[Cracked Sidewalks] Marquette's PR Nightmare

[tower912]

And after they investigated it, in their opinion, they did not have reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.   

[brewcity77]

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Okay, so here's a scenario. Say one of my neighbors comes to me and accuses Mr. Smith across the street of being a terrorist. They tell me that he had what appeared to be a heavy box delivered to him out of the back of a van labeled "TNT". Obviously concerned, I go to investigate further, striking up some conversation with Mr. Smith that evening. As we talk, he tells me that he is opening an AC/DC tribute museum and he ordered 1,000 copies of their hit single "TNT" on CD to give to his first 1,000 patrons.

Am I still obligated to call the Department of Homeland Security? Or is it possible that after my investigation turned up nothing, it would be more prudent to simply drop it?

[Marquette84]

+1 4ever...I struggle to call him "Michael"

Back on topic, I just wanted to thank everyone for keeping this on-topic. This article took 4-5 drafts and about a week of discussion back and forth between the CS staff. Ultimately, we wanted something that would be more constructive on the topic than much of what's been written on message boards like this one, the Scout sites, or JS Online. I think this thread has done a great job of doing that. I hesitated to even publish this simply because I wasn't sure the can of worms needed to be reopened, but I'm glad we went ahead.

The problem with the article is that it starts with the assumption that this was mainly a PR problem.  

In reality, there were three flawed root causes even before the first PR person thought about trying to "fix" the situation.

1) an athlete was stupid enough to put himself in a position to be accused of sexual assault.  

2) the university operated under a flawed policy that was not only against the law, but also had the effect of preventing the legitimate investigation that could have actually proven the charges or exonerated the athlete

3) the internal investigation that did occur was conducted by a party that wouldn't be considered impartial in the best of circumstances.

Given those three underlying issues, no amount of PR could have undone the situation.

[Pakuni]

Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person 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."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Ummm ... how would they determine whether there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been determined?
Oh yeah, they'd investigate. That's the entire point of an investigation ... to determine whether there was a crime and, if so, who committed it. You don't determine there was a crime and then investigate it.
Horse. Cart.

Nice try, though.

[Marquette84]

And after they investigated it, in their opinion, they did not have reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.   

And why did they investigate it in the first place?

Answer:  They had reasonable grounds to think a crime had been committed.  

Okay, so here's a scenario. Say one of my neighbors comes to me and accuses Mr. Smith across the street of being a terrorist. They tell me that he had what appeared to be a heavy box delivered to him out of the back of a van labeled "TNT". Obviously concerned, I go to investigate further, striking up some conversation with Mr. Smith that evening. As we talk, he tells me that he is opening an AC/DC tribute museum and he ordered 1,000 copies of their hit single "TNT" on CD to give to his first 1,000 patrons.

Let's extend your scenario.  Three hours later, there is a huge explosion at Miller Park.  It turns out that Mr. Smith actually was a terrorist, that van actually was the delivery vehicle, and the heavy black box actually did contain TNT.  When it explodes, hundreds are killed, thousands injured.  The "AC/DC tribute museum" was nothing but a ruse.

Still think you made the right call by not reporting him?

Not as easy anymore, is it?

Let's be realistic here--the MU Department of Public Safety is not qualified or trained to investigate sex crimes.  Nor could they be considered impartial in this case.

Let's not ignore the fact that both DPS and the Athletic department reported to the same guy at MU--

MU and DPS mucked this up and left us not knowing whether a guilty rapist got off because of an improperly conducted investigation, or an innocent athlete lives under a cloud because the impartial investigation that could have exonerated him was not conducted.

[Marquette84]

Ummm ... how would they determine whether there was reasonable ground to believe a crime had been determined?
Oh yeah, they'd investigate. That's the entire point of an investigation ... to determine whether there was a crime and, if so, who committed it. You don't determine there was a crime and then investigate it.
Horse. Cart.

Nice try, though.

Ummm... did you forget that the girl reported a sexual assault?  

If the girl's story was credible enough to get DPS to open up their own investigation, then DPS most certainly had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed.

