Sexual Assault discussion

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Pipes -

I understand that for you it's personal. You know her and believe her. That's certainly your prerogative. But a Facebook post doesn't PROVE anything and acting as if it's some sort of smoking gun is dangerous thinking.

It is also dangerous thinking to ignore all contrary evidence and say that until you see a "smoking gun" that you will believe the accused. There are almost never "smoking guns" in these cases. Sexual assault is a crime that happens behind closed doors between two people (usually). Per Department of Justice study from 2011, less than 5% of reports of sexual assault are false. While this case could certainly be in the less than 5%, don't you think that with multiple sources telling you it occurred, Cottingham getting fired, Buzz being reprimanded, players quietly transferring from the team, the survivor continuing to advocate for other survivors (opening herself up to death threats and public ridicule) and no one producing any evidence the other way, that is fair to say that more likely than not, an assault occurred? No one's asking you to definitively say it happened...no one other than the people there that night could say that...but with the evidence we have, its pretty hard to make a case that something didn't happen.

[Lennys Tap]

It is also dangerous thinking to ignore all contrary evidence and say that until you see a "smoking gun" that you will believe the accused. There are almost never "smoking guns" in these cases. Sexual assault is a crime that happens behind closed doors between two people (usually). Per Department of Justice study from 2011, less than 5% of reports of sexual assault are false. While this case could certainly be in the less than 5%, don't you think that with multiple sources telling you it occurred, Cottingham getting fired, Buzz being reprimanded, players quietly transferring from the team, the survivor continuing to advocate for other survivors (opening herself up to death threats and public ridicule) and no one producing any evidence the other way, that is fair to say that more likely than not, an assault occurred? No one's asking you to definitively say it happened...no one other than the people there that night could say that...but with the evidence we have, its pretty hard to make a case that something didn't happen.

We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.

When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.

Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).

But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.

[Galway Eagle]

We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.

When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.

Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).

But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.

You realize you just made an argument that a high school drop out working as a stripper and hooker is as trustworthy as an alum of your university just to focus on one of the rare instances that the innocent were falsely accused.

My thoughts on your argument:

Chicos is still here

[GGGG]

Why can't a high school dropout and stripper be considered just as trustworthy as a Marquette alumnus? Is there some study that suggests that high schools dropouts lie more about sexual assault?

[GGGG]

We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.

When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.

Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).

But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.

That last paragraph is political bulls*t that has nothing to do with what TAMU said.

[MUfan12]

APR to SVU. Not bad for a thread that started about Wojo.

[tower912]

Actually, one of Chico's bannings came from his obsessive reaction to this event.  I keep in my inbox the attacking message he sent me regarding this incident as a reminder if why I don't want him back.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

APR to SVU. Not bad for a thread that started about Wojo.

Well you would think "how did we get here" is a simple question

[Galway Eagle]

Actually, one of Chico's bannings came from his obsessive reaction to this event.  I keep in my inbox the attacking message he sent me regarding this incident as a reminder if why I don't want him back.

I'm not trying to be obsessive I just think it's important that we acknowledge it happened as opposed to sticking our heads in the ground.

Sultan, I didn't think I had to go in depth about why the Duke accuser is tremendously less trustworthy but here's some examples

Convicted of murder, grand larceny, dui, theft, endangering a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, attempted murder. She also had claimed that she was gang raped once before by an ex boyfriend, she had also claimed an ex husband threatened to kill her. Both instances her claims were with drawn. By the time Duke came around it should've been a no brainer. I'd say considerably less trustworthy than a bright eyed Marquette freshman.

[jsglow]

What we do know from that night was that there were conflicting stories and that Marquette employees failed to properly protect and/or seek redress for a potential victim violating both the spirit and the law of a written university policy that itself proved later to be inadequate and erroneous under the law.  In my mind the former was totally inexcusable while the latter required careful study and correction but was not necessarily malicious in its original intent.

[Lennys Tap]

That last paragraph is political bulls*t that has nothing to do with what TAMU said.

Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.

[jsglow]

We definitely know that "something happened". I was under the assumption (please correct me if I'm wrong) that both sides of this he said/she said admitted as much.

When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.

Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).

But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts. The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people was unfortunate but I guess justifiable to some if the goal is to even the score for past injustices. I can see how that concept might be tempting to groups who have been historically under represented or mistreated by our legal system but I still think it's wrong.

It may have been a factor but not the only or principle factor leading to Steve's departure.

