Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Steamboat_Shaun

Bobby Okereke allegations at Stanford

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Dingus McGirt said:

Please let the off-season come to a close...and quickly.

 

 

We're about to enter the worst part of the offseason.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

I’m not a lawyer,  but I do not believe this is true. 

Arrests do stay with you, usually 3-5 years depending on the nature. the more serious ones stay longer.  Now, even if they fall off your public record, law enforcement will be able to see them UNLESS they are ordered to be expunged from your record.  The arrests wont count for anything though as they will show no charges filed, or charges dropped or acquitted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

The second allegation is very different from the first, by the way. It's a completely different kind of scenario, interaction, intention, etc. Everything is different, it doesn't fit a pattern, etc. 

 

I'm not sure whether that means anything, and if so, what? Just something that stands out to me.

I agree it is different, but still makes it more worrisome.  

Here's an analogy, although I admit it is not apples to apples:

Someone tells me they thought they saw my daughter at McDonalds last night at 11pm.   I would think, no she was in bed.   I'd talk to her and if she denied it, I would chalk it up to nothing.  If another person told me they seen her at Walmart at 11:30, I would talk to her again with a bit more pressure.   You have to bundle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I agree it is different, but still makes it more worrisome.  

Here's an analogy, although I admit it is not apples to apples:

Someone tells me they thought they saw my daughter at McDonalds last night at 11pm.   I would think, no she was in bed.   I'd talk to her and if she denied it, I would chalk it up to nothing.  If another person told me they seen her at Walmart at 11:30, I would talk to her again with a bit more pressure.   You have to bundle.

 

I understand. 

 

Just want to reiterate that we don't know what we don't know here. We don't know if the Colts were aware of this second allegation. We don't know if Okereke told them about it, if this allegation has already been considered, etc. You're assuming the Colts are as surprised about it as we are, and while that very well might be the case, it also might not be. We'll find out soon.

 

And to make your analogy more applicable, it's like someone saying they saw your daughter at McDonald's at 11pm, she says no, but she was there at 10pm, then got home a few minutes after curfew, but before 11. Then someone else says they saw your daughter drinking at a night club at 2am. For the first, your reaction is probably 'you need to make more responsible decisions and get home on time.' For the second, you'll have a much different reaction to the accusation, and a different conversation with your daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rackeen305 said:

Wow, these allegations are getting more attention than Chad Kelley. shame.

near as I can determine it's getting attention here and in Palo Alto.  The first story is anyway

https://padailypost.com/2019/06/09/stanford-linebacker-was-accused-of-rape-before-going-on-to-nfl/

 

Also, the Fountain Hopper is an underground student newspaper.  I guess that means they don't publish their own names?

 

Not putting your name on a story makes it suspicious to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

I understand. 

 

Just want to reiterate that we don't know what we don't know here. We don't know if the Colts were aware of this second allegation. We don't know if Okereke told them about it, if this allegation has already been considered, etc. You're assuming the Colts are as surprised about it as we are, and while that very well might be the case, it also might not be. We'll find out soon.

 

 

My guess is that Ballard did not know of the second allegation.   I'm not sure he would have drafted him with 2 allegations in recent years in the climate of today.   But maybe they did a bit of investigating and he interviewed well.   We can only guess at this time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You folks still talking about this?

 

Let me know if Bobby gets arrested.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, csmopar said:

Arrests do stay with you, usually 3-5 years depending on the nature. the more serious ones stay longer.  Now, even if they fall off your public record, law enforcement will be able to see them UNLESS they are ordered to be expunged from your record.  The arrests wont count for anything though as they will show no charges filed, or charges dropped or acquitted.

Typically ONLY if you're finger printed. If you are accused, brought in for questioning and subsequently released then there should be nothing to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Myles said:

My guess is that Ballard did not know of the second allegation.   I'm not sure he would have drafted him with 2 allegations in recent years in the climate of today.   But maybe they did a bit of investigating and he interviewed well.   We can only guess at this time.  

