners on June 21, 2011, 11:21:23 PM
Absolutely not. Nor do I ever choose to find people guilty until proven innocent, nor do I continue to believe in one's guilt when never charged with a crime. We've heard the woman's side now...but nothing from the player, nor will we ever. We know this was a consensual sexual relationship in the past, and was that evening..until a certain point (apparently)...that is far from rape in my view..
Holy crap this is a morally wrong position.
Here's a hypo for you:
A woman with whom I have had sex in the past comes over to my apartment to have sex. We start making out (or even doing more than that) and then she tells me "NO, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU ANY MORE." I then forcibly have sex with her against her will and explicit instructions.
You're really saying that's far from rape or not even rape? (I understand there are credibility issues).
Is there any sort of reasonable assumption to who the athlete is??
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on June 22, 2011, 12:11:21 AMIs there any sort of reasonable assumption to who the athlete is??
What was Tom Crean's role in all this? This has the rich, robust aroma of coconut-infused Coppertone all over it. Damn that man. Damn him I say!
There are nuances regarding these cases, as there almost always are. The bottom line seems to be that the university did not comply with reporting requirements that are dictated by law. The implications are obvious. This does not make MU look good.
In my years of working with Quade, (98-2003), I have a very very hard time believing she said those things. Again, my experiences only.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on June 21, 2011, 10:34:59 PM
I think its unfair to judge the player based on one side of the story.
+1, this whole thing is he-said she-said. Getting up in arms for either party gives you a 50% chance of being on the wrong side of the issue.
Buzz just needs to use it as a teaching lesson so that athletes don't put themselves into these types of situations. All guys/girls at the university should have that lesson. "Don't stick your dick in crazy." & "Don't let crazy stick his dick in you."
Quote from: TallTitan34 on June 21, 2011, 10:34:59 PM
I think its unfair to judge the player based on one side of the story.
I don't disagree. But I do recall that you were one who really crucified Notre Dame when they were slow in responding to a much less severe allegation (although one that led to admittedly tragic results). And as I recall, we had only heard one side of that story, too.
Marquette handled this badly. And I'll take a position that is very similar to that I took in the ND case: while I know it was handled badly, I don't know if it was because the accused was an athlete.
OK...let's see here... People on this board have blamed:
**The Chicago Tribune
**The victim (with armchair psychologists claiming that she must be mentally ill)
**The head coaches of Loyola and DePaul
**Chicos for bashing MU basketball
**MPD because they "had to have known" what was going on
And my absolute favorite is Ners acting like a doctor and discussing his theories of vaginal scarring. ::)
However, I am going to reiterate what only a couple of you have seemed to catch: MARQUETTE VIOLATED STATE LAW, AND HAS DONE SO REPEATEDLY!! Also, it is interesting that no one is blaming the alledged perpetrator. (I don't think anyone should, but hell, if we can blame the victim and Oliver Purnell, we might as well right???)
Seriously people, take off your blue and gold goggles and use that MU education of yours to at least view this with some objectivity.
Quote from: CrazyEcho on June 22, 2011, 12:05:03 AM
Holy crap this is a morally wrong position.
Here's a hypo for you:
A woman with whom I have had sex in the past comes over to my apartment to have sex. We start making out (or even doing more than that) and then she tells me "NO, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU ANY MORE." I then forcibly have sex with her against her will and explicit instructions.
You're really saying that's far from rape or not even rape? (I understand there are credibility issues).
Certainly understand your point...but I can tell you from experience I've dated a couple of crazy b$tches in my day...and in my view...this is just as much on the girl as it is the player. "It started as consensual??" Had been consensual in the past? But mid-thrust all of a sudden the girl starts trying to leverage her having sex with the dude to get information out of him as to why he didn't call her back?? Come on..
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 22, 2011, 07:30:55 AM
OK...let's see here... People on this board have blamed:
**The Chicago Tribune
**The victim (with armchair psychologists claiming that she must be mentally ill)
**The head coaches of Loyola and DePaul
**Chicos for bashing MU basketball
**MPD because they "had to have known" what was going on
And my absolute favorite is Ners acting like a doctor and discussing his theories of vaginal scarring. ::)
However, I am going to reiterate what only a couple of you have seemed to catch: MARQUETTE VIOLATED STATE LAW, AND HAS DONE SO REPEATEDLY!! Also, it is interesting that no one is blaming the alledged perpetrator. (I don't think anyone should, but hell, if we can blame the victim and Oliver Purnell, we might as well right???)
Seriously people, take off your blue and gold goggles and use that MU education of yours to at least view this with some objectivity.
Agreed. Completely.
These allegations really bother me; I hope we've seen the last of them. Even if there have been no assault charges, I just really hope that we don't hear any more of this. And I hope that MU corrects any reporting procedures that are not lawful (for all cases...not just basketball).
The comments of many on this thread are truly embarrassing. I thought we had adults who were educated that posted here, but I guess not.
Did MU handle this poorly? He!! yes, they admitted so and should be admonished for it. To learn this has been their policy for 10 years is frightenning.
As for the girl's story, get a grip people. We have one side of the story. I will go out on a limb here and speculate that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE that has commented in this thread knows the true facts. Yet, so many have leapt to conclussions.
It is unwise, and frankly dangerous, to blame either the girl or athlete. Conjecture is dangerous and that is all I have read here.
After hearing both sides, the DA decided not to press charges. I suspect the other side of the story may have played in that decision. Now, does that mean nothing happenned? No. But to lay guilt at the feet of the athlete, as many have, or the girl, as others have, is irresponsible. Especially on a one sided story.
Its all about power. The athlete was stepping into a potential hornets nest and didn't see it.
Quote from: MUMac on June 22, 2011, 07:41:29 AM
Did MU handle this poorly? He!! yes, they admitted so and should be admonished for it. To learn this has been their policy for 10 years is frightenning.
As for the girl's story, get a grip people. We have one side of the story. I will go out on a limb here and speculate that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE that has commented in this thread knows the true facts. Yet, so many have leapt to conclussions.
Agreed. Well stated.
Just because it's not been stated, this article is the lead story on the front page of the Tribune. It's not just some article.
No matter what account of blame, it's bad press for MU.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 07:40:32 AM
Agreed. Completely.
These allegations really bother me; I hope we've seen the last of them. Even if there have been no assault charges, I just really hope that we don't hear any more of this. And I hope that MU corrects any reporting procedures that are not lawful (for all cases...not just basketball).
What is Marquettes policy on unmarried students caught having sex? I know Notre Dame's policy is very strict and can result in expulsion.
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 21, 2011, 10:35:39 PM
MU screwed the pooch, but this was a hit piece. Nancy Snow's quote added nothing to the story. Saying the October incident was 4 athletes "sexually attacking" someone is meant to be sensational, and is not close to accurate.
Like I've said all along, MU handled this poorly. But this article had a good deal of slant to it as well.
That is what you get when you try to cover things up. We got upto 6 players out of 14 involved in extra curricular activites. October (4), February (1) and Blue orange fight. I feel sorry for the 8 plus innocent players that are being hurt by the cover up. Hell, I feel sorry for the alumni(including me) being embarassed by this cover up. Can I get my Blue and Gold Fund donation back?
Quote from: MARQEVANS on June 22, 2011, 08:21:07 AM
What is Marquettes policy on unmarried students caught having sex? I know Notre Dame's policy is very strict and can result in expulsion.
Not trying to be a smart ass, but I have absolutely no idea what your point is (or MU/ND policies on unmarried students having sex).
I also have a hard time with the Dr. Quade statements after working with her. She would be the very last person on my list in OSD that would go to bat for the Athletic Department. I totally dismissed this article after reading that.
When I was there, I don't think expulsion was a part of the punishment for sexual relations.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
Hell, I'll bet she asked for it. ::)
As a matter of fact, she did. She seems to have admitted that
I'm not surprised at all by the comments from Quade. At all. Cut from the same cloth as the rest of the OSD/ORL.
Quote from: MUDPT on June 22, 2011, 08:34:01 AM
I also have a hard time with the Dr. Quade statements after working with her. She would be the very last person on my list in OSD that would go to bat for the Athletic Department. I totally dismissed this article after reading that.
I totally agree with this. I have a very hard time believing she dismissed a possible rape and told her to pray about it. She was one of the lead people who got the club Lacrosse team suspended for some pretty minor hazing a few years back.
Quote from: CrazyEcho on June 22, 2011, 12:05:03 AM
Holy crap this is a morally wrong position.
Here's a hypo for you:
A woman with whom I have had sex in the past comes over to my apartment to have sex. We start making out (or even doing more than that) and then she tells me "NO, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU ANY MORE." I then forcibly have sex with her against her will and explicit instructions.
You're really saying that's far from rape or not even rape? (I understand there are credibility issues).
DING DING DING DING. That's exactly where I'm coming from. Just because you had sex with someone before doesn't mean the toll booth is open for all future actions. It doesn't even mean it's open that day if you start down that path and she has second thoughts. She says no, that's the end of it.
Couple of things to note:
-Unless I missed something the February incident is a student athlete, we don't know that it's a basketball player. Some people seem to be assuming without evidence
-I'm shocked by the lack of castigation on the board for the university. Even if you believe the story is 100% made-up by the woman, that in no way mitigates MU's apparent lack of institutional control around handling potential sex crimes. How can you be in violation of a state law for 10 years and excuse that?
-Again, even if you assume that the woman's story is inaccurate regarding how the situation was handled the potential crime never made it to MPD and it absolutely should have, and quickly. That transgression alone tells me that the head of DPS and Dr. Quade should suffer some punishment at a minimum and depending on the level of truth to the accuser's story should likely be fired.
Not a single person in the still is without fault, we should act on that fault. A lot of people want to throw stones at the places at fault that aren't dear to their heart. Someone brought up the ND story and it is the same situation and this absolutely should have been reported to MPD immediately if not only because its the law but it avoids the appearance of a cover-up.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 08:55:11 AMDING DING DING DING. That's exactly where I'm coming from. Just because you had sex with someone before doesn't mean the toll booth is open for all future actions. It doesn't even mean it's open that day if you start down that path and she has second thoughts. She says no, that's the end of it.
Many times I have launched in an A-10 with a full bag of gas and a load of snake and nape. Not always have I had the privilege of expending that ordnance. Nothing is more hateful, especially when I am primed for some hard core combat action. But when its time to withdraw one must do so with dignity, knowing full well that there are many targets and tomorrow is another day.
Quote from: mu03eng on June 22, 2011, 08:59:22 AM
Couple of things to note:
-Unless I missed something the February incident is a student athlete, we don't know that it's a basketball player. Some people seem to be assuming without evidence
-I'm shocked by the lack of castigation on the board for the university. Even if you believe the story is 100% made-up by the woman, that in no way mitigates MU's apparent lack of institutional control around handling potential sex crimes. How can you be in violation of a state law for 10 years and excuse that?
-Again, even if you assume that the woman's story is inaccurate regarding how the situation was handled the potential crime never made it to MPD and it absolutely should have, and quickly. That transgression alone tells me that the head of DPS and Dr. Quade should suffer some punishment at a minimum and depending on the level of truth to the accuser's story should likely be fired.
Not a single person in the still is without fault, we should act on that fault. A lot of people want to throw stones at the places at fault that aren't dear to their heart. Someone brought up the ND story and it is the same situation and this absolutely should have been reported to MPD immediately if not only because its the law but it avoids the appearance of a cover-up.
+1
Quote from: warthog-driver on June 22, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
Many times I have launched in an A-10 with a full bag of gas and a load of snake and nape. Not always have I had the privilege of expending that ordnance. Nothing is more hateful, especially when I am primed for some hard core combat action. But when its time to withdraw one must do so with dignity, knowing full well that there are many targets and tomorrow is another day.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts.... I think?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 08:55:11 AM
DING DING DING DING. That's exactly where I'm coming from. Just because you had sex with someone before doesn't mean the toll booth is open for all future actions. It doesn't even mean it's open that day if you start down that path and she has second thoughts. She says no, that's the end of it.
While I agree with the position you stated above, the danger is that you have taken her comments to the paper as 100% verifiably correct. That is where where you are going off track. No one, and I repeat
no one , on this board can state that her position is 100% accurate
OR that her position is completely false.
There are many facts missing. Yet, you have jumped to the conclussion that the athlete is guilty, and infact so is the entire program. That is just as bad, if not moreso as you extrapolate, as the blaming of the victim that you protested earlier.
This entire situation is disgusting and at the very least should have been investigated by the police. That this poor woman was not given a fair shot at justice because the university decided not to obey state laws makes me sick. Plain and simple marquette won here because there is no way to ever know the truth. These are the same people who go to church every Sunday and it makes me sick...My thoughts and prayers go out to that woman.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 22, 2011, 07:30:55 AM
OK...let's see here... People on this board have blamed:
**The Chicago Tribune
**The victim (with armchair psychologists claiming that she must be mentally ill)
**The head coaches of Loyola and DePaul
**Chicos for bashing MU basketball
**MPD because they "had to have known" what was going on
And my absolute favorite is Ners acting like a doctor and discussing his theories of vaginal scarring. ::)
However, I am going to reiterate what only a couple of you have seemed to catch: MARQUETTE VIOLATED STATE LAW, AND HAS DONE SO REPEATEDLY!! Also, it is interesting that no one is blaming the alledged perpetrator. (I don't think anyone should, but hell, if we can blame the victim and Oliver Purnell, we might as well right???)
Seriously people, take off your blue and gold goggles and use that MU education of yours to at least view this with some objectivity.
+1
MU and the student athlete messed up... To pretend otherwise is naive.
I'd like to know why you're all rushing to this accuser's defense? Why is she so believable and the player is not? It sounds like a lot of ridiculous "he said, she said to me." And amongst college kids. Seems to me that all legal entities involved agreed.
Frankly, I'm glad our basketball program is protecting our basketball players from shady accusations. Would you rather they be thrown to the wolves?
Quote from: bilsu on June 22, 2011, 08:21:24 AM
That is what you get when you try to cover things up. We got upto 6 players out of 14 involved in extra curricular activites. October (4), February (2) and Blue orange fight. I feel sorry for the 8 plus innocent players that are being hurt by the cover up. Hell, I feel sorry for the alumni(including me) being embarassed by this cover up. Can I get my Blue and Gold Fund donation back?
FTFY
I just wish people in today's world would remember that you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
No charges, no guilty verdict, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.
But, everyone jumps off the deep end anyway
Quote from: MUfan12 on June 22, 2011, 08:52:11 AM
I totally agree with this. I have a very hard time believing she dismissed a possible rape and told her to pray about it. She was one of the lead people who got the club Lacrosse team suspended for some pretty minor hazing a few years back.
Gonna go ahead and throw this out there: Basketball players = black kids from troubled environments who need this as a way out... Lacrosse = overprivileged white private school kids.
Just a thought
--
Hell will get a lil frosty when I say this: Sultan makes some solid points. At this point we can't confirm the validity of this girl's story that the alleged rape did or didnt take place. Even though Ners is trying to be David Caruso, shitty glasses terrible logic and all. But what can be determined, is that MU violated the law and has violated the law multiple times over the past 10 years.
Quote from: Ari Gold on June 22, 2011, 09:45:57 AM
Gonna go ahead and throw this out there: Basketball players = black kids from troubled environments who need this as a way out... Lacrosse = overprivileged white private school kids.