Nice try, yourself.

[brewcity77]

Marquette84, I try. I really do. But you simply go for the negative as much as you can and try to derail every conversation with attacks and inane insults. Did you suffer some abuse by Marquette in a previous life? Or are you just that angry and frustrated that you have to lash out and try to belittle others every time you have a chance?

Seriously, I consider myself pretty patient, and I think I've shown that in past discussions we've had. But I just don't get your incessant need to turn everything into an argument.

[Marquette84]

Marquette84, I try. I really do. But you simply go for the negative as much as you can and try to derail every conversation with attacks and inane insults. Did you suffer some abuse by Marquette in a previous life? Or are you just that angry and frustrated that you have to lash out and try to belittle others every time you have a chance?

Seriously, I consider myself pretty patient, and I think I've shown that in past discussions we've had. But I just don't get your incessant need to turn everything into an argument.

First, I would have been content to simply correct the erroneous statement that MU did not violate Wisconsin law.  This should be a non-controversial issue.  Marquette believes they were violating the law.  The DA believes it.  The MPD believes it.   Nobody (other than a small handful here) believe otherwise.   Someone made a false statement--it warranted a correction.

You could have just agreed with me. Instead, I had to fend off attacks and inane insults from you, Pakuni and Tower.

Second, wouldn't you admit that your hypothetical story about "Mr Smith" and his "AC/DC Tribute Museum" was far more inane the my linking the actual state law and pointing out that since MU had reasonable grounds to believe a crime occurred, they were obligated to report it?

Third, I've been consistent from day one in my statement that a full investigation would have had just as much chance at exonerating the athlete if he was truly innocent.   Again, this shouldn't be a controversial issue

[brewcity77]

Again, this shouldn't be a controversial issue

And it wasn't, until you came into the thread. I just can't be bothered to waste my time explaining the rest. You'll just piss and moan until everyone else gets bored and goes away. Never mind legitimate, logical arguments, as soon as you post in the thread, it has to be your way or no way.

Well done ruining what was a good and fruitful discussion.

[Benny B]

Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person 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."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Actually, as others pointed out, in reality it's not as obvious as you would like to believe... but gosh, if only every statute could be one sentence long, maybe we'd put 90% of the lawyers in this country out of work.

Your implication that reasonable grounds exist on the basis that there was an investigation implies that an investigation would only take place if there were reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed.  Try to make that argument in a courtroom, and the serial killer who's next on the docket is going to fall out of his chair laughing at you.

All that said, please provide a link or quote where Marquette, the DA, and MPD all said that MU violated the law.

[Pakuni]

Ummm... did you forget that the girl reported a sexual assault?  

If the girl's story was credible enough to get DPS to open up their own investigation, then DPS most certainly had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed.

Nice try, yourself.

What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and chalk this statement up to simple ignorance. You obviously have no clue how these things work.
A complaint is not reasonable grounds that a crime occurred. Seriously, try going before a judge sometime at a probable cause hearing and say "well, your honor, this person says Mr. Smith robbed him, therefore that's probably what happened."
In the long history of American jurisprudence, you may be the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise. Fortunately, the people who've written our laws over the past couple centuries didn't believe such nonsense.
I'll explain it to you one more time ... a complaint is merely the vehicle for an investigation to begin. It is not the determination that a crime probably occurred. It is the investigation that leads to that determination, not the other way around. Why bother to conduct an investigation if all one needs to determine whether a crime occurred is a complaint?

[HouWarrior]

Actually, I think you need to be "set straight here."

Contrary to what you believe, MU was required to report the alleged crime:

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/acts89-93/85Act152.pdf
"Any unlicensed private security person 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."

Obviously, MU had reasonable grounds to believe that a crime had been committed because they took the time and effort to investigate it themselves.