Highly doubtful. They dig on everyone and I'm sure our front office knows. 

 

Allegations are easy to throw out there...

 

The burdon of proof usually falls on the accused (ironically enough), however, where is the rape kit? Where are the signs of struggle? 

 

Can't just wake up one day regretting your poor decision making and scream rape....

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

 

Can't just wake up one day regretting your poor decision making and scream rape....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Highly doubtful. They dig on everyone and I'm sure our front office knows. 

 

Allegations are easy to throw out there...

 

The burdon of proof usually falls on the accused (ironically enough), however, where is the rape kit? Where are the signs of struggle? 

 

Can't just wake up one day regretting your poor decision making and scream rape....

 

How would they have known this? Do we think Okereke told them that he was accused of sexual assault not once but twice? That seems hard to believe...and I doubt that those character references they talked to would even know, let alone, tell them about it. They said that Okereke was forthcoming about the first incident...but they won't even comment on the second one. 

 

They also said they didn't talk to the first woman...so it's unlikely that they would have talked to any of the people involved in this situation.

 

According to the story, the woman told her friend immediately after the fact and then she witnessed the woman have a conversation with Okereke (probably about the incident). So it sounds like he was aware of what she thought happened. But those texts are deleted...so it's back to he said/she said.

 

Ultimately, we don't know anything. But two claims is definitely not a common situation. IF they corraborate that there was a second allegation (and Okereke hadn't told them)...even though it never went anywhere at the time...I couild see that being an issue for Ballard. But I don't know how he would though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

How would they have known this? Do we think Okereke told them that he was accused of sexual assault not once but twice? That seems hard to believe...and I doubt that those character references they talked to would even know, let alone, tell them about it. They said that Okereke was forthcoming about the first incident...but they won't even comment on the second one. 

 

They also said they didn't talk to the first woman...so it's unlikely that they would have talked to any of the people involved in this situation.

 

According to the story, the woman told her friend immediately after the fact and then she witnessed the woman have a conversation with Okereke (probably about the incident). So it sounds like he was aware of what she thought happened. But those texts are deleted...so it's back to he said/she said.

 

Ultimately, we don't know anything. But two claims is definitely not a common situation. IF they corraborate that there was a second allegation (and Okereke hadn't told them)...even though it never went anywhere at the time...I couild see that being an issue for Ballard. But I don't know how he would though. 

I agree with you, although we are all just speculating at this point.  But hey, this is a forum, most of what is said is opinion.  :thmup:

 

They are just accusations, but 2 makes it concerning a bit more than 1.   I still don't care that much because there is not much meat behind these.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Can't just wake up one day regretting your poor decision making and scream rape....

 

giphy.gif

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shastamasta said:

 

How would they have known this? Do we think Okereke told them that he was accused of sexual assault not once but twice? That seems hard to believe...and I doubt that those character references they talked to would even know, let alone, tell them about it. They said that Okereke was forthcoming about the first incident...but they won't even comment on the second one. 

 

They also said they didn't talk to the first woman...so it's unlikely that they would have talked to any of the people involved in this situation.

 

According to the story, the woman told her friend immediately after the fact and then she witnessed the woman have a conversation with Okereke (probably about the incident). So it sounds like he was aware of what she thought happened. But those texts are deleted...so it's back to he said/she said.

 

Ultimately, we don't know anything. But two claims is definitely not a common situation. IF they corraborate that there was a second allegation (and Okereke hadn't told them)...even though it never went anywhere at the time...I couild see that being an issue for Ballard. But I don't know how he would though. 

That's my point.....instead of going to the police and having a rape kit done and show them the signs of struggle, she went to her friend and the school board.

 

This has nothing to do with Ballard as I'm sure his team dug up all pertinent info.

 

This has everything to do with the accuser(s) not doing anything even remotely correctly even though they weren't shy about throwing an allegation out.

 

If you were raped and are willing to identify and accuse - where is your proof. Therein lies the problem and therein is where this story (and thread) should cease and desist.....

