Chicago Tribune painting unflattering picture of MU...

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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.

[bilsu]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[groove]

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 

[StillAWarrior]

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.

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.

[Rubie Q]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

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"

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.

[PE8983]

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.

[Skatastrophy]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[martyconlonontherun]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

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.

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."

[MUCam]

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.

[lurch91]

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.

[Lennys Tap]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[Pakuni]

 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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.