Not to go all Rusty Hardin on yall, but the cited statute requiring reporting is not triggered on the mere act of security guys investigating. Thats just checking the facts, posing questions....their job to do,regardless. They can investigate facts and claims for years without reporting, if no incident's facts give rise to probable cause.Finding an unlocked door in empty offices, and an eployye in the breakroom is not probable cause. Same unlocked door , with pick scratches on the lock, and no reasonable story for being in the breakroom is probable. In between  these two...if his story is my attorney ran accross the street to pick us up a sandwich...then its wait, for his return a few minutes--no return= probable vs not back in half an hour...likely a probable...vs hes is back in five...no probable, and have a nice day sir. (This example is why you have guest sign in sheets)
What is probable cause? Its right there in the statute you cite. The  definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime"

The statute has a reasonableness standard...which is objective, not subjective. No street cop gut feel, or profiling, is allowed. The standard means after they have done their job of investigating....would a reasonable man in the same circumstances, and on the facts found then believe that a crime has been committed?  

So, if after doing his job, just like a cop does, the security guy does not believe, acting objectively, on what he knows or has learned,  that there was probable cause of a crime...there is no reporting requirement triggered.

The best assesment here is ....we simply dont know, in the public,  if there was,ever, any probable cause. We know charges werent filed by the DA...but charges are filed on a higher evidence standard than probable cause...so not filing charges or seeking an indictment just tells you the evidence did not reach that level.

We dont think cops arrested anyone when they did their work. If there is a record of the cops going to a judge and seeking a warrant, to search, or test, and its granted...de facto, probable cause was sworn to by a cop, and was found by the court when the warrant issued. If however, the cops interviewed everyone voluntarily, and there were no warrants...we dont know even if any of the cops, found probable cause. They talk every day to witnesses, voluntariy, and dont find what  amounts to probable cause. Moving on.

Well wait....84 I want to grant/concede something readily....because very strong public policy protects women in victim crimes like assault...a woman just saying she said no, and, say, the accused admitting copulation, but claimed consent--such would support a probable cause....the law totally errs on the side of probable cause and the accused, in this area. If she claimed sex and saying no, but every witness said she was glued all night to one chair, and everyone backs the guy as not even talking to her well maybe not....but if you go into a private room, and she says anything--...in this area, only probable cause is leniently supported. Now, moving on..

To shift liabilty away from it, MU is going to now uber report all facts and incidents learned of---(likely only not reporting when the security guy is is positive a crime did not occur), and leave it to the authorites to take over investigating, and determine probable cause--they are trained better to make the determination, anyway.

[Lennys Tap]

What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.

Post of the Year.

[Marquette84]

What I like about you, SJS, is that you'll defend whatever inane statement you make to the bitter end, no matter how obviously incorrect it happens to be.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and chalk this statement up to simple ignorance. You obviously have no clue how these things work.
A complaint is not reasonable grounds that a crime occurred. Seriously, try going before a judge sometime at a probable cause hearing and say "well, your honor, this person says Mr. Smith robbed him, therefore that's probably what happened."

In the long history of American jurisprudence, you may be the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise.

Well, I'm actually not the first person to suggest such a ridiculous premise.  You are.  Because you invented it here tonight.

But I suspect you knew that.

It would be nice if just once you'd argue the point I actually made, rather than invent one more convenient for you. 

Nice try, though.

I'll explain it to you one more time ... a complaint is merely the vehicle for an investigation to begin. It is not the determination that a crime probably occurred. It is the investigation that leads to that determination, not the other way around. Why bother to conduct an investigation if all one needs to determine whether a crime occurred is a complaint?

Why would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

The fact that MU acted on the complaint is an indication that they believed that it may be true, which by definition means they had grounds to believe a crime may have been committed.

[Marquette84]

Actually, as others pointed out, in reality it's not as obvious as you would like to believe... but gosh, if only every statute could be one sentence long, maybe we'd put 90% of the lawyers in this country out of work.

Your implication that reasonable grounds exist on the basis that there was an investigation implies that an investigation would only take place if there were reasonable grounds to believe a crime has been committed.  Try to make that argument in a courtroom, and the serial killer who's next on the docket is going to fall out of his chair laughing at you.