Just a thought
So we're ruling out Frozena? Good point, hadn't thought of it from that angle.
Quote from: DJO's Pump Fake on June 22, 2011, 09:44:38 AM
I just wish people in today's world would remember that you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
No charges, no guilty verdict, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.
But, everyone jumps off the deep end anyway
That is the legal defination. However, we all know in some cases innocent people go to jail and guilty people do not. OJ was found not guilty, but most people think he was guilty.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on June 22, 2011, 09:42:13 AM
I'd like to know why you're all rushing to this accuser's defense? Why is she so believable and the player is not? It sounds like a lot of ridiculous "he said, she said to me." And amongst college kids. Seems to me that all legal entities involved agreed.
Frankly, I'm glad our basketball program is protecting our basketball players from shady accusations. Would you rather they be thrown to the wolves?
I'd rather that Marquette follow the law and report the allegations to the appropriate authorities which likely will lead to an investigation. I have no idea where that investigation would have led. It might have led to serious trouble for a Marquette athlete; it might have led to complete exoneration. I think either result would be preferable to what we've got now.
Quote from: bilsu on June 22, 2011, 09:51:24 AM
That is the legal defination. However, we all know in some cases innocent people go to jail and guilty people do not. OJ was found not guilty, but most people think he was guilty.
If you want to do legal definitions, OJ was acquitted, not found not guilty.
I know what my initial reaction was when I read the young woman's account. I know I can be an insensitive jerk, so I decided to solicit the opinion of some of the women in my life. I have since chatted about this with my wife, a trusted female co-worker, and my 16 year old daughter, without expressing my opinion. Of that small sample size, none consider this a crime. Strictly off of the female's version of the story. They actually agree with the two public safety officer's who told her that they weren't sure this was a crime. I have no idea about names or details of the other event. But IMO, this one is a non-starter.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
That's it, rip down the woman....it's usually their fault. Hell, I'll bet she asked for it. ::)
Because we all know a woman never changes her mind and could very easily tell someone to stop in the middle of it. Considering your short span of a few seconds, I doubt that happens to you often but for those that last more than a few it's more than possible. But that's right, she's unstable. ::)
Man, you are something else. Whether it be Buzz Williams, DPS, or the Administration, you heave demonstrated a clear and continued pattern of taking anyone else at their word, and give the benefit of the doubt to the 'wronged' party, while completely discounting MU's version of things. Did MU handle this poorly? Yes, I think she probably did. Do I believe this gal's version of things is 100% accurate? No, I don't, any more than I believe its 100% false. It seems you love to put your tin foil hat one wherever MU is concerned.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 09:52:27 AM
I'd rather that Marquette follow the law and report the allegations to the appropriate authorities which likely will lead to an investigation. I have no idea where that investigation would have led. It might have led to serious trouble for a Marquette athlete; it might have led to complete exoneration. I think either result would be preferable to what we've got now.
+1000000000
In terms of Chico's Toll Booth analogy. What if you are halfway through the toll booth, and you don't hear the toll booth attendant say stop...since you are too busy thinking about baseball, because you do not want to lose all of your quarters you are about to throw into the receptacle? ;) (By no means do I mean to make light of this specific instance)
Thoughts:
- I'm not surprised the University has flouted rules for the last 10 years. I'm surprised they went so public with that knowledge in this story.
- Like it or not, the alleged victim in this case is in a tough spot due to false claims of assault in the past from other people. People can claim not to be biased but when many of these claims turn out to be made under false pretenses, and you add in the caveat that she was previously engaged in sex with this person prior to the alleged incident, its not so crazy to think her claims were met with skepticism.
- Are we certain the February incident was a basketball player? I'm guessing its 90% but is it definite?
- Also, is this person in the February incident one of the four from the October harassment? If so, then we have a problem.
- Finally, on the 27th of February the Warriors dismantled PC. Any thoughts whether the player (if basketball) was on a high and played well or on a down and played poorly?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 09:03:09 AM
At some point you begin to ask WTF is going on.
For you that point was April 2008. Since then, everything on the court (game preparation, game strategy, alleged "choking" by coaches and players, jucos, "non-traditionals", etc.) and off the court (Maymon, Newbill, allegations against athletes, squirmy stuff that you allegedly hear, etc.) has resulted in you ripping the the program/university. Nobody, and that includes admitted arch-enemies like Badgermaniac, has gone after MU like you. You accuse others of sticking their heads in the sand and looking at these issues through blue and gold covered glasses even as you consistently interpret them in whatever way proves most damaging to Marquette. Your attempts at potraying yourself as a loyal, concerned and fair minded fan are beyond laughable. So much of your ego is invested in hopes of failure for the current regime that you've become the ultimate MU hater.
Quote from: DJO's Pump Fake on June 22, 2011, 09:44:38 AM
I just wish people in today's world would remember that you are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.
No charges, no guilty verdict, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise.
But, everyone jumps off the deep end anyway
There's a lot of truth to what you're saying, but as bilsu pointed out, the presumption of innocence relates to whether someone is convicted and punished in a court of law...not the court of public opinion.
I have no idea whether a "Marquette athlete" raped this girl, and I'm not going to assume either way. The allegation is troubling, but that's it. What I
do know, however, is that Marquette's illegal failure to report the allegation may have precluded an appropriate investigation. And that pisses me off. When there is a cover up (or the appearance of one), even if not by the accused, a lot of people are going to assume the worst (or "jump off the deep end" as you call it). Marquette's failure in this regard isn't fair to the accuser or to the accused.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 09:52:27 AM
I'd rather that Marquette follow the law and report the allegations to the appropriate authorities which likely will lead to an investigation. I have no idea where that investigation would have led. It might have led to serious trouble for a Marquette athlete; it might have led to complete exoneration. I think either result would be preferable to what we've got now.
Unless I'm missing something, there *WAS* an investigation by the authorities, and that investigation led to the DA not issuing charges.
Does the University deserve criticism for not reporting this to the police sooner? Sure. Did the delay in reporting it have any impact on the DA's decision not to issue charges? I don't think so.
Quote from: Rubie Q on June 22, 2011, 10:07:29 AM
Unless I'm missing something, there *WAS* an investigation by the authorities, and that investigation led to the DA not issuing charges.
Does the University deserve criticism for not reporting this to the police sooner? Sure. Did the delay in reporting it have any impact on the DA's decision not to issue charges? I don't think so.
But I'm fairly sure that I've read that the DA has been critical of Marquette and has suggested that the delay might have influenced the decision to not bring charges.
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 09:53:54 AM
I know what my initial reaction was when I read the young woman's account. I know I can be an insensitive jerk, so I decided to solicit the opinion of some of the women in my life. I have since chatted about this with my wife, a trusted female co-worker, and my 16 year old daughter, without expressing my opinion. Of that small sample size, none consider this a crime. Strictly off of the female's version of the story. They actually agree with the two public safety officer's who told her that they weren't sure this was a crime. I have no idea about names or details of the other event. But IMO, this one is a non-starter.
For the record, they're all wrong. If things occurred
as she described them, a crime was committed. Whether or not the prosecutor could secure a conviction (or would even bring charges) is an entirely different question. From an evidentiary standpoint, the facts described by the accuser would present a very difficult case (i.e., the jury would have a hard time deciding who was telling the truth which typically results in an acquittal). But just because a jury might not convict doesn't mean that the facts, as alleged, don't describe a crime.
That said, I have no idea if a crime was committed; and I don't intend to take a position on that because I'm sure I'm never going to have enough information to do so.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 10:13:52 AM
But I'm fairly sure that I've read that the DA has been critical of Marquette and has suggested that the delay might have influenced the decision to not bring charges.
He did make a statement to that effect, which reeked of grandstanding at the time and looks even worse now, in my opinion, because of the evidence that the Tribune says was collected during the investigation. The DA had a medical report and multiple statements from the woman, which he said had been consistent throughout. And yet he didn't file charges.
Like I said: I have no problem with the University being criticized here (for not following the law, etc), but I don't think it's fair to pin the lack-of-prosecution on Marquette.
I don't care whose side you want to take on the matter, the Trib piece is full of slant, posturing, and complete BS. This isn't to say that it's entirely false, but the only conclusion that can be drawn based upon this article is that it's clearly being driven by a plaintiff's attorney and a lawsuit should be coming very soon.
Quote from: MUMac on June 22, 2011, 07:41:29 AM
The comments of many on this thread are truly embarrassing. I thought we had adults who were educated that posted here, but I guess not.
Did MU handle this poorly? He!! yes, they admitted so and should be admonished for it. To learn this has been their policy for 10 years is frightenning.
As for the girl's story, get a grip people. We have one side of the story. I will go out on a limb here and speculate that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE that has commented in this thread knows the true facts. Yet, so many have leapt to conclussions.
It is unwise, and frankly dangerous, to blame either the girl or athlete. Conjecture is dangerous and that is all I have read here. After hearing both sides, the DA decided not to press charges. I suspect the other side of the story may have played in that decision. Now, does that mean nothing happenned? No. But to lay guilt at the feet of the athlete, as many have, or the girl, as others have, is irresponsible. Especially on a one sided story.
Thanks for bringing some sanity to he thread.
Quote from: Rubie Q on June 22, 2011, 10:24:48 AM
He did make a statement to that effect, which reeked of grandstanding at the time and looks even worse now, in my opinion, because of the evidence that the Tribune says was collected during the investigation. The DA had a medical report and multiple statements from the woman, which he said had been consistent throughout. And yet he didn't file charges.
Like I said: I have no problem with the University being criticized here (for not following the law, etc), but I don't think it's fair to pin the lack-of-prosecution on Marquette.
I'm not saying that the decision to not prosecute is entirely Marquette's fault. I honestly don't know. But when it came time to make the decision, it appears that all they had was "a medical report and multiple statements from the woman." That's really not a lot to go on, especially in light if the fact that the accuser admitted that she went there to have consensual sex, and began doing so, but later changed her mind. Would you agree that it's at least possible that a prompt investigation might have come up with additional evidence that a crime was committed? Or, perhaps, that no crime was committed?
As I said in an earlier post, Marquette's failure to report this is also unfair to the accused athlete. A prompt and thorough investigation might have cleared him.
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 09:53:54 AM
I know what my initial reaction was when I read the young woman's account. I know I can be an insensitive jerk, so I decided to solicit the opinion of some of the women in my life. I have since chatted about this with my wife, a trusted female co-worker, and my 16 year old daughter, without expressing my opinion. Of that small sample size, none consider this a crime.
Well, it actually IS a crime if her story is true. So the women in your life are wrong.
Not to mention, people who are taking either side continue to miss the point. MU violated state law. A law that they should have known about. And it makes the University look bad, because even if nothing happened, it makes it *look* like a cover up. Almost exactly like the ND case in that regard.
Also, when searching for the article online, I noticed that this is just part of a broader reporting arc at the Tribune.
An article talking about this issue across the midwest from June 16
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-campus-sexual-assaults-0617-20110616,0,769086,full.story
Follow up on how the reporters worked the story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/tribnation/chi-how-we-reported-on-campus-sexual-assaults-20110617,0,4560837.story
Quote from: Benny B on June 22, 2011, 10:24:59 AM
I don't care whose side you want to take on the matter, the Trib piece is full of slant, posturing, and complete BS. This isn't to say that it's entirely false, but the only conclusion that can be drawn based upon this article is that it's clearly being driven by a plaintiff's attorney and a lawsuit should be coming very soon.
I highly doubt that Marquette did not cover its bases enough to have a solid case ready if and when this becomes a lawsuit. I am sure one of their primary arguments will be that the police could have easily been contacted by this girl...it has yet to be addressed by her why she did not do this. She also says absolutely nothing that implies MU told her to not go to the police.
I keep seeing people here talking about the reporting and violation of state law by Marquette, and once again I just want to point out that for 10 years this went unnoticed, and then an athlete(s) were accused and it becomes an issue. I highly doubt the police were ignorant to this. I wont address how I feel about the players, or the accuser. I will say that it is baffling that for 10 years this went unnoticed, and that even though we did this for 10 years the D.A has addressed no punishment. I think that that fact says alot.
The way I see it, there is no way you can void MU of some sort of error on this issue. I'm not a lawyer nor have I played one on tv, but I do know stop means stop, and if you don't that is a crime. So based on that, the university has a duty to report that alleged crime as reported to them to MPD. They failed to do so in this case which is illegal. Does anyone dispute that contention? I am in no way basing anything on the merit's of the woman's case, merely what MU has acknowledge as fact, that points to a stunning lack of common sense and sensitivity.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 10:35:58 AM
I'm not saying that the decision to not prosecute is entirely Marquette's fault. I honestly don't know. But when it came time to make the decision, it appears that all they had was "a medical report and multiple statements from the woman." That's really not a lot to go on, especially in light if the fact that the accuser admitted that she went there to have consensual sex, and began doing so, but later changed her mind. Would you agree that it's at least possible that a prompt investigation might have come up with additional evidence that a crime was committed? Or, perhaps, that no crime was committed?
It's possible, but in this case extremely unlikely.
The only circumstance I can imagine in which it may have made a difference is if investigators had been able to speak with the accused sooner and he were to confess to some criminal act in the heat of the moment, as opposed to when they finally spoke with him and he obviously did not make any admissions.
With both sides stating there was consensual sex, at least initially, any physical evidence obtained right away wouldn't have been probative. It merely would have proved whether sex occurred, which both parties already agree was the case.
This isn't to defend MU's wrongdoing here ... just pointing out that it almost certainly didn't make a difference in whether there was a prosecution
in this particular case.
QuoteAs I said in an earlier post, Marquette's failure to report this is also unfair to the accused athlete. A prompt and thorough investigation might have cleared him.
Again, probably not. Unless the parties' versions would have been different two months earlier, the timing is mostly irrelevant.
Again, not defending MU, just pointing out that their poor decisions didn't make a difference here.
I will tell my wife, the legal secretary, that she needs to do a better job of understanding the law.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on June 22, 2011, 09:52:51 AM
If you want to do legal definitions, OJ was acquitted, not found not guilty.
I am not a lawyer. However, every show or movie I watch where there is a trail, the jury either finds the defendent guilty or not guilty.
Being a legal secretary doesn't mean you understand criminal law.
Quote from: bilsu on June 22, 2011, 11:09:54 AM
I am not a lawyer. However, every show or movie I watch where there is a trail, the jury either finds the defendent guilty or not guilty.
Yes, jury verdicts are guilty or not guilty.
An acquittal is the legal certification of that verdict, just as a conviction is the certification of a guilty verdict.
True. But other than my wife's taste in men, I trust her judgement. And the crux of my point is this, if things happened EXACTLY as the young lady claims, it would be exceedingly difficult to get a conviction. I'm not saying the guy didn't behave badly, I will even go so far as to admit that in my youth I was able to stop in the middle when asked, so I know it is possible. But it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction and even IF the university had handled it as they should have and even IF MPD was in it from the beginning, I would be stunned if charges were even brought. But of course, since that didn't happen, we will never know.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on June 22, 2011, 10:01:24 AM
Thoughts:
- I'm not surprised the University has flouted rules for the last 10 years. I'm surprised they went so public with that knowledge in this story.
Looks bad, but It looks better than letting people think it was just this year to protect an athelete.
- Finally, on the 27th of February the Warriors dismantled PC. Any thoughts whether the player (if basketball) was on a high and played well or on a down and played poorly?