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

That's my point.....instead of going to the police and having a rape kit done and show them the signs of struggle, she went to her friend and the school board.

 

This has nothing to do with Ballard as I'm sure his team dug up all pertinent info.

 

This has everything to do with the accuser(s) not doing anything even remotely correctly even though they weren't shy about throwing an allegation out.

 

If you were raped and are willing to identify and accuse - where is your proof. Therein lies the problem and therein is where this story (and thread) should cease and desist.....

 

I mean...I don't recall any Colts player being accused of sexual assault by two different women. Seems pretty newsworthy...and relevant to his scouting.

 

Yes, the accusers didn't go through the proper channels...but we have beaten that horse to death (because most women don't go to the police).

 

The options are a) both women believed this happened but it really didn't...b) both women (and everyone on their end) are lying...c) Okereke is guilty of at least one of the claims...d) or this publication (and its writer/s) has an axe to grind with Okereke and/or Stanford.

 

I am not going to assume guilt because we don't know what happened...but as a pragmatic person...I can't ignore that there are less variables (and less things that have to be true) in scenario "c" than any other scenario. The second allegation makes everything a bit fuzzy.

 

But I agree...not really much else to discuss for now...unless more information comes out or the Colts take any type of action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

That's my point.....instead of going to the police and having a rape kit done and show them the signs of struggle, she went to her friend and the school board.

 

This has nothing to do with Ballard as I'm sure his team dug up all pertinent info.

 

This has everything to do with the accuser(s) not doing anything even remotely correctly even though they weren't shy about throwing an allegation out.

 

If you were raped and are willing to identify and accuse - where is your proof. Therein lies the problem and therein is where this story (and thread) should cease and desist.....

Ok I'll step in again.  Sexual assault is also a crime, and I don't think a rape kit does much good proving that accusation.

 

On a broad level, the philosophy/ideology behind civil rights cases influences situations of sexual misconduct.  One party is assumed to be the oppressor, and the other party the oppressed.  Its about who is assumed to have power in a situation, and who is assumed to have little power, and from that skewed look comes the degree to which the allegations are considered credible. 

 

It's possible oppression can happen when a female teacher rapes or assaults a minor male student even though there is a sense of consensual-ness to the relationship.  But usually, the man is considered to have the power, simply because he's a man, especially if it is a man with a certain status.   And because he is a man with a certain status, implied to be in a position to oppress, allegations against him are legally considered to have higher credibility than what may be logical in other situations.  Even if a beautiful, experienced seductress takes advantage of a nerdy 40 year old virgin who happens to be a CEO, the CEO will still be considered to hold the power and would have to prove otherwise.

 

The question is how much of a PR problem is this to an employer.  Most people in the country are fair, and don't apply that skewed angle of logic in favor of one side at the beginning, like the court system does. 

 

Personally, I think the PR problems the Colts would have are dramatically overblown, and simply are hyped by a small but vocal presence in certain groups, and the media, who consistently have social change on the mind outweighing individual fairness.

 

If I were Ballard or Irsay, I would ignore any calls for any action since they are probably really originating from very few sources but trying to appear more universal.  I don't think season tickets nor fan interest would be impacted.  In fact, since most people are fair, I would think many of the fans would sour on the Colts a bit if it looked like they were using Bobby to make a social statement and hide behind the excuse its about PR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

I mean...I don't recall any Colts player being accused of sexual assault by two different women. Seems pretty newsworthy...and relevant to his scouting.

 

Yes, the accusers didn't go through the proper channels...but we have beaten that horse to death (because most women don't go to the police).

 

The options are a) both women believed this happened but it really didn't...b) both women (and everyone on their end) are lying...c) Okereke is guilty of at least one of the claims...d) or this publication (and its writer/s) has an axe to grind with Okereke and/or Stanford.

 

I am not going to assume guilt because we don't know what happened...but as a pragmatic person...I can't ignore that there are less variables (and less things that have to be true) in scenario "c" than any other scenario. The second allegation makes everything a bit fuzzy.