Are you saying that this investigation took place, even though there was no reasonable expectation a crime had been committed? 

All that said, please provide a link or quote where Marquette, the DA, and MPD all said that MU violated the law.

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf
"Marquette University has acknowledged its failure to comply with its statutory duty to report these incidents" 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation
"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."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you saying that this investigation took place, even though there was no reasonable expectation a crime had been committed?  

http://media.jsonline.com/documents/Chisholm_Marquette_letter.pdf
"Marquette University has acknowledged its failure to comply with its statutory duty to report these incidents"  

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation
"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 find it odd that the Chicago Tribune, the Huffington Post, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, WISN, WTMJ, etc, etc all came to the same conclusion that MU broke the law but those that keep saying MU didn't must be saying all these entities are wrong.  Furthermore, wouldn't MU want to say "NO WE DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW" since news source after news source keep getting it wrong?  Shouldn't they be setting the record straight?

A few examples in addition to Marquette84's

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/college-campus-sexual-assault-midwest_n_883362.html    "Just this week, the Tribune reported that a Marquette University student's sexual assault claim was virtually ignored by campus police, even though the school was required by law to report the crime to Milwaukee police. The school admitted that it hasn't been reporting these crimes to local authorities for the past 10 years. "


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-21/news/ct-met-marquette-sex-assaults-20110621_1_sexual-assault-crimes-sexual-attack-allegation   "In fact, Marquette administrators told the Tribune that they have violated their reporting obligations for the past 10 years. And in at least the two most recent cases, the lapse played a role in prosecutors declining to press charges."   (So were those MU administrators lying to the Chicago Tribune?)


http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/124379168.html   "In early May, Marquette acknowledged its policies didn't comply with the state law and said it would change its reporting policies."


I find it incredible that some continue to suggest we didn't break state law when MU ADMITTED TO IT to multiple media sources. 

[HouWarrior]

Let me give some support to the security guys in the trenches. My lifetime best friend and I went through our grade/high school years with a guy who then married his baby sister, and he was a cop for many many years in a Wisc.city.  The brother in law and wife moved back to Milw area a few years ago, and he has been on the MU security force during the entire time all this went down.

I am certain he knows, and likely applied proper police procedures in his work, and that he fully knows probable cause when he sees it. I dont fault our MUers in uniform. In fact I'd guess their investigative work may well have been very professional and thourough...but, what was done with the results was subject to the control of higher ups...not to theirs.

I'd guess the non reporting wasnt their idea, but rather a very flawed school policy they followed, because all good cops are slaves to following departmental policy and procedure. Ensuring that the policy and procedure complies with the law is the job of those making the policy, not of those following and applying it.

Sure, I know him, and I wished now, in hindsight, he'd have questioned/challenged the reporting policy...but effective law enforcement guys just arent wired for that. They are bred for the chain of command stuff--which deserves our respect.  The MU general counsel, compliance officers, and political/sports higher ups clusterf%^ked, and let the school down for slipping up on the flawed policy, for so very long of a time.

The school and some people may be under fire to the consequences, and for some settlement $$, but I hope no one throws the security guys under the same bus...my best instinct is they dont deserve that.

[brewcity77]

I'll probably regret posting this, but am I to believe that Marquette DPS is to report every incident reported to them to police? Yes, Chisholm went nuts on us during his pouting rant that he couldn't press charges. But the law seems to specifically state that you must report when you have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

First, any insinuation that investigating indicates a reasonable belief is simply asinine. If I see flickering light through a neighbor's curtains and smell smoke in the middle of winter, it might be prudent to investigate and make sure it isn't just their fireplace before I call it in as a structure fire. Marquette can't possibly be expected to call the police for every report that's made any more than they'll call 911 for every stubbed toe.

As houwarrior has pointed out, there are former police professionals in DPS. And while Chisholm has said Marquette was non-compliant, and Marquette sheepishly admitted to breaking the law in reaction to Chisholm's rant, no charges seem to have been filed against Marquette. If Marquette is breaking the law repeatedly for 10 years, would MPD and Chisholm be content with "sorry, but we changed our policies so it won't happen again."