Providence was an afternoon game and problably before the situation. MU lost to Cincy and Seton hall after that and got back on track after Buzz held a close door meeting after the Seton hall loss. Therefore, I think it did have an effect on the team.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 10:04:38 AM
I have no idea whether a "Marquette athlete" raped this girl, and I'm not going to assume either way. The allegation is troubling, but that's it. What I do know, however, is that Marquette's illegal failure to report the allegation may have precluded an appropriate investigation. And that pisses me off. When there is a cover up (or the appearance of one), even if not by the accused, a lot of people are going to assume the worst (or "jump off the deep end" as you call it). Marquette's failure in this regard isn't fair to the accuser or to the accused.
Well said. Thanks for splicing through the all of the complexities we've contemplated in this thread (legal, race, bias in media, school loyalty, etc) and re-framing this debacle in simple terms. The he said/she said debate is futile at this point. As is the debate over legal distinctions. The facts are too obsured.
I agree with StillAWarrior in that I am upset with Marquette for their part in the mess. My critique of Marquette in this case doesn't mean I love the school any less. Tough love is love just the same.
Quote from: KC2016 on June 21, 2011, 10:46:15 PM
This is a little over the top.
You think getting put on the front page of the Chicago Tribune (one of the largest papers in the country and a place where we recruit a large number of students to our university) for our lack of action for 10 years isn't Blowing It Big Time? Not just front page, but headline banner story. Makes you wonder what the crack staff at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is doing.
(http://i53.tinypic.com/1zvzxoj.jpg)
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 11:21:13 AM
True. But other than my wife's taste in men, I trust her judgement. And the crux of my point is this, if things happened EXACTLY as the young lady claims, it would be exceedingly difficult to get a conviction. I'm not saying the guy didn't behave badly, I will even go so far as to admit that in my youth I was able to stop in the middle when asked, so I know it is possible. But it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction and even IF the university had handled it as they should have and even IF MPD was in it from the beginning, I would be stunned if charges were even brought. But of course, since that didn't happen, we will never know.
Tower that is ultimately my disappointment with MU, they prevented that from happening which leads to the rampant conjecture which prevents both the woman and the athlete from seeing true justice and in combination with everything else paints MU in a bad light.
Quote from: Benny B on June 22, 2011, 10:24:59 AM
I don't care whose side you want to take on the matter, the Trib piece is full of slant, posturing, and complete BS. This isn't to say that it's entirely false, but the only conclusion that can be drawn based upon this article is that it's clearly being driven by a plaintiff's attorney and a lawsuit should be coming very soon.
A lawsuit for what? Exactly what leg does any legal challenge have to stand on in this case? NONE. It would get thrown out of court so fast it would make your head spin. The university has ADMITTED screwing up for 10 years and not being in compliance with STATE LAW. If there is a lawsuit, it should be against the university.
Chico, Duke LaCrosse survived, even before the charges were dismissed. Syracuse survived Devendorf and Fab Melo. UNLV survived Tark. MU survived Pops Sims, the Copa car accident, Mortenson, James Matthews etc. As long as the players weren't trading signed MU paraphernalia for tats, pot, cars, women, booze, MU will survive this, too.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 11:36:11 AM
A lawsuit for what? Exactly what leg does any legal challenge have to stand on in this case? NONE. It would get thrown out of court so fast it would make your head spin. The university has ADMITTED screwing up for 10 years and not being in compliance with STATE LAW. If there is a lawsuit, it should be against the university.
I think that was his point, hence the "plaintiff's attorney" language.
Now the Jourtinel has picked it up.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/124348773.html
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 11:01:52 AM
It's possible, but in this case extremely unlikely.
The only circumstance I can imagine in which it may have made a difference is if investigators had been able to speak with the accused sooner and he were to confess to some criminal act in the heat of the moment, as opposed to when they finally spoke with him and he obviously did not make any admissions.
With both sides stating there was consensual sex, at least initially, any physical evidence obtained right away wouldn't have been probative. It merely would have proved whether sex occurred, which both parties already agree was the case.
This isn't to defend MU's wrongdoing here ... just pointing out that it almost certainly didn't make a difference in whether there was a prosecution in this particular case.
I agree with Pakuni. In terms of evidence in an alleged sexual assault case, the medical examination plus statements from both of the parties involved is about as much as you can ask for. The delay in the reporting of the allegation didn't hinder the DA's ability to issue charges.
Other than the additional notoriety of the Trib story, there's nothing new here.
We've known for weeks that MU had a bad policy that did not adhere to state law. Many of us have already said this repeatedly over the past several weeks. The university has admitted to this and changed its procedures for the better.
Also, though some will surely try to make it so to further their personal agendas, this is a Marquette University issue, not a Marquette basketball/athletics issue. The student-athlete's involvement is practically irrelevant, though it's safe to say this issue wouldn't be getting nearly as much attention if this involved a regular student.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 11:31:33 AM
You think getting put on the front page of the Chicago Tribune (one of the largest papers in the country and a place where we recruit a large number of students to our university) for our lack of action for 10 years isn't Blowing It Big Time? Not just front page, but headline banner story. Makes you wonder what the crack staff at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is doing.
(http://i53.tinypic.com/1zvzxoj.jpg)
Chicos, the lead reporter on this story is Ryan Haggarty, a former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter that joined the Tribune in February or March I believe. I'm sure he knew from his experience with the MJS that they won't report anything unless it falls in their laps and used all his contacts in Milwaukee to build this report.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 11:01:52 AM
It's possible, but in this case extremely unlikely.
The only circumstance I can imagine in which it may have made a difference is if investigators had been able to speak with the accused sooner and he were to confess to some criminal act in the heat of the moment, as opposed to when they finally spoke with him and he obviously did not make any admissions.
With both sides stating there was consensual sex, at least initially, any physical evidence obtained right away wouldn't have been probative. It merely would have proved whether sex occurred, which both parties already agree was the case.
This isn't to defend MU's wrongdoing here ... just pointing out that it almost certainly didn't make a difference in whether there was a prosecution in this particular case.
How about inspecting the apartment? Any sign of a struggle? How about talking to neighbors? Did you hear/see anything? What was her demeanor when she left? Etc. Those are all things that a month later might be pretty hard to get at. This is particularly true in light of the fact that there had been a previous relationship. A month later you might not remember any specifics from any particular night ("yeah, I saw her there a few times, but I don't specifically remember the night in question" versus, "yeah, I saw her last night when she left...she didn't seem upset at all and kissed him goodbye outside the door.") Incidentally, those are also things that might well have exonerated the athlete.
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 11:07:11 AM
I will tell my wife, the legal secretary, that she needs to do a better job of understanding the law.
Good. I'm fairly sure my secretary (also a legal secretary) probably would understand that when you force sex upon someone who says "no" that a crime is committed. I'm not saying that's what occurred, but that is what her story is. Her story unquestionably describes a crime.
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 11:21:13 AM
True. But other than my wife's taste in men, I trust her judgement. And the crux of my point is this, if things happened EXACTLY as the young lady claims, it would be exceedingly difficult to get a conviction. I'm not saying the guy didn't behave badly, I will even go so far as to admit that in my youth I was able to stop in the middle when asked, so I know it is possible. But it would be extremely difficult to get a conviction and even IF the university had handled it as they should have and even IF MPD was in it from the beginning, I would be stunned if charges were even brought. But of course, since that didn't happen, we will never know.
I agree completely, and that was my point. What she described is a crime. I doubt seriously that the prosecutor could have secured a conviction (or even would have brought charges).
I think a more prompt and thorough investigation probably would have been more likely to produce exculpatory evidence than anything that would have made a charge or conviction more likely.
1.Marquette's policy for handling possible crimes committed on campus is evidently in violation of state law and has been for 10 years. Do we fault those carrying out those long standing policies in 2010-11 or does the blame lie with those who established these illegal policies in 2000-1? That's a layup.
2.Is this the first time in 10 years of MU following these policies that the MPD/DA have become aware of this? Hard to believe. If not, why did this case become a cause celebe'? Did sex and the fact that the accused was an athlete have anything to do with it?
3.After sleeping on it, the alleged victim told her story to two on duty DPS officers and Dr. Stephanie Quade. After hearing her account the officers suggested that even if things happened as stated they weren't sure what happened could be classified as a crime, let alone rape. According to the alleged victim, Dr Quade counseled her to see to her own mental health rather than pursuing charges. I suppose that it's possible that the two officers and Dr Quade are not familiar with "no meaning no" in cases of rape, but it's extremely unlikely. That leaves 3 possibilities - 1.The alleged victim told a different story to the officers and Dr Quade than she later told the police which led them to believe that no crime had been committed 2.The story was essentially the same but was deemed unreasonable/unbelieveable by the officers and Dr Quade. 3.The alleged victim gave credible evidence to the officers and Dr Quade that she had been raped and they both decided independently to participate in an attempt to cover the crime up. The odds of #3 being the correct answer seem long to me.
Summation: MU had a long standing policy in place for dealing with accusations of student on student crimes. That policy was flawed, evidently even illegal. It's embarrassing that MU ever adopted that policy and that it had to be reprimanded publicly for it, but it has now been changed. None of us will ever know exactly what happened in that dorm room on that February night, but the 2 DPS officers and Dr Quade were comfortable that no crime was committed. Ultimately so were the MPD and DA. To think otherwise requires a decidedly anti MU bias.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 12:11:08 PM
How about inspecting the apartment? Any sign of a struggle? How about talking to neighbors? Did you hear/see anything? What was her demeanor when she left? Etc. Those are all things that a month later might be pretty hard to get at. This is particularly true in light of the fact that there had been a previous relationship. A month later you might not remember any specifics from any particular night ("yeah, I saw her there a few times, but I don't specifically remember the night in question" versus, "yeah, I saw her last night when she left...she didn't seem upset at all and kissed him goodbye outside the door.") Incidentally, those are also things that might well have exonerated the athlete.
Inspecting the apartment for what, exactly? Signs of a struggle on a bed in which two people admit to have consensual sex, at least for a time?
Good luck with that one.
I think you're really reaching here. No prosecutor is going to bring/pass on a sex assault case based on a neighbor's observance. Especially in light of a previous relationship.
The fact is , sex cases almost always come down to three things: physical evidence, statement from the accused and the credibility of the accuser. In this particular case, two of those three things didn't change one iota because of how MU handled this, and it's very unlikely the third would have been any different.
I'm not suggesting the girl's claims are true or untrue. None of us know that. But from a prosecutor's point of view, this case would have been dead on arrival.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 22, 2011, 12:24:30 PM
1.Marquette's policy for handling possible crimes committed on campus is evidently in violation of state law and has been for 10 years. Do we fault those carrying out those long standing policies in 2010-11 or does the blame lie with those who established these illegal policies in 2000-1? That's a layup.
2.Is this the first time in 10 years of MU following these policies that the MPD/DA have become aware of this? Hard to believe. If not, why did this case become a cause celebe'? Did sex and the fact that the accused was an athlete have anything to do with it?
3.After sleeping on it, the alleged victim told her story to two on duty DPS officers and Dr. Stephanie Quade. After hearing her account the officers suggested that even if things happened as stated they weren't sure what happened could be classified as a crime, let alone rape. According to the alleged victim, Dr Quade counseled her to see to her own mental health rather than pursuing charges. I suppose that it's possible that the two officers and Dr Quade are not familiar with "no meaning no" in cases of rape, but it's extremely unlikely. That leaves 3 possibilities - 1.The alleged victim told a different story to the officers and Dr Quade than she later told the police which led them to believe that no crime had been committed 2.The story was essentially the same but was deemed unreasonable/unbelieveable by the officers and Dr Quade. 3.The alleged victim gave credible evidence to the officers and Dr Quade that she had been raped and they both decided independently to participate in an attempt to cover the crime up. The odds of #3 being the correct answer seem long to me.
Summation: MU had a long standing policy in place for dealing with accusations of student on student crimes. That policy was flawed, evidently even illegal. It's embarrassing that MU ever adopted that policy and that it had to be reprimanded publicly for it, but it has now been changed. None of us will ever know exactly what happened in that dorm room on that February night, but the 2 DPS officers and Dr Quade were comfortable that no crime was committed. Ultimately so were the MPD and DA. To think otherwise requires a decidedly anti MU bias.
I was reading through this and was thinking that I was going to totally agree with you. It was so, so close. But I disagree with your statement that the MPD and DA were "comfortable that no crime was committed." I have absolutely no idea if that is true. It might be. It might also be that they knew damn well that they would not secure a conviction, so they opted to not bring charges (and honestly, the same might be true of the DPS officers and Quade...again, I don't know). Incidentally, I think they probably would have reached the same conclusion even if MU had reported the allegations immediately.
Without rereading the article, the vicim did not report it to MU until the next day. That alone hurts the evidence trail. The condition of the apartment would provide little evidence of anything of value, unless blood was spilled.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 12:28:29 PM
Inspecting the apartment for what, exactly? Signs of a struggle on a bed in which two people admit to have consensual sex, at least for a time?
Good luck with that one.
I think you're really reaching here. No prosecutor is going to bring/pass on a sex assault case based on a neighbor's observance. Especially in light of a previous relationship.
The fact is , sex cases almost always come down to three things: physical evidence, statement from the accused and the credibility of the accuser. In this particular case, two of those three things didn't change one iota because of how MU handled this, and it's very unlikely the third would have been any different.
I'm not suggesting the girl's claims are true or untrue. None of us know that. But from a prosecutor's point of view, this case would have been dead on arrival.
I'm not "reaching" for anything. I agree with all those who have said that this case probably was DOA given the facts as alleged. Lots of cases are DOA, but that doesn't mean that they don't complete an investigation before pulling the plug. The two phrases I highlighted in your post reveal why it's a good idea.
And, as I've stated before, I think an investigation would more likely have produced exculpatory evidence in this case. You said, "No prosecutor is going to bring/pass on a sex assault case based on a neighbor's observance." Really? You don't think that a neighbor saying, "I heard her screaming 'no' and 'stop' and saw her running from the apartment in tears" or "I saw them kissing in the doorway when she was leaving and she said she'd call him tomorrow" might not influence a prosecutor's decision in a rape case? Not saying either is a case here, but those are two extremes of how a neighbor's observance could be highly relevant to a rape investigation.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 12:32:02 PM
I was reading through this and was thinking that I was going to totally agree with you. It was so, so close. But I disagree with your statement that the MPD and DA were "comfortable that no crime was committed." I have absolutely no idea if that is true. It might be. It might also be that they knew damn well that they would not secure a conviction, so they opted to not bring charges (and honestly, the same might be true of the DPS officers and Quade...again, I don't know). Incidentally, I think they probably would have reached the same conclusion even if MU had reported the allegations immediately.
Do you not think that if a DA or MPD felt a potential rape was committed that they would have at least let the case go to a grand jury proceeding? What is the down side if they can't "secure a conviction?" Many cases get tried that don't result in guilty verdicts. Why in a case as serious as a potential rape - would you not take to a grand jury at minimum to see if you can indict?
My guess is because there wasn't enough of a case for the D.A. to think that even a grand jury would find the athlete guilty - or worth indicting.
Marquette needs to come out swinging against these allegations. Taking the apolgetic, we were wrong approach as they have done thus far, has only resulted in more speculation. Time for MU to defend itself and how it handled the issue. The only statement that needs to be made is that the "victim" was asked multiple times if she wanted MPD assistance, to which she said no.