 

But I agree...not really much else to discuss for now...unless more information comes out or the Colts take any type of action.

Agreed.

 

Not the least bit upset with you or any other forum member but that is all we are doing is beating the dead corpse of a horse....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Pennock said:

That's my point.....instead of going to the police and having a rape kit done and show them the signs of struggle, she went to her friend and the school board.

 

 

There would be no signs of struggle if either of these two allegations were true. A rape kit would be useless.

 

And I don't know that the second accuser went to the school board at all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Ok I'll step in again.  Sexual assault is also a crime, and I don't think a rape kit does much good proving that accusation.

 

On a broad level, the philosophy/ideology behind civil rights cases influences situations of sexual misconduct.  One party is assumed to be the oppressor, and the other party the oppressed.  Its about who is assumed to have power in a situation, and who is assumed to have little power, and from that skewed look comes the degree to which the allegations are considered credible. 

 

It's possible oppression can happen when a female teacher rapes or assaults a minor male student even though there is a sense of consensual-ness to the relationship.  But usually, the man is considered to have the power, simply because he's a man, especially if it is a man with a certain status.   And because he is a man with a certain status, implied to be in a position to oppress, allegations against him are legally considered to have higher credibility than what may be logical in other situations.  Even if a beautiful, experienced seductress takes advantage of a nerdy 40 year old virgin who happens to be a CEO, the CEO will still be considered to hold the power and would have to prove otherwise.

 

The question is how much of a PR problem is this to an employer.  Most people in the country are fair, and don't apply that skewed angle of logic in favor of one side at the beginning, like the court system does. 

 

Personally, I think the PR problems the Colts would have are dramatically overblown, and simply are hyped by a small but vocal presence in certain groups, and the media, who consistently have social change on the mind outweighing individual fairness.

 

If I were Ballard or Irsay, I would ignore any calls for any action since they are probably really originating from very few sources but trying to appear more universal.  I don't think season tickets nor fan interest would be impacted.  In fact, since most people are fair, I would think many of the fans would sour on the Colts a bit if it looked like they were using Bobby to make a social statement and hide behind the excuse its about PR.

I know this all too well....as a Senior NCO in the Army I avoided social settings with my female troops AND recorded all counseling sessions to circumvent any allegations of wrong doing.

 

All it takes these days is an allegation and the correct backing and people will beleive anything!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

I know this all too well....as a Senior NCO in the Army I avoided social settings with my female troops AND recorded all counseling sessions to circumvent any allegations of wrong doing.

 

All it takes these days is an allegation and the correct backing and people will beleive anything!

I'm not suggesting that any accuser has some sort of agenda.  Its simply a matter of legal process that people who are assumed to have an inferior position get their claims put higher on the credibility scale.  Its the seriousness of the charge, in that it has more to do with punishing the position of influence someone has as much as the harm actually dispensed.   The Harvey Weinstein situation is great example of a terrible abuse of power and oppression even though some of the escapades may have had a consensual aspect to them.  Whether or not Bobby really holds much power over a woman simply by being a star football player is debatable, IMO, and I would think they would both be thought of as equals unless its determined Bobby used physical superiority to overwhelm her.  

 

Stereotyping him as having influence over women simply because of who he is, a successful college football player at Stanford with future income potential, isn't appropriate IMO.  That stereotype actually is harmful to women, in that it says he is the dominant person in any relationship because women inherently are impressionable girls forever searching for their prince charming, for which I don't agree.

 

Again, substantial use of physical superiority is a different issue.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Myles said:

My guess is that Ballard did not know of the second allegation.   I'm not sure he would have drafted him with 2 allegations in recent years in the climate of today.   But maybe they did a bit of investigating and he interviewed well.   We can only guess at this time.  

 

That's a reasonable guess. Still a guess, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 10:41 AM, Superman said:

Specific to Ballard, I definitely don't think he or the team were just so enamored with this player that they rationalized their way through the process. I'm giving them more credit than that, and assuming that when they say they did their due diligence, it means they performed an honest assessment based on the information available to them.