[Lennys Tap]

What we do know from that night was that there were conflicting stories and that Marquette employees failed to properly protect and/or seek redress for a potential victim violating both the spirit and the law of a written university policy that itself proved later to be inadequate and erroneous under the law.  In my mind the former was totally inexcusable while the latter required careful study and correction but was not necessarily malicious in its original intent.

Well said.

[Pakuni]

Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.

This isn't true.
Politics are very rarely injected into the legal system. Literally millions of cases are processed every year without a hint of politics. Occurrences like the Duke case are exceptionally unusual.

And, really, what's your point? Buzz and his players were subjected to some kind of political witch hunt? What does any of this have to do with the topic?

[GGGG]

I'm not trying to be obsessive I just think it's important that we acknowledge it happened as opposed to sticking our heads in the ground.

Sultan, I didn't think I had to go in depth about why the Duke accuser is tremendously less trustworthy but here's some examples

Convicted of murder, grand larceny, dui, theft, endangering a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, attempted murder. She also had claimed that she was gang raped once before by an ex boyfriend, she had also claimed an ex husband threatened to kill her. Both instances her claims were with drawn. By the time Duke came around it should've been a no brainer. I'd say considerably less trustworthy than a bright eyed Marquette freshman.

I have no idea how trustworthy she is. I have no idea what happened.

That's not really the point. The point is that she wasn't given the hearing required by the law and that powerful people intervened on the behalf of the accused. That's the only thing that I can speak to.

[Lennys Tap]

And, really, what's your point? Buzz and his players were subjected to some kind of political witch hunt? What does any of this have to do with the topic?

My point, if you comprehend what Bags, TAMU and I posted, is clear. I'll just hope your feigned ignorance and ridiculous assumption based on it is just you being snarky you.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

When you say less than 5% of sexual assault cases are false, I assume you mean totally fabricated, as in there was no sex that even occurred. But saying that there was sex is not the same thing as saying there was sexual assault or rape.

Actually no. It includes cases where true consent was obtained but the person than lied about it later. 95% of claims of sexual assault are genuine per this study. The important distinction is that it may not rise to the legal definition of sexual assault. Which in some cases is good, but in a majority of cases it is because the law hasn't caught up to present day. For example, in the state of Texas , it isn't rape if a person has sex with someone who is drunk to the point being unable to move as long as they are still conscious and don't actively resist.

Cottingham wasn't fired because sexual assault occurred, he was fired because the university had in place outdated procedures on how to handle sexual assault allegations and he was deemed responsible (fairly or not).

I wouldn't be so sure that that was all that was involved. But you're right, Cottibgham being fired isn't proof of a sexual assault. But it is one more bread crumb that points towards a sexual assault happening. It's unlikely that if the report has been false that he would have been fired.

The whole Duke thing (an actual total fabrication, not even a he said/she said), which led to the firing of a coach, the termination of a sport's program and the indictment and trial of several innocent people

1. Why do people always point to the one false report and treat it like rule when there are hundreds of cases that show it is the exception.

2. I also wouldn't be so sure that the Duke LAX was a complete fabrication. My current supervisor was a victim's advocate in Raleigh when that case was going on.  She was assigned to the young woman in that case and was present for the trial. According to her, the only reason that the players got off free was because in North Carolina, sodomizing someone with a foreign object want considered rape at the time. I asked her about the 30 for 30 and her response was that the only fantastic lies are the ones being told on that film.

I have no idea if she was telling the truth or not. She seemed personally invested so it's possible her lens was colored to an extreme position. I have no idea. But never underestimate the power rich privledged families have when compared to a poor minority stripper. They have more than enough influence and power to create whatever story they want.

But enough - I get that to you and some others due process, presumption of innocence, etc., in this area are outmoded concepts.

Oh I guatentee those involved got due process. It's something I absolutely believe in. It's part of my job to ensure that accused students receive due process. But we are not a judge and jury. We are fans of a basketball program. We operate on the information we have. And despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the university determined that a sexual assault did occur and removed the player from the university, you for some reason choose to believe that an assault did not occur. So either you don't believe they a student was found responsible for assault despite overwhelming evidence that he was. Or you think the university railroaded an innocent player.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sorry you feel that way - but the point I was trying to make is that there are politics routinely injected into the legal system. And to me that's unfortunate.

Absolutely agree. It almost universally favors those who commit sexual assaults and works to silence the victims.

[Pakuni]

My point, if you comprehend what Bags, TAMU and I posted, is clear. I'll just hope your feigned ignorance and ridiculous assumption based on it is just you being snarky you.

Since you won't answer, I'll just assume that there was no point in introducing the Duke lacrosse case to this discussion.