Quote from: warthog-driver on June 22, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
Many times I have launched in an A-10 with a full bag of gas and a load of snake and nape. Not always have I had the privilege of expending that ordnance. Nothing is more hateful, especially when I am primed for some hard core combat action. But when its time to withdraw one must do so with dignity, knowing full well that there are many targets and tomorrow is another day.
I think this statement is just as sad as the situation we are commenting on. I often noticed on this site that young men think women are objects for their sexual gratification. The idea that you are noble, because you are going to move on to the next target should be embarrassing to you.
Quote from: Ners on June 22, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
Marquette needs to come out swinging against these allegations. Taking the apolgetic, we were wrong approach as they have done thus far, has only resulted in more speculation. Time for MU to defend itself and how it handled the issue. The only statement that needs to be made is that the "victim" was asked multiple times if she wanted MPD assistance, to which she said no.
Yet again, I will remind you, MU violated state law.
What do you want them to say "Yeah, I know we violated the law, but we knew it wasn't really a rape."
Cmon Ners...you're smarter than that.
Quote from: Ners on June 22, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
Do you not think that if a DA or MPD felt a potential rape was committed that they would have at least let the case go to a grand jury proceeding? What is the down side if they can't "secure a conviction?" Many cases get tried that don't result in guilty verdicts. Why in a case as serious as a potential rape - would you not take to a grand jury at minimum to see if you can indict?
My guess is because there wasn't enough of a case for the D.A. to think that even a grand jury would find the athlete guilty - or worth indicting.
Marquette needs to come out swinging against these allegations. Taking the apolgetic, we were wrong approach as they have done thus far, has only resulted in more speculation. Time for MU to defend itself and how it handled the issue. The only statement that needs to be made is that the "victim" was asked multiple times if she wanted MPD assistance, to which she said no.
yeah, other than breaking state law, MU did a great job ::)
Quote from: Ners on June 22, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
Do you not think that if a DA or MPD felt a potential rape was committed that they would have at least let the case go to a grand jury proceeding? What is the down side if they can't "secure a conviction?" Many cases get tried that don't result in guilty verdicts. Why in a case as serious as a potential rape - would you not take to a grand jury at minimum to see if you can indict?
My guess is because there wasn't enough of a case for the D.A. to think that even a grand jury would find the athlete guilty - or worth indicting.
I agree, and I have no doubt that this is why they didn't bring the case to the grand jury. That said, it doesn't mean that they were comfortable that no crime was committed. It just means that they knew they wouldn't get an indictment. It's OK to admit we don't know things. We don't know what happened between the accuser and the accused, and we don't know what was inside the DA's head when he decided to not bring charges.
Quote from: Ners on June 22, 2011, 12:42:38 PM
Marquette needs to come out swinging against these allegations. Taking the apolgetic, we were wrong approach as they have done thus far, has only resulted in more speculation. Time for MU to defend itself and how it handled the issue. The only statement that needs to be made is that the "victim" was asked multiple times if she wanted MPD assistance, to which she said no.
I have mixed emotions on this. It's clear that they screwed up in not reporting this or other suspected crimes. I have no problem with them openly admitting that they violated the law and have changed their practices. But I do agree that they really should focus on the fact that she said she didn't want the MPD involved (if that is true in this case...and I think it is...I've got the two mixed up in my head a bit). It doesn't excuse Marquette's violation of state law, but it's probably a good idea from the PR standpoint.
Just so everybody knows:
We don't have grand juries in Wisconsin state court, at least not for cases like this. The decision to issue a criminal complaint rests solely with the District Attorney.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 12:41:23 PM
I'm not "reaching" for anything. I agree with all those who have said that this case probably was DOA given the facts as alleged. Lots of cases are DOA, but that doesn't mean that they don't complete an investigation before pulling the plug. The two phrases I highlighted in your post reveal why it's a good idea.
Well, actually authorities do pull plugs on cases all the time without a full investigation. If, for example, someone comes in complaining of a crime which isn't one, cops aren't going to bother rounding up suspects or witnesses.
That may be neither here nor there in this particular case, but I couldn't let that sweeping generaility pass.
I use those phrases because no one can say with 100 percent certainty what would have happened had a police investigation been initiated immediately. We can only deal with probabilities. And the probabilities of a different outcome here are so slim as to be negligible.
I also can't say an airplane won't fall out of the sky and crush my office building today, but I think it's not any more likely than police finding evidence of rape on a bed were the sex started consensually.
QuoteAnd, as I've stated before, I think an investigation would more likely have produced exculpatory evidence in this case. You said, "No prosecutor is going to bring/pass on a sex assault case based on a neighbor's observance." Really? You don't think that a neighbor saying, "I heard her screaming 'no' and 'stop' and saw her running from the apartment in tears"
Are you suggesting that this is inmformation that police couldn't have obtained two months later? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that someone who hears his/her female neighbor scream "No" and Stop" wouldn't have forgotten about it a few weeks later.
Ergo, the timing is irrelevant. That information would not have changed with the passage of time.
If a neighbor heard screaming and "no" or "stop", I would hope that the neighbor would report it immediately, rather than wait to see if the accuser goes to the police.
Quote from: PE8983 on June 22, 2011, 01:12:07 PM
If a neighbor heard screaming and "no" or "stop", I would hope that the neighbor would report it immediately, rather than wait to see if the accuser goes to the police.
Don't you remember living in dorms? If someone is screaming "no" or "stop" I'd assume they're screwing around doing something like college kids tend to at all hours of the night. It might warrant a wall-pounding, but what kid narcs to the cops on their dorm-neighbors?
Quote from: tower912 on June 22, 2011, 11:41:10 AM
Chico, Duke LaCrosse survived, even before the charges were dismissed. Syracuse survived Devendorf and Fab Melo. UNLV survived Tark. MU survived Pops Sims, the Copa car accident, Mortenson, James Matthews etc. As long as the players weren't trading signed MU paraphernalia for tats, pot, cars, women, booze, MU will survive this, too.
I don't recall me or anyone else saying MU wouldn't survive. Of course MU will survive. The LAPD survived Rodney King, MU survived Jeffrey Dahmer, the Republican party survived Richard Nixon, the Democrat party will survive John Edwards and Anthony Wiener. That doesn't take away from the fact that it was A) preventable; B) can easily be construed as a cover-up; C) lends into the axiom that the university cares more about it's athletes than the general student body (which, by the way, isn't a charge leveled only against MU but against many schools).
Want to know what scares the crap out of me....MU has been in violation of this for 10 years....how many more women come forward in the coming weeks, months to say it happened to them as well? Hopefully none, but that has to keep some folks up late at night over at MU.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 01:03:25 PM
Are you suggesting that this is inmformation that police couldn't have obtained two months later? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that someone who hears his/her female neighbor scream "No" and Stop" wouldn't have forgotten about it a few weeks later.
Ergo, the timing is irrelevant. That information would not have changed with the passage of time.
Are there reports that she violently resisted? She might not have screamed rape, but just tried getting him to stop but couldn't. That's where it starts to get really gray. We have all gotten the "no, not right now" or "no, I'm upset with you" from our girlfriends. How much did she really protest? How close of a "couple" were these to? What did she lead him on with? Did she say no but went along anyways because she felt pressured? These are all questions that make a difference that we will never know.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 01:03:25 PM
Well, actually authorities do pull plugs on cases all the time without a full investigation. If, for example, someone comes in complaining of a crime which isn't one, cops aren't going to bother rounding up suspects or witnesses. That may be neither here nor there in this particular case, but I couldn't let that sweeping generaility pass.
Point taken. Although the person here was complaining of a crime that was one. She had serious, serious evidentiary issues, but it was a crime.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 01:03:25 PM
I use those phrases because no one can say with 100 percent certainty what would have happened had a police investigation been initiated immediately. We can only deal with probabilities. And the probabilities of a different outcome here are so slim as to be negligible.
I also can't say an airplane won't fall out of the sky and crush my office building today, but I think it's not any more likely than police finding evidence of rape on a bed were the sex started consensually.
Again, point made. I said nothing about the "bed" though, and I can think of a number of things in the apartment that could have either supported her accusations or provided exculpatory evidence.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 01:03:25 PM
Are you suggesting that this is inmformation that police couldn't have obtained two months later? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that someone who hears his/her female neighbor scream "No" and Stop" wouldn't have forgotten about it a few weeks later.
Ergo, the timing is irrelevant. That information would not have changed with the passage of time.
A couple of things: First, I was responding to what I interpreted as a general statement that "no prosecutor is going to bring/pass on a sex assault case" and not specific to this case. If I misinterpreted your comment, my bad. Second, I intentionally used an extreme example from each end of the spectrum to make my point about what I interpreted as a general statement. Third, if this girl was in an out of the athlete's apartment on many occasions, it is quite possible - likely even - that neighbors would have difficulty isolating any particular event in their memory. I suspect you'd agree that "did you hear athlete and accuser fighting last night" is a very different question from "did you hear athlete and accuser fighting a month ago." Similarly, "did you observe accuser's demeanor when she left athlete's apartment last night" is very different from "did you observe accuser's demeanor when she left athlete's apartment a month ago."
Quote from: warthog-driver on June 22, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
Many times I have launched in an A-10 with a full bag of gas and a load of snake and nape. Not always have I had the privilege of expending that ordnance. Nothing is more hateful, especially when I am primed for some hard core combat action. But when its time to withdraw one must do so with dignity, knowing full well that there are many targets and tomorrow is another day.
Is this the same guy who called the name "cornhole" sophomoric? Wow.
Tragic situation for all to be in.
1) I hope the young lady gains piece of mind. It's apparent that she feels no one heard her cries for help (right or wrong), for that Marquette should be ashamed of their role in this tragedy. I hope that her life isn't forever scared by her time at Marquette, and she can live a happy life at some point in the future.
2) Cottingham needs to read all athletes the riot act. This situation brings to mind Montrele Clark, who was basically banished by Marquette (and by MANY universities on the recruiting trail) when he was indicted. All coaches need to be put on notice. MU Athletics are too high profile for a few "bad boys/players (or playa's)/womanizers" to screw with it's reputation.
3) I'm glad Marquette has changed it's reporting policy to comply with State Law.
4) No one knows what the hell happened in that room. Hell, both parties could have participated in some heavy roleplaying, or have had a history of roleplaying from their previous relationship. We don't know. I don't know who the young man is, I'm not sure I'd want to know. But I do know I want to be able to sleep at night knowing the Marquette University that I went to is actively trying to live to higher standards, and it would be a safe environment to send my daughter to school.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 12:32:02 PM
I was reading through this and was thinking that I was going to totally agree with you. It was so, so close. But I disagree with your statement that the MPD and DA were "comfortable that no crime was committed." I have absolutely no idea if that is true. It might be. It might also be that they knew damn well that they would not secure a conviction, so they opted to not bring charges (and honestly, the same might be true of the DPS officers and Quade...again, I don't know). Incidentally, I think they probably would have reached the same conclusion even if MU had reported the allegations immediately.
In light of what even the alleged victim claims I think it's clear that Dr Quade thought no crime was committed. Likewise the DPS officers. I'll concede the MPD/DA make things a bit more murky, but I think that's in order to drive home the point that allegations such as these should be reported to them immediately.
Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on June 22, 2011, 01:42:36 PM
Can Chicos' sources tell us what the student-athlete said that caused her to react in the way she describes? My guess is something along the line of "This is exactly how your sister likes it."
Before I answer that, I'd like to know why my last post was deleted by the mods?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 01:19:43 PM
Third, if this girl was in an out of the athlete's apartment on many occasions, it is quite possible - likely even - that neighbors would have difficulty isolating any particular event in their memory. I suspect you'd agree that "did you hear athlete and accuser fighting last night" is a very different question from "did you hear athlete and accuser fighting a month ago." Similarly, "did you observe accuser's demeanor when she left athlete's apartment last night" is very different from "did you observe accuser's demeanor when she left athlete's apartment a month ago."
Fair enough. I don't really disagree with that. Where I disagree - and apologies if I'm misinterpreting you here - is whether such statements would have made any difference in a potential prosecution. Sure, a witness might have a sharper recollection of the woman's demeanor one day after the fact than 60 days after the fact. But I don't think many (any?) prosecutors go to court in a case of this nature with the primary supporting evidence being a neighbor's interpretation of the accuser's demeanor while spotted walking from an apartment.
Screams are another matter entirely, and I don't think one's recollection of screams is as subject to the passage of time as, say, remembering whether someone had an unhappy demeanor.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 22, 2011, 01:40:08 PM
In light of what even the alleged victim claims I think it's clear that Dr Quade thought no crime was committed. Likewise the DPS officers. I'll concede the MPD/DA make things a bit more murky, but I think that's in order to drive home the point that allegations such as these should be reported to them immediately.
Is it Quade's job to determine if a crime was committed?
Someone earlier today said that she came down hard on the Club Lacrosse team. I hope people understand that coming down hard on the club lacrosse team as opposed to the men's basketball team is akin to the NCAA punishing Southwest Texas State for something USC did. There are no internal political repercussions in hammering a club team. There are MAJOR internal political repercussions when going after the men's basketball team. This is the reality of big time college sports and just as much a reality at MU as it is anywhere else.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 01:50:28 PM
Before I answer that, I'd like to know why my last post was deleted by the mods?
All posts by Chicos that responds to or mentions Ners will be deleted now and forever. All posts by Ners that responds to or mentions Chicos will be deleted now and forever.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 01:52:07 PM
Fair enough. I don't really disagree with that. Where I disagree - and apologies if I'm misinterpreting you here - is whether such statements would have made any difference in a potential prosecution. Sure, a witness might have a sharper recollection of the woman's demeanor one day after the fact than 60 days after the fact. But I don't think many (any?) prosecutors go to court in a case of this nature with the primary supporting evidence being a neighbor's interpretation of the accuser's demeanor while spotted walking from an apartment.
Screams are another matter entirely, and I don't think one's recollection of screams is as subject to the passage of time as, say, remembering whether someone had an unhappy demeanor.
I think we pretty well agree on all of this. At its core, my point is simple: prompt investigations are preferable and in some cases can lead to important evidence (either exculpatory or incriminating). Marquette's failure to report may well have prevented such an investigation.
Under the facts of this case, I'm willing to admit that a prompt and thorough investigation might have turned up nothing interesting, but I don't know.
Its take a step back from the ledge time.
There hasnt been and wont be any criminal prosecutions...its a dead issue. There will be no criminal leverage to improve the quality/$ in a civil lawsuit....BUT that doesnt mean one isnt coming....and the target isnt a few poor college students, for what they did....its deeper pocketed MU for what they didnt do , or did wrong in the handling of it.
Any Gloria Alred/scandal fan is aware of the tacts being taken including the press usage.
Recall, the original complaint was with the unfair treatment of the Oct incident as only harrassment. Every article you see whether in Milw or Chicago, or whether on the Oct. or Feb. incident, always speaks to the school's handling of the complaints/investigation/reporting. Why? Because that is where MU owes a legal duty to act reasonably, and where it may be liable, at the very least for negligence.
I dont do Plaintiff's work, but some of my friends who do, especially in the employee lawsuit bar, have PR firms ready to help them feed stories and reporters. It embarasses the corporate defendant, can drive down share prices, taint a local jury pool of citizens who have this in the back of their mind...well, there is almost no downside to a civil plaintiffs lawyer looking for $ helping the cause by press leaking/feeding.