 

According to a Kravitz article in the Athletic and in FOHO, the Colts never reached out to the alleged victim for her side. 

 

https://theathletic.com/1014162/2019/06/06/kravitz-before-drafting-bobby-okereke-colts-never-reached-out-to-alleged-victim/

 

In addition, the folks at Fountain Hopper (FOHO - Maybe New Colts Fan can explain them better for us) has reported there was even another {unreported} sexual assault two years later in 2017.

 

EDIT:  I see you found that as well-

 

https://mailchi.mp/fountainhopper/foho-81-football-captain-nfl-draftee-bobby-okereke-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-another-student-by-groping-digitally-penetrating-her?e=[UNIQID]

 

So the question is, to what standard/level was due diligence executed?

 

I just wonder if these allegations have enough shred of evidence to tip the scales their way as they may be waiting until some time after Okereke makes the team, and then possibly file Civil Suit(s) where the burden of proof is lessened to the famous 'more likely than not' standard?

 

Nevertheless, the whole thing is saddening/disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

According to a Kravitz article in the Athletic and in FOHO, the Colts never reached out to the alleged victim for her side. 

 

That doesn't bother me, personally. I think there's little to be gained by the Colts or any team discussing this incident with the accuser, when the incident was already adjudicated by the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That doesn't bother me, personally. I think there's little to be gained by the Colts or any team discussing this incident with the accuser, when the incident was already adjudicated by the school.

Yeah... that doesn't bother me much either. Imagine 30+ teams calling the alleged victim in the span of a couple of months to check on something that's been adjudicated already. At the very least it seems extremely insensitive to the victim if you believe there has been foul play. He was given 2 3-2 deicisions against by the university panels. This feels like they must have had good enough documentation of the victim's position and story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

That doesn't bother me, personally. I think there's little to be gained by the Colts or any team discussing this incident with the accuser, when the incident was already adjudicated by the school.

 

I believe Kravitz is saying they can't claim having performed due diligence if they only looked at one side.  No real complaints about anything else. (I really don't either, except maybe agreeing with Kravitz on the due diligence claim). They see He Said/She said and only obtains his side of the story and determines the investment is worth it.

 

In some way, he might have a point. "... the careful, thorough evaluation of a potential investment, whether on a corporate or individual level". 

 

True, the school adjudicated it (and then changed their decision rendering process immediately after because of that case from a 5 panel needing >=4 vote to a 3 panel with just a majority, >=2).  Is that the end?

 

But they have no first hand information from the alleged victim/accuser and insight into her possible future intentions. So was it a careful, thorough evaluation?

 

Not sure what transpires later, either. I wonder what happens if the accuser later decides to file a Civil Suit(s) down the road?  What if that 3-2 type leaning (Title IX board at Stanford) is in also leveraged in a Civil case and found in victims favor?  Now does the League step in and suspend him per PCP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, stitches said:

He was given 2 3-2 deicisions against by the university panels.

 

Not sure which way you're presenting this.

 

Okereke was on the wrong/low side of those 3 - 2 decisions.  Which means they actually leaned slightly in favor of the accusers story. Stanford's Title IX board rules at the time was a 5 member panel and it had to be at least a 4 -1 or 5 - 0 majority to rule in favor of the accuser.  3 out of 5 wasn't enough. Which was how it came out, twice. However, after this case, from my understanding, Stanford has since changed their Title IX  board to a 3 member panel with a majority rules ( 2-1, or 3 -0 ) decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Not sure which way you're presenting this.

 

Okereke was on the wrong/low side of those 3 - 2 decisions.  Which means they actually leaned slightly in favor of the accusers story. Stanford's Title IX board rules at the time was a 5 member panel and it had to be at least a 4 -1 or 5 - 0 majority to rule in favor of the accuser.  3 out of 5 wasn't enough. Which was how it came out, twice. However, after this case, from my understanding, Stanford has since changed their Title IX  board to a 3 member panel with a majority rules ( 2-1, or 3 -0 ) decision.