[Lennys Tap]

You realize you just made an argument that a high school drop out working as a stripper and hooker is as trustworthy as an alum of your university just to focus on one of the rare instances that the innocent were falsely accused.

My thoughts on your argument:

Chicos is still here

1.I made no such argument

2. Ironically, Chico was on your side here. Not because (like you) he knew and believed the alleged victim, but because he hated the MU coach.

[mu03eng]

Bottom line, there were a series of events that occurred, that when taken individually or within context are relatively isolated from each other. However if one is spending a lot of time reading poetry alone and can't be bothered to remember donor names they might lack the visibility to the context and assume some evil force were at work and work very hard to reign it in. Throw in an oddball that likes to run things his way and you have a recipe for a smoking hole that we found the basketball program in March 2014.

List of incidents:
-Assault (alleged I guess based on this thread)
-Response to the assault
-Off campus player incidents
-Player getting in a scuffle with a non-athletic student
-flexing academic standards for prized recruits
-Several recruits with legal issues that became very visible after we'd been seen to actively be recruiting them
-Recruiting violations by assistants

There are more I either can't remember or can't share....I'm not saying all of that creates a pattern, but a certain clueless president did and unleashed his sweaty ball cap wearing pit bull on the program.

[Lennys Tap]

Since you won't answer, I'll just assume that there was no point in introducing the Duke lacrosse case to this discussion.

It's already been answered, but here goes (again).

1.Bags asserted posting a claim of sexual assault on Facebook is evidence that the claim is true.

2. TAMU stated that the justice department claims that 95% of all sexual assault claims are true.

I understand in #1 that Bags knows the young woman and he believes her. Regardless, it seems to me that both favor the guilty until proven innocent approach, an approach also taken in the Duke case. I think that approach is dangerous.

[milwaukee ex-pat]

When this was last being argued about on this forum I posted this extremely well researched article by Emily Yoffe The College Rape Overcorrection on Slate that states:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

I’ve read through the court filings and investigative reports of a number of these cases, and it’s clear to me that many of the accused are indeed being treated unfairly. Government officials and campus administrators are attempting to legislate the bedroom behavior of students with rules and requirements that would be comic if their effects weren’t frequently so tragic. The legal filings in the cases brought by young men accused of sexual violence often begin like a script for a college sex farce but end with the protagonist finding himself in a Soviet-style show trial. Or, as in the case of Drew Sterrett, punished with no trial at all.

And re: the statistics that have been thrown about here:
But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.

By all means read the whole thing - it has the usual caveats that one rape is of course too many and that rape is a serious issue on campuses but that the statistics to back up terrible policies which do NOT have reasonable due process protections for the accused are severely flawed.

IIRC TAMU specifically stated he thought due process for the accused was less important than supporting the accuser.  The idea that innocent til proven guilty is a negotiable stance is horrific to me and should be to anyone who has a decent working knowledge of history but that is just my opinion feel free to disagree.

[Lennys Tap]

When this was last being argued about on this forum I posted this extremely well researched article by Emily Yoffe The College Rape Overcorrection on Slate that states:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

I’ve read through the court filings and investigative reports of a number of these cases, and it’s clear to me that many of the accused are indeed being treated unfairly. Government officials and campus administrators are attempting to legislate the bedroom behavior of students with rules and requirements that would be comic if their effects weren’t frequently so tragic. The legal filings in the cases brought by young men accused of sexual violence often begin like a script for a college sex farce but end with the protagonist finding himself in a Soviet-style show trial. Or, as in the case of Drew Sterrett, punished with no trial at all.

And re: the statistics that have been thrown about here:
But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemic—and the studies suggesting this epidemic don’t hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.

By all means read the whole thing - it has the usual caveats that one rape is of course too many and that rape is a serious issue on campuses but that the statistics to back up terrible policies which do NOT have reasonable due process protections for the accused are severely flawed.

IIRC TAMU specifically stated he thought due process for the accused was less important than supporting the accuser.  The idea that innocent til proven guilty is a negotiable stance is horrific to me and should be to anyone who has a decent working knowledge of history but that is just my opinion feel free to disagree.

Bravo.

Outstanding article. An eye opener that everyone should read. Thanks for sharing.

[mu_hilltopper]

List of incidents:
-Assault (alleged I guess based on this thread)
-Response to the assault
-Off campus player incidents
-Player getting in a scuffle with a non-athletic student
-flexing academic standards for prized recruits
-Several recruits with legal issues that became very visible after we'd been seen to actively be recruiting them
-Recruiting violations by assistants

We need wiki pages on all these incidents so we can keep the record straight!