In the cost driven world of media...you'd be surprised how little independent work is done and the percentage of fed/planted stories that come through the PR folks.. Even the esteemed 60 minutes has done a few plaintiffs lawyer fed stories.
The fact this Chi Trib story is so strong and detailed is simply evident that the plaintiffs have ratchetted up the press use to a higher level...There are civil suits coming...MU expects such,...and so far its employed the best stops it can to minimize loss and payout on the claims....pay less attention to this article and standby for the civil suit filings.
In preparation for the filings...Reread the article and imagine you are hearing this young lady in a witness box, describing all this, in tears, and in the formality of a courtroom. Its very tough to defend. In prior posts, I covered the male jurors deferrence, and the leaps a jury will make to hold the institution liable, for an award of $.
They are way too long to retype here..but they are in this thread;
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=26559.msg298629#msg298629
If we want a new thread parlor game, its to guess how much MU will pay to put this to bed...someone out there expects to be paid.
Another game would be to dig up the atty representing the plaintiff, and his PR firm. Has anyone contacted this reporter to ask about the reporters sources--- many reporters will give those out and really good reporters name all sources in actual story..hmmmm thats missing here.
Quote from: lurch91 on June 22, 2011, 01:30:43 PM
Tragic situation for all to be in.
1) I hope the young lady gains piece of mind. It's apparent that she feels no one heard her cries for help (right or wrong), for that Marquette should be ashamed of their role in this tragedy. I hope that her life isn't forever scared by her time at Marquette, and she can live a happy life at some point in the future.
Please. Listen to what you say later in your post. We don't know what happened that night. If she's telling the truth, that she was raped and MU turned its back on her then yes, it's a tragedy and the university should be ashamed and worse. But what if all but one detail of her story is true? What if she did run into a guy she used to have a sexual relationship with but who stopped calling? And what if in spite of that she agreed to go up to his room for sex? And what if his remarks to her (are you going to call me? No., for example) occured post coitus and not during? And what if that coarseness made her feel hurt, small and worthless? And looking for vengeance? I'm not suggesting that's what happened. But after hearing her story both the DPS officers and Dr Quade evidently thought something less than a crime occured. I'd like to know why before we call this a tragedy.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 22, 2011, 02:09:41 PM
If she's telling the truth, that she was raped and MU turned its back on her then yes, it's a tragedy and the university should be ashamed and worse.
I don't know about that. They wanted her to go to counseling. That is a better move than spending months trying to prove something that is unprovable.
I hate to say it but sometimes the high equity play isn't to try and publish someone to the fullest extent of the law. It is to move on with your life.
She was mad because the person she was talking to told her the truth. No DA in the world wants to try a rape case based on the idea that the guy, who she has been sleeping with, didn't stop mid-bumping uglies quickly enough. As much as it sucks, that is good advice, she's better off in recovery than seeking retribution.
Quote from: SoCalwarrior on June 22, 2011, 01:56:08 PM
All posts by Chicos that responds to or mentions Ners will be deleted now and forever. All posts by Ners that responds to or mentions Chicos will be deleted now and forever.
So we are not allowed to respond to one another? Interesting....but I'm guessing the slamming by other posters will be allowed to continue as it has for a long time.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 22, 2011, 02:04:20 PM
If we want a new thread parlor game, its to guess how much MU will pay to put this to bed...someone out there expects to be paid.
Another game would be to dig up the atty representing the plaintiff, and his PR firm. Has anyone contacted this reporter to ask about the reporters sources--- many reporters will give those out and really good reporters name all sources in actual story..hmmmm thats missing here.
What's the opening bid? I suspect a lot of this depends on how many other women come forward due to MU's direction the last decade. Fun times.
All right folks, lets deal with reality (as I sure has been done in at least a few of the six pages of postings).
1) Marquette has had security problems of one sort or another since 1970. Why should this surprise anyone? The engineering frat houses moved from West Highland on to campus because some guests were killed. Rapes around campus, especially before Campus Circle, were not infrequent and the potential for mayhem was high. Give our administration credit for dealing with this problem.
2) The real issue is whether 18 and 19 year olds should be supervised as adults or as teenagers. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the supervision of the student body was much more intense and created less likelihood of the kind of incidents the two women allege. It happened for two reasons -- one, the men avoided the near occasion of sin and second, so did the women. Intervisitation was much more controlled and limited. Likewise, potential mayhem in the form of alcohol was more controlled. Things still happened, but it was harder. By the 1970s, nobody cared what we did and we did about anything we wanted. If you want the university to step up (and maybe you do), then you should be willing to restrict the freedom of campus students.
3) In these cases, the fact pattern is not conducive to a conviction. That's not to say the young women were not brutalized or taken advantage of by the athletes, but the fact pattern suggests some degree of consentuality, which blows a sexual assault case. What will never be known is what caused these women to be in this situation in the first place. Best bet: bad judgement. Does that make it right or the athletes behavior acceptable? Of course not. But is it the university's fault -- also probablty not.
4) Finally, what happened at MU is what happens when night watchmen or "rent-a-cops" become policemen. Yes, they need better training. But their job is not to be Milwaukee Policemen, or their extension. I'd like to think they could do a better job, but the fact is Marquette probably failed to effectvely train them. One interesting note though, is why did the athletic department know? Did they do a better job of training? I'll bet so!
I don't think this will have a long-term effect on player recruiting, unless openness to sexual assault is a game-changer (in which case, we don't want the player anyway). More importantly, I am concerned about the impact this will have on the portions of the extended Marquette family who use any failing by a basketball team member (lets face it, it probably is a basketball player) to call into question the existence and support for the basketball team. Many of us have written in other posts about our anger over how this element of MU in the late 1970s helped chase off Al and probably contributed to the cheapness that affected performance for the 1980s.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 22, 2011, 02:09:41 PM
Please. Listen to what you say later in your post. We don't know what happened that night. If she's telling the truth, that she was raped and MU turned its back on her then yes, it's a tragedy and the university should be ashamed and worse. But what if all but one detail of her story is true? What if she did run into a guy she used to have a sexual relationship with but who stopped calling? And what if in spite of that she agreed to go up to his room for sex? And what if his remarks to her (are you going to call me? No., for example) occured post coitus and not during? And what if that coarseness made her feel hurt, small and worthless? And looking for vengeance? I'm not suggesting that's what happened. But after hearing her story both the DPS officers and Dr Quade evidently thought something less than a crime occured. I'd like to know why before we call this a tragedy.
From the Tribune article, the young lady sounds distraught. While it might be posturing by a media firm/attorney, it just might be how she sees how the events play out. Her mental health is of a concern by her own words (I'm not trying to paint her as bipolar), whether or not a crime took place. My concern for her presumed state of her mental health is independent of what happened that night.
And it's tragic for how this all has played out, I'm just glad that the athlete's name has not be used/leaked. If MPD had been notified immediately and the same conclusions had been reached, do you think there would be a Chicago Tribune article about it?
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 22, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
4) Finally, what happened at MU is what happens when night watchmen or "rent-a-cops" become policemen. Yes, they need better training. But their job is not to be Milwaukee Policement, or their extension. I'd like to think they could do a better job, but the fact is Marquette probably failed to effectvely train them.
I'm not even convinced that blame goes to the DPS officers. Apparently, it was a policy at MU that no reports were made to MPD unless the accuser requested their involvement. I don't think the blame for that apparently illegal policy should be placed at those officers' feet.
Quote from: lurch91 on June 22, 2011, 02:28:38 PM
From the Tribune article, the young lady sounds distraught. While it might be posturing by a media firm/attorney, it just might be how she sees how the events play out. Her mental health is of a concern by her own words (I'm not trying to paint her as bipolar), whether or not a crime took place. My concern for her presumed state of her mental health is independent of what happened that night.
She sure does "sound" distraught. Given the lack of information about what happened that night, I'm not willing to form an opinion of whether she is justifiably distraught, unreasonably distraught or conveniently distraught. I simply don't know.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 22, 2011, 02:04:20 PM
Its take a step back from the ledge time.
There hasnt been and wont be any criminal prosecutions...its a dead issue. There will be no criminal leverage to improve the quality/$ in a civil lawsuit....BUT that doesnt mean one isnt coming....and the target isnt a few poor college students, for what they did....its deeper pocketed MU for what they didnt do , or did wrong in the handling of it.
I don't doubt a lawsuit could be forthcoming, or that MU may just pay a nice settlement to prevent one.
I do, however, wonder how liable MU might be here. There's no doubt they violated state regulations here, but what damages can this student claim from that? She could, and would, try for mental anguish and suffering, but I doubt a jury sees MU's handling of this matter as the primary cause of that. Also, going to trial would force this girl to testify, at the risk of jurors not believing her account and giving her nothing as a result.
Regardless, I suspect that if this student is inclined to sue, everyone involved will find it in their best interests for a quiet out-of-court payment rather than any formal litigation.
FWIW, I know one of reporters who did this story pretty well, and I find it exceptionally unlikely that person is acting as a puppet or dupe for any plaintiff's attorney. They may have received information through an attorney for the girl, and no doubt that attorney is reveling in this coverage, but they're not doing this at anyone's behest.
Quote from: SoCalwarrior on June 22, 2011, 01:56:08 PM
All posts by Chicos that responds to or mentions Ners will be deleted now and forever. All posts by Ners that responds to or mentions Chicos will be deleted now and forever.
At least something good came out of this.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 02:32:41 PM
I'm not even convinced that blame goes to the DPS officers. Apparently, it was a policy at MU that no reports were made to MPD unless the accuser requested their involvement. I don't think the blame for that apparently illegal policy should be placed at those officers' feet.
Sorry if this has already been covered,
But, Does the Wisconsiin State Law require that the Public Safety report all suspected crimes to MPD, with or without the students consent? Is this only for sex crimes?
Quote from: Clarence on June 22, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered,
But, Does the Wisconsiin State Law require that the Public Safety report all suspected crimes to MPD, with or without the students consent? Is this only for sex crimes?
The answers are yes and I don't know.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
Is it Quade's job to determine if a crime was committed?
Someone earlier today said that she came down hard on the Club Lacrosse team. I hope people understand that coming down hard on the club lacrosse team as opposed to the men's basketball team is akin to the NCAA punishing Southwest Texas State for something USC did. There are no internal political repercussions in hammering a club team. There are MAJOR internal political repercussions when going after the men's basketball team. This is the reality of big time college sports and just as much a reality at MU as it is anywhere else.
I think I've read all the articles and all the posts about this topic. Where, ANYWHERE, does it state this "student-athlete" was a men's bball player?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 22, 2011, 02:53:07 PM
The answers are yes and I don't know.
I guess it begs the question, why even have the middle men.
It seems to me that if a student wants to report a crime they should be required to contact the MPD themselves, and the University should stay out of it completely.
Quote from: Clarence on June 22, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered,
But, Does the Wisconsiin State Law require that the Public Safety report all suspected crimes to MPD, with or without the students consent? Is this only for sex crimes?
The Tribune article is ambiguous:
"The university now acknowledges that failing to notify police was a violation of state law, which requires campus security departments to report any possible crimes to local authorities."and
"'Once they have reason to believe that a crime like a sexual assault has occurred, they have a mandatory obligation to report that to police, and that didn't happen,' Chisholm said. 'Everyone acknowledges that.'"I can't believe that the first one ("any possible crimes") is the standard. And the second one is a bit vague.
Quote from: Clarence on June 22, 2011, 02:50:38 PM
Sorry if this has already been covered,
But, Does the Wisconsiin State Law require that the Public Safety report all suspected crimes to MPD, with or without the students consent? Is this only for sex crimes?
Wisconsin law states:
"Any person licensed as a private detective or granted a private security permit under s. 440.26 who has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed or has been committed shall notify promptly an appropriate law enforcement agency of the facts which form the basis for this belief."
There is some ambiguity there in the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe," but the university has now taken the stance, correctly, that a complaint is enough of a reasonable grounds.
By the way, these are state regulations/civil law, not anything criminal. Nobody at Marquette is going to be prosecuted over this.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 02:36:43 PM
I don't doubt a lawsuit could be forthcoming, or that MU may just pay a nice settlement to prevent one.
I do, however, wonder how liable MU might be here. There's no doubt they violated state regulations here, but what damages can this student claim from that? She could, and would, try for mental anguish and suffering, but I doubt a jury sees MU's handling of this matter as the primary cause of that. Also, going to trial would force this girl to testify, at the risk of jurors not believing her account and giving her nothing as a result.
Regardless, I suspect that if this student is inclined to sue, everyone involved will find it in their best interests for a quiet out-of-court payment rather than any formal litigation.
Yup--Itll settle out. In the abstract you are right about post incident investigations/handling usually lacking a nexus to a victim's emotional distress. Note here, however, the trib outlines her distress, specifically about the way it was handled---she is being well coached for the bigger bucks. By the timeline in the trib...she even left school after the interviews, and as her distress overcame her...get out the check. lol
Its odd, but even when the nexus is lacking, jurors seeing the pain/crying angst of the plaintiff/victim often have little problem filling in facts/causation to hold the institutional defendant in the chair liable--guess they feel the need to feed the pain. In fact, the best Plaintiffs tact is to drop the accused individual, before trial, to prevent 2 individual competing stories, to ensure the victims is the only one heard by the jury and leaving the institution (who wasnt there when it happened) to try to fade the heat on the defense.
I have defended exactly this scenario, ..its tough...and yes, we settled out.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 01:54:18 PM
I hope people understand that coming down hard on the club lacrosse team as opposed to the men's basketball team is akin to the NCAA punishing Southwest Texas State for something USC did.
The reference recalls my favorite Jerry Tarkanian quote .."The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they are giving Cleveland State two more years of probation" ...
Quote from: socrplar125 on June 22, 2011, 02:54:33 PM
I think I've read all the articles and all the posts about this topic. Where, ANYWHERE, does it state this "student-athlete" was a men's bball player?
Nowhere in the October incident did newspaper articles say the 4 student athletes were basketball players either. My comment about Quade was pretty straight forward, just because she came down hard on a club team doesn't mean a hill of beans when talking about the sports that matter at MU or any other university. They are treated differently. To deny this is to have their head in the sand. Athletes get second and third chances that many others do not and there are examples a plenty all around the NCAA and yes, even at Marquette. This should surprise NO ONE.
My issue with this thing since day one (go and look it up if you must) is that as a university they screwed the pooch. Their actions put these players and the victim in limbo because they waited so long to tell the PROPER authorities. Thus, a cloud hangs over their heads. These guys could be totally innocent but the cloud remains because MPD couldn't properly do their job so there is the perception of guilt by some and a perception that the university cares more about protecting some students than others. That perception exists, whether people here want to believe it or not, it does exist. WTMJ is doing something on the radio about that very subject today.
I don't recall saying that THIS incident involved a basketball player...nor am I saying it didn't. I know what I've heard (and what others have heard) about both incidents through a number of different folks and will merely say that because of privacy laws, etc, many details do not get into the press. It's a shame that these student athletes, the alleged female victims, and the university are going through this but the actions the university took (or in actions in this case) are the reason why.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 03:26:50 PM
Nowhere in the October incident did newspaper articles say the 4 student athletes were basketball players either. My comment about Quade was pretty straight forward, just because she came down hard on a club team doesn't mean a hill of beans when talking about the sports that matter at MU or any other university. They are treated differently. To deny this is to have their head in the sand. Athletes get second and third chances that many others do not and there are examples a plenty all around the NCAA and yes, even at Marquette. This should surprise NO ONE.