Yeah. I that's how I meant it - they had good enough information from the accuser to give two 3-2 negative decisions for Okereke. I assumed the victim had to have given good enough testimony for that to happen(even if it wasn't enough for them to take action), so I assumed you probably won't get much better recollection now 3-4 years after the fact than what is already on the record and what they've already seen as testimony by the victim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I believe Kravitz is saying they can't claim having performed due diligence if they only looked at one side.  No real complaints about anything else. (I really don't either, except maybe agreeing with Kravitz on the due diligence claim). They see He Said/She said and only obtains his side of the story and determines the investment is worth it.

 

In some way, he might have a point. "... the careful, thorough evaluation of a potential investment, whether on a corporate or individual level". 

 

True, the school adjudicated it (and then changed their decision rendering process immediately after because of that case from a 5 panel needing >=4 vote to a 3 panel with just a majority, >=2).  Is that the end?

 

But they have no first hand information from the alleged victim/accuser and insight into her possible future intentions. So was it a careful, thorough evaluation?

 

Not sure what transpires later, either. I wonder what happens if the accuser later decides to file a Civil Suit(s) down the road?  What if that 3-2 type leaning (Title IX board at Stanford) is in also leveraged in a Civil case and found in victims favor?  Now does the League step in and suspend him per PCP?

 

I disagree with Kravitz. The school handled the 'he said/she said' issue when they investigated the incident. The team doesn't have to hear her accounting of the incident directly from her for them to have a handle on what her side of the matter was. 

 

The primary reason the end of the matter is the school's review is because the accuser didn't take any legal action. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the school's process led to a result that didn't include any action against Okereke. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the accuser didn't take it any further. What else was supposed to happen? Just keep having hearings until they change their minds?

 

(I think the criticism of the panel vote procedure is unfair and lacking perspective. I used the grand jury example earlier in this thread. And Stanford now uses a three person panel, requiring a unanimous decision, not a majority.)

 

I find it unreasonable to expect the team to go looking for a person who made an accusation several years ago, had the accusation reviewed and decided on by the school, didn't receive a favorable outcome (from her perspective), and didn't pursue the issue further. At a certain point, you close the file and move on, unless new information comes out. They got a full accounting of the situation through their investigation.

 

To me, reaching out to the accuser would have been essentially asking for the accuser's permission to draft this player. She didn't feel the Stanford process was fair to her, and evidently felt they were protecting a member of their football team. Now, another football team is asking her for her thoughts on an issue from four years ago? For what, so she can tell them that it was all just a misunderstanding? So her words can be scrutinized and speculated on by another group of people who want this guy to play football for them? I just don't see the benefit.

 

Add in the fact that she claims she dealt with PTSD and left the school because of it, and it even seems insensitive to ask her to comment on the situation when she's trying to move on.

 

To me, the only thing that would be done by reaching out to the accuser would be to satisfy media critics, like Kravitz. I don't see any real benefit to it, for the sake of the team's decision making or holding players accountable for being good citizens. The team needs to be confident that the information they gathered was thorough and reliable. Doesn't matter what Kravitz thinks. JMO.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I believe Kravitz is saying they can't claim having performed due diligence if they only looked at one side.  No real complaints about anything else. (I really don't either, except maybe agreeing with Kravitz on the due diligence claim). They see He Said/She said and only obtains his side of the story and determines the investment is worth it.

 

In some way, he might have a point. "... the careful, thorough evaluation of a potential investment, whether on a corporate or individual level". 

 

True, the school adjudicated it (and then changed their decision rendering process immediately after because of that case from a 5 panel needing >=4 vote to a 3 panel with just a majority, >=2).  Is that the end?

 

But they have no first hand information from the alleged victim/accuser and insight into her possible future intentions. So was it a careful, thorough evaluation?