Finally, isn't there more to evidence than just punctuality? What about medical records?What about the doctor's report from the night of the assault? I know some people like Chisholm and some posters are taking great joy in pointing the finger. But maybe like those flickering lights, there's nothing here. Marquette has botched the handling of this, there's no doubt in that. But considering how much they've screwed up the media relations part, isn't is possible that they didn't even check the law, just taking Chisholm's word for it even when lawyers are saying he wasn't exactly right?

I'm sure it was a mistake posting that. It's clear that the cooler heads that made this such a good discussion thread for 20 or so posts have not prevailed. Set the agenda of attacking Marquette, boys, it seems to be the thing to do.

[tower912]

I said that the DPS conducted an investigation and in their opinion a crime did not occur.    To construe that statement as a personal attack ......wow.    Character revealed.   (BTW, as opposed to my original statement, their IS some imaginable way to feel insulted.   Hope this helps)

[brewcity77]

Why would MU have conducted the investigation in the first place if they didn't at least start out with reasonable grounds to believe that a crime was committed?

The fact that MU acted on the complaint is an indication that they believed that it may be true, which by definition means they had grounds to believe a crime may have been committed.

This is just ridiculous. It would be like me quitting my job today because I may win the lottery tonight. But of course, that example's probably too extreme for you. Let's try this:

About 15 blocks from my engine house is a building that has a horrible fire alarm system. We are called there 2-5 times a week for false alarms. If this place went up, it would be disastrous. Potentially hundreds if casualties and damages in the billions. It would make Pizza Man look like a backyard barbecue. The entire city and possibly surrounding communities would be needed to fight that fire. But when the alarm for that place sounds, we only send one engine and one truck, as we do for any other alarm sounding. Why? Because we're investigating before we declare it to be a disaster. Two rigs check it out, enough to start operations if needed, but not more because it'd be a waste of resources to send the 24 rigs we'd need to really make an effective attack every time their constantly faulty alarm system goes off. In probably a dozen or mire trips over there, I've only seen evidence of fire once, and it was out before we arrived thanks to the sprinkler system. Otherwise, it's been burnt food, jackasses at the pull-stations, or just faulty wiring.

What DPS did was what we do. Investigate the claim before calling in more resources (MPD) if it does turn out to be serious. Believe me, if they reported every incident they investigated to MPD, you'd see a never-ending parade of squad lights on campus.

[mcderjim]

I want to know, when did the PR team and the lawyers replace the Jesuits and Jesuit Christian philosophy when dealing with young adults that need to be protected and nutured.  Marquette has gotten away from its key Christian principles that they should use to guide them....not the fear of being sued.  Embarrassed to say I went to MU right now !

[GGGG]

Uh....mcderjim, what exactly would you have done here that is consistent with "Jesuit Christian philosophy?"  The only thing MU seems to have done wrong is not contacting MPD.  And exercising bad PR.  The allegations have a complete lack of evidence and have broken down to a he said/she said scenario so who knows who is to blame?

[brewcity77]

I want to know, when did the PR team and the lawyers replace the Jesuits and Jesuit Christian philosophy when dealing with young adults that need to be protected and nutured.  Marquette has gotten away from its key Christian principles that they should use to guide them....not the fear of being sued.  Embarrassed to say I went to MU right now !

The Jesuits and their philosophy are fine, but going about with good intentions alone won't work when schlock journalists want to smear you. They'll find something wrong with the best of intentions, which is why you need good PR management, so that your good intentions are viewed that way by the public.

[mcderjim]

How about Marquette taking the lead on dealing with sexual assaults on campus, better communication to students....anything but simply silence. MU should be a role model for response and action instead of duds

[GGGG]

1. We don't know if sexual assaults actually did happen in this case.

2. They have student support services available for potential victims of sexual assualt.  They have for a long time.

3. DPS and MPD will now have a closer relationship when such accusations occur.