My issue with this thing since day one (go and look it up if you must) is that as a university they screwed the pooch. Their actions put these players and the victim in limbo because they waited so long to tell the PROPER authorities. Thus, a cloud hangs over their heads. These guys could be totally innocent but the cloud remains because MPD couldn't properly do their job so there is the perception of guilt by some and a perception that the university cares more about protecting some students than others. That perception exists, whether people here want to believe it or not, it does exist. WTMJ is doing something on the radio about that very subject today.
I don't recall saying that THIS incident involved a basketball player...nor am I saying it didn't. I know what I've heard (and what others have heard) about both incidents through a number of different folks and will merely say that because of privacy laws, etc, many details do not get into the press. It's a shame that these student athletes, the alleged female victims, and the university are going through this but the actions the university took (or in actions in this case) are the reason why.
In no judgement against the alleged victim, but she always had the opportunity to go to the authorities herself, so to say that MPD couldn't do their job b/c of MU is a bit of a reach, no?
Quote from: houwarrior on June 22, 2011, 03:03:07 PM
Yup--Itll settle out. In the abstract you are right about post incident investigations/handling usually lacking a nexus to a victim's emotional distress. Note here, however, the trib outlines her distress, specifically about the way it was handled---she is being well coached for the bigger bucks. By the timeline in the trib...she even left school after the interviews, and as her distress overcame her...get out the check. lol
Its odd, but even when the nexus is lacking, jurors seeing the pain/crying angst of the plaintiff/victim often have little problem filling in facts/causation to hold the institutional defendant in the chair liable--guess they feel the need to feed the pain. In fact, the best Plaintiffs tact is to drop the accused individual, before trial, to prevent 2 individual competing stories, to ensure the victims is the only one heard by the jury and leaving the institution (who wasnt there when it happened) to try to fade the heat on the defense.
I have defended exactly this scenario, ..its tough...and yes, we settled out.
Which makes the whole thing so dumb on the part of Marquette. Why even open yourself up to any of this B.S. Public Safety should provide security and only security. Leave the police work to the police.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 22, 2011, 02:27:17 PM
4) Finally, what happened at MU is what happens when night watchmen or "rent-a-cops" become policemen. Yes, they need better training. But their job is not to be Milwaukee Policemen, or their extension. I'd like to think they could do a better job, but the fact is Marquette probably failed to effectvely train them. One interesting note though, is why did the athletic department know? Did they do a better job of training? I'll bet so!
This is a ridiculous comment. First, you are assuming that the story reported in the Tribune is what was told the DPS Officers. I am confident that every DPS Officer knows the elements of a sexual assault and if approached the facts from the Tribune article with call it a sexual assault. You'd be suprised how much training DPS does and how educated most of its officers are.
As to your comment about what the athletic department knew, I'm not sure what you mean. The only reason the athletic department knew anything was because they were likely informed by DPS.
Don't put this on DPS. The policies of DPS were well known by MPD and the DA. The only reason that this has become an issue is because of the high profile parties. MPD and the DA stood idly by for years knwoing full well that DPS was not reporting every crime to them. They wanted as much handled in house at MU as possible to avoid an extra burden on them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 03:26:50 PM
Nowhere in the October incident did newspaper articles say the 4 student athletes were basketball players either. My comment about Quade was pretty straight forward, just because she came down hard on a club team doesn't mean a hill of beans when talking about the sports that matter at MU or any other university. They are treated differently. To deny this is to have their head in the sand. Athletes get second and third chances that many others do not and there are examples a plenty all around the NCAA and yes, even at Marquette. This should surprise NO ONE.
My issue with this thing since day one (go and look it up if you must) is that as a university they screwed the pooch. Their actions put these players and the victim in limbo because they waited so long to tell the PROPER authorities. Thus, a cloud hangs over their heads. These guys could be totally innocent but the cloud remains because MPD couldn't properly do their job so there is the perception of guilt by some and a perception that the university cares more about protecting some students than others. That perception exists, whether people here want to believe it or not, it does exist. WTMJ is doing something on the radio about that very subject today.
I don't recall saying that THIS incident involved a basketball player...nor am I saying it didn't. I know what I've heard (and what others have heard) about both incidents through a number of different folks and will merely say that because of privacy laws, etc, many details do not get into the press. It's a shame that these student athletes, the alleged female victims, and the university are going through this but the actions the university took (or in actions in this case) are the reason why.
So, if you had actually answered my question, the answer would be nowhere does it say this is a basketball player. Nearly all of your response is in no way related to my question. I hate when you, or anyone else, doesn't just answer the question asked.
Since you did respond with extra stuff, I will agree with you that the university in this incident and in the last 10 years has messed up. I will also agree that athletes, whether at Marquette or any other big D1 program, get favoritism and second chances. I don't even think it's a perception as much as it may be an understood fact.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on June 22, 2011, 09:52:51 AM
If you want to do legal definitions, OJ was acquitted, not found not guilty.
Not true. He was found not guilty. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, because he obviously did, but he was in fact found not guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/v/infLrZjJpNc
Quote from: reinko on June 22, 2011, 03:31:56 PM
In no judgement against the alleged victim, but she always had the opportunity to go to the authorities herself, so to say that MPD couldn't do their job b/c of MU is a bit of a reach, no?
Not when state law requires MU to have reported it to those authorities without her having to do it herself Besides, think of a person that has actually gone through this, what is their state of mind, etc. I've read to many case studies were women are reluctant, embarrassed, scared, etc to report these types of incidents for fear of being pegged as some here have pegged this woman. All of a sudden they become the person under suspicion and who can blame them for being quite cautious in what they report and don't report.
O.J. did it.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on June 22, 2011, 03:46:25 PM
Not true. He was found not guilty. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, because he obviously did, but he was in fact found not guilty.
http://www.youtube.com/v/infLrZjJpNc
And unless I'm mistaken (always possible), after the
jury found him "not guilty" the
state "acquitted" him. But I'm not a criminal guy...maybe someone else can confirm this.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 03:55:14 PM
Not when state law requires MU to have reported it when there is reasonable grounds to believe a crime has occurred to those authorities without her having to do it herself
Fixed.
I think MU is far better off reporting every single complaint to police, regardless of how DPS officers feel about the validity. And it seems they now agree with that.
But let's be accurate about what the law does and does not require.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 03:59:57 PM
And unless I'm mistaken (always possible), after the jury found him "not guilty" the state "acquitted" him. But I'm not a criminal guy...maybe someone else can confirm this.
A jury rules someone not guilty. A court certifies the verdict, creating an acquittal. The reverse, after a guilty finding, is a conviction.
In the extremely rare cases in which a judge sets aside a jury verdict, you can actually have a guilty finding without a conviction.
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 22, 2011, 03:37:53 PM
This is a ridiculous comment. First, you are assuming that the story reported in the Tribune is what was told the DPS Officers. I am confident that every DPS Officer knows the elements of a sexual assault and if approached the facts from the Tribune article with call it a sexual assault. You'd be suprised how much training DPS does and how educated most of its officers are.
As to your comment about what the athletic department knew, I'm not sure what you mean. The only reason the athletic department knew anything was because they were likely informed by DPS.
Don't put this on DPS. The policies of DPS were well known by MPD and the DA. The only reason that this has become an issue is because of the high profile parties. MPD and the DA stood idly by for years knwoing full well that DPS was not reporting every crime to them. They wanted as much handled in house at MU as possible to avoid an extra burden on them.
Bingo.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on June 22, 2011, 09:59:04 AM
+1000000000
In terms of Chico's Toll Booth analogy. What if you are halfway through the toll booth, and you don't hear the toll booth attendant say stop...since you are too busy thinking about baseball, because you do not want to lose all of your quarters you are about to throw into the receptacle? ;) (By no means do I mean to make light of this specific instance)
Go EZ-Pass?
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 22, 2011, 03:37:53 PM
Don't put this on DPS. The policies of DPS were well known by MPD and the DA. The only reason that this has become an issue is because of the high profile parties. MPD and the DA stood idly by for years knwoing full well that DPS was not reporting every crime to them. They wanted as much handled in house at MU as possible to avoid an extra burden on them.
Ding Ding Ding Ding. Let's listen to MPD and the DA whine about the strain this puts on their budget. (After the din dies down) If I am a DPS officer, I send everything their way to CYA.
Quote from: socrplar125 on June 22, 2011, 03:46:11 PM
So, if you had actually answered my question, the answer would be nowhere does it say this is a basketball player. Nearly all of your response is in no way related to my question. I hate when you, or anyone else, doesn't just answer the question asked.
I thought I did answer your question...with THIS incident I didn't say one way or another if the Student Athlete was a basketball player. It seemed to me that you were implying that I did.
Go back and read some of the original Anthony Weiner stories from a few weeks ago and those that didn't identify him as a Democrat....so does that not make him a Democrat because he wasn't identified in the press? Not all things are put in the press for whatever reason. Sometimes purposely let out or sometimes because they don't know. I think if you follow the crumbs, which men's teams live in Humphrey Hall, etc, you can probably come to your own conclusions.
Quote from: Pakuni on June 22, 2011, 04:04:03 PM
Fixed.
I think MU is far better off reporting every single complaint to police, regardless of how DPS officers feel about the validity. And it seems they now agree with that.
But let's be accurate about what the law does and does not require.
No need to fix it. In my opinion, the allegations were enough to report it to the proper authorities. Even if MU isn't certain, when in doubt, they should have reported it. When you leave up to a few folks who "MAY" be determining in the back of their minds whether to push this forward because of who was involved, that invites problems. I'm not saying that happened, but that perception is out there as was discussed today on TMJ. If anything, take the university off the hook on this stuff and let the real authorities determine what has or hasn't been committed. MU is finally going in that direction...too little, too late for these incidents (and I'm sure for many others in the past decade).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 04:23:03 PM
I thought I did answer your question...with THIS incident I didn't say one way or another if the Student Athlete was a basketball player. It seemed to me that you were implying that I did.
Go back and read some of the original Anthony Weiner stories from a few weeks ago and those that didn't identify him as a Democrat....so does that not make him a Democrat because he wasn't identified in the press? Not all things are put in the press for whatever reason. Sometimes purposely let out or sometimes because they don't know. I think if you follow the crumbs, which men's teams live in Humphrey Hall, etc, you can probably come to your own conclusions.
Perfect. I was just thinking this thread wasn't contentious enough. A (not so) subtle reference to the media's political bias should spice things up. It probably would have been too simple to simply state that just because the story doesn't identify the accused athlete as a basketball player doesn't change the fact that quite a few posters on this board seemingly know that to be the case.
Edited to add: Although in your defense, I think the first sentence of your post ("Nowhere in the October incident did newspaper articles say the 4 student athletes were basketball players either")
is an answer to the question of whether it said in the article that the athlete was a basketball player. You did add a lot of "extra stuff" though.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on June 22, 2011, 04:33:48 PM
Perfect. I was just thinking this thread wasn't contentious enough. A (not so) subtle reference to the media's political bias should spice things up. It probably would have been too simple to simply state that just because the story doesn't identify the accused athlete as a basketball player doesn't change the fact that quite a few posters on this board seemingly know that to be the case.
Real world examples are always preferable. :D
Marquette comes to terms on how to report Sexual Assaults to police
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html
"Officials with Marquette's public safety department will tell anyone who reports a sexual assault that they will report that assault to the Milwaukee Police Department. Those students also will be told they have a choice of whether to talk to police.
University officials also said Wednesday they're forming a team of education advisers and victim advocates who don't have direct ties to the university who will make it easier for alleged victims to weigh their options in pursuing a university-led or criminal investigation of their allegation."
Excellent reponse by Marquette! Hope everyone has learned from this and it will not be a problem in the future.
Time to move on.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 22, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
"Officials with Marquette's public safety department will tell anyone who reports a sexual assault that they will report that assault to the Milwaukee Police Department. Those students also will be told they have a choice of whether to talk to police.
Now the question is whether this will discourage actual victims from making a report.
Yes, time t move on. The processes are complete and history is just that.
Quote from: ringout on June 22, 2011, 04:11:19 PM
Ding Ding Ding Ding. Let's listen to MPD and the DA whine about the strain this puts on their budget. (After the din dies down) If I am a DPS officer, I send everything their way to CYA.
MU should have been doing that to begin with, then MPD would look bad now...not Marquette University.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 22, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
"Officials with Marquette's public safety department will tell anyone who reports a sexual assault that they will report that assault to the Milwaukee Police Department. Those students also will be told they have a choice of whether to talk to police.
University officials also said Wednesday they're forming a team of education advisers and victim advocates who don't have direct ties to the university who will make it easier for alleged victims to weigh their options in pursuing a university-led or criminal investigation of their allegation."
Excellent reponse by Marquette! Hope everyone has learned from this and it will not be a problem in the future.
Time to move on.
Excellent is kind of a stretch. what other option did they have? "Here's what's gonna unfuck 10 years of ineptitude"
I certainly hope Stephanie Quade has nothing to do with this "team." nothing will ever be reported then.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 04:55:09 PM
MU should have been doing that to begin with, then MPD would look bad now...not Marquette University.
Yeah, sure. You look like a genious saying it now. Do you have any idea what kind of response time MPD has on a weekend night when most crimes take place? So every time that DPS has a crime reported the student and DPS should wait for 2+ hours for MPD to show up to take a report? That will certainly make campus a safer place!
When MU said that is the way they were handling it for ten years, is that when the law went into effect or did MU change how they were hadling it in the past?
Quote from: bilsu on June 22, 2011, 05:38:49 PM
When MU said that is the way they were handling it for ten years, is that when the law went into effect or did MU change how they were hadling it in the past?
MU became a private security department (or some state registered agency) when they became armed in 2001. That is when they fell under this law. Nothing changed in how MU reported crimes, even though it should have by the letter of the law.
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 22, 2011, 05:27:45 PM
Yeah, sure. You look like a genious saying it now. Do you have any idea what kind of response time MPD has on a weekend night when most crimes take place? So every time that DPS has a crime reported the student and DPS should wait for 2+ hours for MPD to show up to take a report? That will certainly make campus a safer place!
Having worked at MU as a student and after post graduate work for many years, we had to call the cops on multiple occasions at the student union, and elsewhere, the response time was minutes, not 2+ hours. Now maybe things have changed dramatically since then but I would be surprised if the wait is as long as you describe. Nevertheless, 2+ hours is better than MONTHS.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 06:28:57 PM
Having worked at MU as a student and after post graduate work for many years, we had to call the cops on multiple occasions at the student union, and elsewhere, the response time was minutes, not 2+ hours. Now maybe things have changed dramatically since then but I would be surprised if the wait is as long as you describe. Nevertheless, 2+ hours is better than MONTHS.
Having worked for DPS as a student and during and after my post graduate work, the wait is typically over an hour on week nights and longer than 2 hours on weekends unless there is a crime in progress. Once again, you're quick to denounce the policies at Marquette without knowing realities of the situation. Let's be real, Chicos, even if MU reported this immediately, you would have found a way to blame the current administration.
For the record, I'd love to tell you stories about your tanned idol coming to campus in the middle of the night to bail his players out of trouble in very similar situations. I'm sure you're suprised to hear that none of that was ever reported either.
Well, if MU admits to mishandling these incidents over the past 10 years, seems to me that includes the departed head coach also.
Does anyone have citation or link to this law that requires Marquette to report an incident like this?I see references and paraphrases, but not any actual statutory language.
Quote from: KC2016 on June 22, 2011, 10:37:36 PM
Does anyone have citation or link to this law that requires Marquette to report an incident like this?I see references and paraphrases, but not any actual statutory language.
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
I posted this on Badgernation in their MU = Bad thread:
As an alum and proud graduate of Marquette, my level of displeasure with this situation is unmeasurable. I've sent several emails in order to express said displeasure. I realize i'm akin to the gnat on the elephant's ass, but I am glad the University is now altering what has been proven to be a poor system thanks to this ugliness. The rent-a-cops on campus were useless tools when I was there, I'm now positive that not much has changed in that respect.
That being said, I would still be proud to send either of my children to my alma mater (my daughter is 5 and my son is 6). An unfortunate truth is that brutally awful things like this happen all over the country, at many fine universities and colleges. If anyone says this hasn't happened at their alma mater, it's more likely than not a false statement. 1 in 5 women as a victim of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault is a sad state of affairs for the university system across the nation.
I'd also have no problem with severe discipline for any/all involved as a statement from the University. That may be quite Pollyanna-esque of me, but one can still hope.
As previously stated, the situation (and it's statement as a symptom of a larger problem) is beyond distressing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 21, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
That's it, rip down the woman....it's usually their fault. Hell, I'll bet she asked for it. ::)
Because we all know a woman never changes her mind and could very easily tell someone to stop in the middle of it. Considering your short span of a few seconds, I doubt that happens to you often but for those that last more than a few it's more than possible. But that's right, she's unstable. ::)
I'd recommend getting better at sex so she doesn't change her mind 5 minutes in then :D
I see a ton of people taking this really personally. Do you guys really feel you should be personally embarrassed that this happened? I hear people saying that the University hurt our names and reputation with this incident. Personally I think people need to get over themselves. The real victim is the girl if she said is true. Who cares if you college got in trouble after you graduated? Should OSU students feel any less proud after the Tressel scandal? No, they graduated from a top school and earned it.
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 22, 2011, 10:12:58 PM
Having worked for DPS as a student and during and after my post graduate work, the wait is typically over an hour on week nights and longer than 2 hours on weekends unless there is a crime in progress. Once again, you're quick to denounce the policies at Marquette without knowing realities of the situation. Let's be real, Chicos, even if MU reported this immediately, you would have found a way to blame the current administration.
For the record, I'd love to tell you stories about your tanned idol coming to campus in the middle of the night to bail his players out of trouble in very similar situations. I'm sure you're suprised to hear that none of that was ever reported either.
Tan idol? Oooh, good one. Funny, I haven't made this about Buzz at all, but you're making it a Crean vs Buzz thing. In my opinion this is about the actions of the individuals involved and the coaches have no control over it. I could tell you stories as well about Crean and the players.
Secondly, looking at the response times for Milwaukee (public record) you either don't know how to tell time or you are vastly inflating your numbers to make a false point, but I'll bet you looked swell in the yellow jacket.
Thirdly, MU just adopted the very policy I said they should have been doing all along. Maybe you should talk to Father Wild and tell him how wrong he is.
Quote from: T.V. Diener 34 on June 22, 2011, 11:49:45 PM
I'd recommend getting better at sex so she doesn't change her mind 5 minutes in then :D
Or maybe after an hour she's had enough ;D
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 22, 2011, 10:25:03 PM
Well, if MU admits to mishandling these incidents over the past 10 years, seems to me that includes the departed head coach also.
Why, don't you know these aren't basketball players because it wasn't stated in the paper. It's probably the now defunct men's rifle team.
For those out of Milwaukee who wish to see the video report
http://gamutnews.com/20110623/33479/video-marquette-university-changes-policy-on-reporting-of-sexual-violence.html
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 01:40:29 AM
For those out of Milwaukee who wish to see the video report
http://gamutnews.com/20110623/33479/video-marquette-university-changes-policy-on-reporting-of-sexual-violence.html
the changes will take effect this fall, so the boys have between now and september to play under the old rules??why don't they say new rules will be effective immediately?? which i'm sure is the case
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 22, 2011, 10:25:03 PM
Well, if MU admits to mishandling these incidents over the past 10 years, seems to me that includes the departed head coach also.
The mis-handling has nothing to do with basketball coaches. MU was unaware of the law and was not reporting any of the potential rapes. It only came to light, because this time it involved athlete's.
Quote from: wyzgy on June 23, 2011, 07:01:58 AM
the changes will take effect this fall, so the boys have between now and september to play under the old rules??why don't they say new rules will be effective immediately?? which i'm sure is the case
They probably are saying Fall as new student handbooks will be written and distributed then.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 06:28:57 PM
Having worked at MU as a student and after post graduate work for many years, we had to call the cops on multiple occasions at the student union, and elsewhere, the response time was minutes, not 2+ hours. Now maybe things have changed dramatically since then but I would be surprised if the wait is as long as you describe. Nevertheless, 2+ hours is better than MONTHS.
I've waited over 4 hours. "Minutes" is not normal, unless a crime is in the process.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 04:55:09 PM
MU should have been doing that to begin with, then MPD would look bad now...not Marquette University.
That's what life is all about to some. CYA and make somebody else "look bad". Justice? Truth? Who cares, just make sure you control "perceptions". Sad.
Quote from: Aughnanure on June 23, 2011, 09:04:00 AM
I've waited over 4 hours. "Minutes" is not normal, unless a crime is in the process.
Same here. Although it was more like 2 hours.
For a robbery/home invasion.
Chicos doesn't know what he's talking about.
Quote from: Aughnanure on June 23, 2011, 09:04:00 AM
I've waited over 4 hours. "Minutes" is not normal, unless a crime is in the process.
Of course, but I'm talking average response time. It's all based on what type of call is placed and the nature of the call.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on June 23, 2011, 09:11:09 AM
Same here. Although it was more like 2 hours.
For a robbery/home invasion.
Chicos doesn't know what he's talking about.
I guess the statistics published for police response times are wrong. I'll let them know they don't know what they are taking about. Thanks...it's good to know your individual case sets the standard, not all calls that are aggregated. ::)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 23, 2011, 09:08:38 AM
That's what life is all about to some. CYA and make somebody else "look bad". Justice? Truth? Who cares, just make sure you control "perceptions". Sad.
Quite the contrary...truth is going to be discovered more than likely by an independent third party who is a professional than one that has a vested interest in potentially seeing things through a lens to protect a member(s) of the athletic teams. Sad is doing what we have been doing for 10 years. The university agrees, they just changed their policy and will likely be writing checks out in civil cases because they didn't do the right thing. Yeah, it helps with perceptions as well, a nice byproduct, but it also gets closer to justice and truth. Do you care about those things?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 09:18:54 AM
Quite the contrary...truth is going to be discovered more than likely by an independent third party who is a professional than one that has a vested interest in potentially seeing things through a lens to protect a member(s) of the athletic teams. Sad is doing what we have been doing for 10 years. The university agrees, they just changed their policy and will likely be writing checks out in civil cases because they didn't do the right thing. Yeah, it helps with perceptions as well, a nice byproduct, but it also gets closer to justice and truth. Do you care about those things?
You were the one who suggested that the idea was to pass the buck to the MPD and make them look bad, not me.
As for truth and justice, the MPD has to have known the policy MU was following for the past 10 years. And they were totally ok with it as it allowed MU to handle things that, in MU's ant the DPS's judgement, didn't rise to the standards of a crime. But when sex + athletes became part of the mix, the MPD and DA feigned public outrage over a policy they had tacitly approved. We'll see how much they like the new policy (which takes the judgement of DPS officers out of the equation) when they're inudated with any and every complaint that could possibly be construed as a crime. My guess is not much. My further guess is that the "unintended consequences" will lead to less truth and justice as the police are forced to spend time on matters that shouldn't merit their attention.
As someone who is familiar with problems that arise over unintended consequences I thought you would agree.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 22, 2011, 04:55:09 PM
MU should have been doing that to begin with, then MPD would look bad now...not Marquette University.
I don't disagree, but MPD was absolutely fine with DPS taking all the calls.
If MPD knew that DPS was breaking the law (and they did), a call from Ed Flynn to the head of DPS was in order.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 09:14:43 AM
I guess the statistics published for police response times are wrong. I'll let them know they don't know what they are taking about. Thanks...it's good to know your individual case sets the standard, not all calls that are aggregated. ::)
Are you familiar with the following:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
At my time at MU (including a year of grad school) during 2003-2007, MPD took their sweet-ass time responding to anything on MU's campus. Not just in my personal experience.
Quote from: LancesOtherNut on June 23, 2011, 10:00:50 AM
Are you familiar with the following:
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
At my time at MU (including a year of grad school) during 2003-2007, MPD took their sweet-ass time responding to anything on MU's campus. Not just in my personal experience.
Damn lies are good if they paint MU in a bad light.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 09:14:43 AM
I guess the statistics published for police response times are wrong. I'll let them know they don't know what they are taking about. Thanks...it's good to know your individual case sets the standard, not all calls that are aggregated. ::)
So there is no way that the statistics are skewed because they lump response time to active crime calls with calls of a non-emergency nature?
Just graduated, still must be on the email list. Here is the email Fr. Wild sent out yesterday:
JUNE 22, 2011
Dear Marquette Students:
As you know, in the past month there has been much on-campus conversation and a number of media stories about two sexual assault cases on the Marquette campus involving student athletes. These are difficult, sensitive situations for all involved. We want all our students to feel cared for and supported; when that is not the case, we need to take action.
I have had blunt and very direct conversations with colleagues across the university as we work to improve our responses to these types of incidents, and I can assure you that everyone is committed to ensuring our campus culture emphasizes care and respect for each other. We have been working to address the issues raised, and I now have some substantive progress to report.
Any incident of sexual violence is reprehensible and in complete opposition to the values of Marquette University. While federal law protecting the privacy of students prohibits sharing the details of these incidents and the outcomes of any disciplinary proceedings, they were investigated by the university with action taken in accordance with our student conduct code. They were also investigated by Milwaukee law enforcement officials, and no charges were filed.
The university has publicly acknowledged that we made mistakes in dealing with these incidents. We worked quickly and proactively to correct those procedures, both to be sensitive to victims and to comply with Wisconsin state law. We now refer any reported incident of sexual assault to the Sensitive Crimes Unit of the Milwaukee Police Department. We have also added a victim advocate to the staff of our Student Health Service and have more tightly restricted who on campus has access to reports from the Department of Public Safety.
As you know, we have many resources on campus, both to provide education about sexual violence and its prevention and to support those who are the victims of sexual violence. These include HAVEN, VOICES and the services of the Department of Public Safety, Campus Ministry, the Counseling Center and Student Health Service. In addition, we have very positive relationships with a number of community agencies. The Gender Resource Center, once operational, will also provide support in this area.
Upon hearing of the concerns involving these cases, I wanted to proactively address the issues and, thus, asked Janine Geske, distinguished professor of law and former justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to convene a group of campus and community representatives dealing with sexual violence. They have had conversations that have been very helpful to the university, and I am happy to report that considerable progress has been made, including:
• As noted above, the Department of Public Safety has worked with the MPD Sensitive Crimes Unit to ensure that the reporting of any sexual assault both complies with state law and is sensitive to the needs of victims. DPS officers also participated in victim-centered training this summer.
• The Office of Student Affairs, working with representatives from the district attorney's office and our own law faculty, is re-writing our policies and procedures regarding sexual assault in light of what we've learned in these cases and the recently issued guidelines from the U.S. Department of Education. These policies and procedures will be in place for the 2011-12 academic year.
• Marquette's Counseling Center and Student Health Service are working with academic and other colleagues on a number of prevention and education programs. Every incoming freshman will receive sexual violence and prevention training. An online program on sexual assault awareness and prevention, Student Success, will be piloted with targeted groups of students and staff this fall. There is also training planned in Bystander Intervention, i.e., how to help ensure the safety of a friend in vulnerable situations.
Surely, there is more to be done, and this is a focus of concentration this summer. We will get this right, because we want any student who is a victim of sexual assault to be supported and to come forward so she or he can make use of the many resources the university and our community partners have to offer. You can be helpful in this regard by caring for your friends, especially watching out for them in vulnerable situations; by reporting incidents that you feel compromise student safety; by utilizing the LIMO and Student Safety Patrol programs for safe transport; and by taking advantage of the personal safety and other educational programs available, including Bystander Intervention training when that is offered.
I want you to know that your safety and security have been and remain my number one concern. While I am retiring in just a few weeks, I have talked with my successor, Rev. Scott R. Pilarz, S.J., and know that he shares these concerns and will continue to move the university forward. In the meantime, if you have questions, please contact Dr. Chris Miller, vice president for student affairs.
I will continue to ask God's abundant blessings on you and our entire Marquette community.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Wild, S.J.
President
Marquette University
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 01:02:29 AM
...but I'll bet you looked swell in the yellow jacket.
probably not nearly as nice as you with that greasy apron at the AMU. ;)
MPD can make their stats say anthing they want. The truth is that their response time on non-emergency calls is very poor.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 01:02:29 AM
Thirdly, MU just adopted the very policy I said they should have been doing all along. Maybe you should talk to Father Wild and tell him how wrong he is.
I think Fr. Wild knows the realities of the situation well enough to know that this isn't the best way to do things. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much choice in this situation.
Old Policy: DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD. DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.
New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.
This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved. However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.
Quote from: Litehouse on June 23, 2011, 12:14:28 PM
Old Policy: DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD. DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.
New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.
This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved. However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.
Even though the case will be reported to MPD, I believe that with the new policy, the accuser still has the option of speaking with the police. He/she can always choose not to if he/she would prefer the police not be involved.
Quote from: Litehouse on June 23, 2011, 12:14:28 PM
Old Policy: DPS uses their judgement to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime may have been committed before reporting sexual assault accusations to MPD. DPS tells victims they also have the option to go to MPD directly if they want.
New Policy: DPS will automatically report all sexual assault accusations to MPD.
This is good in many ways, but it also could have a potentially chilling effect on victims coming forward if they don't necessarily want police involved. However, it ultimately takes the responsibility off MU to make the tough judgement calls on what to report.
Although, it could perhaps open MU up to civil liability. If a victim doesn't want to pursue and police involvement ends up as or more traumatizing, then MU could be found responsible for creating or contributing to "emotional distress" and couldn't hide behind the "just following Wisconsin law" defense because there's a clear exception to the duty to report a crime statute if you owe a duty to others. In such a scenario, one could argue that MU has an implied duty to uphold the privacy of its students and therefore reporting a crime to MPD when the victim explicitly said not to do so would be a blatant breach of that privacy.
Frankly, MU is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If you're going to get sued either way, I would think the more defensible position is with the old policy where the onus is on the victim to go to police.
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 23, 2011, 11:23:30 AM
probably not nearly as nice as you with that greasy apron at the AMU. ;)
MPD can make their stats say anthing they want. The truth is that their response time on non-emergency calls is very poor.
Greasy apron...nah....never wore one. I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are. Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours. Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours. I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 02:14:16 PM
Greasy apron...nah....never wore one. I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are. Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours. Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours. I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.
I never wore a yellow jacket either, so we'll have to call a truce on that.
I can say with certainty that if you called to report a sexual assualt (not in progress) it would not be outside the norm to see a 1-2 hour response time, especially on a weekend night. It doesn't mean these crimes shouldn't be reported for that reason, but it does explain why students respect the relationship they have with DPS. I just don't see why the victim shouldn't have the right to confide in a service they pay for (DPS) without DPS going against their wishes by contact MPD.
Quote from: Benny B on June 23, 2011, 01:30:59 PM
Frankly, MU is damned if they do, damned if they don't. If you're going to get sued either way, I would think the more defensible position is with the old policy where the onus is on the victim to go to police.
I would disagree....(If you are weighing the loss/cost of a breach of privacy claim vs a sex assault handling claim, a breach of privacy is negligible in damages, in comparison.)
The overriding key is the civil liability of an institution is measured by its response or lack thereof. US Supr Court, clarified that the institution is not to be held liable for an act occuring...but it is liable in the aftermath, for how it is handled.
Over reporting is preferred to under reporting. Privacy is not a protected right to thwart or inhibit the investigation of a crime. When has a cop stopped asking questions to someone answering..."sorry, thats a private matter."lol
MU should consider, like businesses, not just handbooks,or letters, but safety and conduct seminars, including mandatory seminars at orientation.
Instructional videos are readily bought, or cheaply produced, and are easily posted to the web....on MU no toucha da boob tube.com lol
With even the current presidential administration expressing a policy concern over sexual assaults on campuses (thats not politics, mods..its reported truth-lol), now is a good window for MU to seize the teaching moment, get out in front of this, and go beyond the reactive to the proactive, to broad and diligent multiple level responses, like the above, and others. I'd think the school would be applauded, and it'd be in keeping with its religious misiion, as claimed.
The main risk with just a partial reactive measure is you'll only learn you didnt go far enough or do enough by the expensive lesson of the next civil claim you lose...the courtroom is an expensive schoolhouse. lol
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 23, 2011, 09:41:35 AM
You were the one who suggested that the idea was to pass the buck to the MPD and make them look bad, not me.
As for truth and justice, the MPD has to have known the policy MU was following for the past 10 years. And they were totally ok with it as it allowed MU to handle things that, in MU's ant the DPS's judgement, didn't rise to the standards of a crime. But when sex + athletes became part of the mix, the MPD and DA feigned public outrage over a policy they had tacitly approved. We'll see how much they like the new policy (which takes the judgement of DPS officers out of the equation) when they're inudated with any and every complaint that could possibly be construed as a crime. My guess is not much. My further guess is that the "unintended consequences" will lead to less truth and justice as the police are forced to spend time on matters that shouldn't merit their attention.
As someone who is familiar with problems that arise over unintended consequences I thought you would agree.
Yes, and I admitted that's PART of the benefit, to take the onus off of MU and put it where it belongs, the authorities. I'm sorry Lenny, but I don't want DPS or Stephanie Quade or Father Wild deciding what a Sexual Assault is especially when it could look like they are benefitting one type of person (male, or athlete, or guy from their home town, or whatever) vs another.
As for MPD being inundated, then maybe that might be a wake-up call for the university about the issue of sexual assault on campus. Catholic University is addressing this very issue by going back to single sex dorms. It's like having a teenage daughter. She's home and the boyfriend comes over to visit, you make rules that they can't go into her room with the door closed....tends to put the kibosh on extracurricular activities or at least makes it harder for them.
Ultimately kids will be kids and they're going to find ways to get it on, but we have much more of this sexual assault crap going on now (statistically speaking...yes...lies lies and more lies of statistics) then we did in the past. That's why Catholic U is changing their stance and perhaps others should follow suit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576369843592242356.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://mommylife.net/archives/2011/06/catholic_univer.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/catholic-university-returns-sex-dorms-13860335
Quote from: ringout on June 23, 2011, 09:58:06 AM
I don't disagree, but MPD was absolutely fine with DPS taking all the calls.
If MPD knew that DPS was breaking the law (and they did), a call from Ed Flynn to the head of DPS was in order.
Do we know they were "absolutely fine" with DPS taking calls, or was this discussed in the past but it took a big event like this to hit the media to move the discussion to the forefront?
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 23, 2011, 02:22:49 PM
I never wore a yellow jacket either, so we'll have to call a truce on that.
I can say with certainty that if you called to report a sexual assualt (not in progress) it would not be outside the norm to see a 1-2 hour response time, especially on a weekend night. It doesn't mean these crimes shouldn't be reported for that reason, but it does explain why students respect the relationship they have with DPS. I just don't see why the victim shouldn't have the right to confide in a service they pay for (DPS) without DPS going against their wishes by contact MPD.
And I would think we would all agree a response time of 1 to 2 hours is better than waiting for MU to let MPD know 6 weeks later....if we go with your timeframe. I'm happy to go with it...is that timeframe better than the weeks that MU sometimes took to report to MPD if they bothered to report it AT ALL.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 02:47:18 PM
And I would think we would all agree a response time of 1 to 2 hours is better than waiting for MU to let MPD know 6 weeks later....if we go with your timeframe. I'm happy to go with it...is that timeframe better than the weeks that MU sometimes took to report to MPD if they bothered to report it AT ALL.
I think if you go back to my original point, it was that if DPS would not be required to report all cirmes (the law doesn't differentiate between a sexual assault and some type of property crime as to MU's obligation to report to MPD), they would do nothing but stand around and wait for MPD all day. That wouldn't serve anyone well. My point wasn't that sexual assaults should go unreported to MPD because it would take too long for them to respond, but rather that DPS has to have the discretion on what to report if they expect to remain effective.
In terms of a sexual assault, of course, if the victim wants MPD involved DPS should help facilitate that. In my 10 years of experience with DPS, I don't believe that they would ever refuse to call MPD if the victim made that request. I do believe that they would honor a victim's wishes if they did not wish to report a crime to MPD.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 02:14:16 PM
Greasy apron...nah....never wore one. I don't disagree with you necessarily that non-emergency calls are going to be longer, of course they are. Call to report a stolen bike, it's going to take hours. Call because a girl claims that she was raped, not going to take hours. I thought I was pretty clear when I said it depended on the type of call.
One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day. You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations? Doubtful, very doubtful.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 23, 2011, 02:33:36 PM
I would disagree....(If you are weighing the loss/cost of a breach of privacy claim vs a sex assault handling claim, a breach of privacy is negligible in damages, in comparison.)
The overriding key is the civil liability of an institution is measured by its response or lack thereof. US Supr Court, clarified that the institution is not to be held liable for an act occuring...but it is liable in the aftermath, for how it is handled.
Over reporting is preferred to under reporting. Privacy is not a protected right to thwart or inhibit the investigation of a crime. When has a cop stopped asking questions to someone answering..."sorry, thats a private matter."lol
Funny... my wife said almost exactly the same thing when we discussed this morning. To which I responded, "I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."
Quote from: houwarrior on June 23, 2011, 02:33:36 PM
The main risk with just a partial reactive measure is you'll only learn you didnt go far enough or do enough by the expensive lesson of the next civil claim you lose...the courtroom is an expensive schoolhouse. lol
I don't disagree, but I suppose the problem I see is the lack of an immunity clause, i.e. something that says no good-intentioned person may be held liable for reporting a suspected crime to the police. You don't ever need to see the light of a courtroom for things to get expensive... if you get sued - no matter how frivolous - you still need to defend yourself, and an institution like Marquette may be motivated to settle even if the facts in the case fully support its exoneration.
Hypothetically, what if the alleged victim (or her attorney) is making all of this up, i.e. the sex was consensual? She can now drag MU into the mud with a lawsuit with no consequence to her. No. 1, her identity - as an alleged victim of a sexual crime - will remain confidential. No. 2, if she did make it up, there's no trauma or distress to be experienced by dragging this out (except that which is completely self-inflicted). No. 3, if the legal action ever got to the point where she was about to get "outed" or revealed that she were lying, she could pull the plug. And no. 4, MU simply isn't going to throw her under the bus and call her a liar no matter what the facts say. So some slime ball J.D. takes the case on contingency, and she's got nothing to lose with her ridiculous lawsuit.
Granted, even an immunity clause in the statute wouldn't preclude someone from bringing suit, but at least it would drastically reduce the likelihood of someone bringing a "settle or bust" action in a case that's undoubtedly going to get tossed early on in summary.
Quote from: MUMac on June 23, 2011, 03:28:28 PM
One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day. You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations? Doubtful, very doubtful.
Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later? That is the question that should be asked. In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.
Quote from: MUMac on June 23, 2011, 03:28:28 PM
One fact you leave out - the girl(s) reported the incident the next day. You still holding that the MPD would have an immediate response to these situations? Doubtful, very doubtful.
+1. My guess is any call to the police that begins with the word "yesterday" is treated as something less than an emergency.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 03:37:36 PM
Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later? That is the question that should be asked. In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.
Evidence can be tarnished? What, like silverware? LOL
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 03:37:36 PM
Do we think that MPD would have shown up that day is better than when MU reported it weeks later? That is the question that should be asked. In my opinion, MPD showing up the day it was reported (whether that is 10 minutes after the call or 6 hours later) is a HELL of a lot better than weeks later when stories can be changed, evidence can be tarnished, etc.
That was not the question in debate, nor what my post responded to. The comments that preceded were directed to the "tainting" of evidence due to the timeliness of the reporting. I suspect that by the time they (MPD) would have been notified, it may have been the afternoon of the next day. At that time, MPD knows there is not an emergency. Not sure that they would dispatch someone immediately, that day or thereafter.
Yes, I agree MU should report immediately as they now will do. I do not, though, believe that would have made much of a difference in the "evidence" that would have been gathered.
The girl(s) still were provided the option of contacting MPD on their own. They did not need DPS to do this for them. They chose not to immediately, in fact months went by before they did make contact. That alone would "taint" the evidence, would it not?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on June 23, 2011, 03:42:57 PM
Evidence can be tarnished? What, like silverware? LOL
No, like destroyed....cleaned up...manipulated....etc.
Can you answer the question...is it better to have the MPD involved that day or the day after or weeks later. This isn't hard, but I realize you want to defend the actions so much it's hard for you to say the right answer. Try, just try.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 23, 2011, 03:47:00 PM
No, like destroyed....cleaned up...manipulated....etc.
Can you answer the question...is it better to have the MPD involved that day or the day after or weeks later. This isn't hard, but I realize you want to defend the actions so much it's hard for you to say the right answer. Try, just try.
Of course it would best for MPD to be involved as early in the process as possible. That isn't the point. When you have a victim that doesn't want MPD involved, why is MU obligated to go against their wishes? I honestly don't believe that MU refused to report this incident to MPD against the victim's wishes.
Quote from: Benny B on June 23, 2011, 03:30:42 PM
Funny... my wife said almost exactly the same thing when we discussed this morning. To which I responded, "I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."
I don't disagree, but I suppose the problem I see is the lack of an immunity clause, i.e. something that says no good-intentioned person may be held liable for reporting a suspected crime to the police. You don't ever need to see the light of a courtroom for things to get expensive... if you get sued - no matter how frivolous - you still need to defend yourself, and an institution like Marquette may be motivated to settle even if the facts in the case fully support its exoneration.
Hypothetically, what if the alleged victim (or her attorney) is making all of this up, i.e. the sex was consensual? She can now drag MU into the mud with a lawsuit with no consequence to her. No. 1, her identity - as an alleged victim of a sexual crime - will remain confidential. No. 2, if she did make it up, there's no trauma or distress to be experienced by dragging this out (except that which is completely self-inflicted). No. 3, if the legal action ever got to the point where she was about to get "outed" or revealed that she were lying, she could pull the plug. And no. 4, MU simply isn't going to throw her under the bus and call her a liar no matter what the facts say. So some slime ball J.D. takes the case on contingency, and she's got nothing to lose with her ridiculous lawsuit.
Granted, even an immunity clause in the statute wouldn't preclude someone from bringing suit, but at least it would drastically reduce the likelihood of someone bringing a "settle or bust" action in a case that's undoubtedly going to get tossed early on in summary.
There is no such thing as bringing a civil lawsuit, with ones identity protected...you are a party, and your name/claims are a matter of public record.
Current filings in all courts already require redaction of ID info such as SS nos., and DL nos....its not an imposition for marquette's daily report of possible criminal conduct to redact the names, and meet privacy laws...with the info of such to be provided subsequently to police, by non public means...to the cops over the phone/secure computer, etc.
"...As to.."I didn't think they taught the 'lesser of two evils' concept in law school... just how to be evil."
Privacy vs reporting isnt two evils competing, but we are, as society having trouble, at times, balancing constitutional freedoms, and law enforcement (see patriot act)...and because the law, both civil and criminal deals more often with the remedies for bad conduct, and is rarely triggered by good actions, we become associated with our clients acts--fairly, or unfairly.
Quote from: houwarrior on June 23, 2011, 04:22:57 PM
its not an imposition for marquette's daily report of possible criminal conduct to redact the names, and meet privacy laws...with the info of such to be provided subsequently to police, by non public means...to the cops over the phone/secure computer, etc.
Do you think that doing this type of daily report of possible criminal conduct without providing details would bring MU into compliance with the requirement that they report all crimes?
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 23, 2011, 04:40:46 PM
Do you think that doing this type of daily report of possible criminal conduct without providing details would bring MU into compliance with the requirement that they report all crimes?
As to
details...no....but thats not what I noted....I'm noting just the
redacting of names, only....to which the answer on your query is a certain yes.
--consider the Chicago Tribune article, would the addition of her name have added anything vital to the facts? Of course not. If the rest of the MU daily report is complete as to details/facts, the police should have more than enough to determine a need for further investigation--a name is not initially relevant in the least.
The day we decide a need to investigate, or not based on the names involved is a day....that is ....oops....well, now thats in the past.lol
Quote from: 2TimeWarrior on June 23, 2011, 04:07:08 PM
Of course it would best for MPD to be involved as early in the process as possible. That isn't the point. When you have a victim that doesn't want MPD involved, why is MU obligated to go against their wishes? I honestly don't believe that MU refused to report this incident to MPD against the victim's wishes.
I believe we're talking about two different things. One is whether the person should feel compelled to talk and the other is timing.
First, how is the timeline NOT a point when some folks here are bashing that time doesn't seem to matter? Of course it's one of the points and this is exactly what MPD and the DA were complaining about...the TIME LAG? In this particular case, there wasn't the time lag, but in the October case there was....the point being that MU's policy of not reporting creates that possibility for mischief on stories, evidence, etc. I disagree that it's not the point...it's one of the central points that the authorities were pointing out was flawed with MU.
Your argument is a separate point and a valid one. If the victim doesn't want to talk to MPD, then they don't have to even under the new policy. The problem is that MU was playing the role of criminal arbiter in the past as gatekeeper on whether a crime had been committed. Quite frankly, I'm pleased MU is no longer in that business because it has been the source of all this bad press. It looks like a cover-up because of the policy. Fortunately that is gone. Unfortunately, to your point, it may put the person who feels violated on the hot seat to talk to authorities, but they can decline if they wish (a tough spot for that person, I agree).