 

Not sure what transpires later, either. I wonder what happens if the accuser later decides to file a Civil Suit(s) down the road?  What if that 3-2 type leaning (Title IX board at Stanford) is in also leveraged in a Civil case and found in victims favor?  Now does the League step in and suspend him per PCP?

 

Good post. This is where I am at. They claimed having done their due diligence...their "A to Z" on Okereke. I don't think you get to make that claim that if you didn't at least speak with her. But due diligence is probably subjective, based on what one deems as "reasonable."

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Superman said:

I find it unreasonable to expect the team to go looking for a person who made an accusation several years ago, had the accusation reviewed and decided on by the school, didn't receive a favorable outcome (from her perspective),

 

I think Kravitz is saying then don't make the statement you did 'extensive research' (whether a sexual assault really happened) if you only rely only on the outcome of the Title IX hearings and Oreke's and close friends, football coaches etc.  statements, foregoing getting her or her attorneys  statements.  He called it selective bias, I believe. Which then begs, what was the extensive research for... if it was justifiable to draft him, or what the truth was?

 

Quote

and didn't pursue the issue further.

 

Well, according to her, she just wanted the school to step in a little and make her feel safer on the campus, not necessarily arrest or expel the guy. Maybe a no contact restriction she asked for? She did get a guilty verdict against him (unenforceable), but nothing else of substance to go with it and had to leave a prestigious school she had earned a right to attend.

 

Quote

At a certain point, you close the file and move on, unless new information comes out. They got a full accounting of the situation through their investigation.

 

Maybe if Ballard just kept it to something similar to this -

 

“During the draft process when he met with us, he informed us about the event 4 years ago in 2015. I don’t want to sit here and act like we don’t have sympathy for both sides. This happened four years ago and we evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Because there were no (police) charges and no disciplinary action taken by the university, and because of his track record since, we felt comfortable drafting him.” Nothing more.

 

Leaving out the 'extensive research' (which to me is incorrect if you only selectively investigate one side of the story) and other similar statements he might have made along those lines, which Kravitz felt was selective bias (by not taking the accusers or her attorneys direct statements into account as well). Maybe then Kravitz would not be so fired up. What is so disturbing was Okereke was found guilty by a majority, 3-2, at a beyond reasonable doubt level (which was the level in force there at that time)!

 

"Okereke was found guilty of sexual assault for a February 2015 incident by a majority of Title IX panelists at the school; the New York Times reported in 2016 that the board voted 3-2 on two occasions in favor of the complainant, but because Stanford required at least a 4-1 decision, Okereke was exonerated and allowed to continue as a member of the Cardinal football team."

 

This 2016 New York Times article shows there was a plethora of procedural violations and possible bias. (Okereke has admitted to the Colts he was the unnamed accused, he did come clean)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html

 

A second hearing granted produced the same 3 - 2 guilty verdict, but the bar being above the government recommended preponderance of the evidence level (at that time) and needing = or > 4 votes triggered the exoneration ruling.  Then they changed their procedures.

 

I think since then Stanford has a Preponderance of the Evidence level of proof now, but also requires a either a 3-0 unanimous or 2 - 1 decision (I have read both) at that lowered level of evidence.

 

I don't know what to say, but this women apparently wasn't trying to get $$, and felt compelled to leave a prestigious University (and her Stanford degree) over the incident. Why even report it to school officials back then only to suffer the process/decision/outcome, unless she felt wronged/violated?  In her words-

 

“Sometimes I regret not having gone to the police instead,” she said. “But I wanted to avoid that process. What I didn’t know was how powerful Stanford football is on campus. It’s like fighting a machine.”

 

Colts should have just stuck with its was 4 years ago, no disciplinary action was taken, and as far as we know ( because there are now weak rumors of yet another incident...) he has been clean since so we felt comfortable taking him. From here out, it is on Ballard though, and he knows it.

 

“We talked it through, and look, at the end of the day, it falls on me,” Ballard said. “I’ve been fortunate here that (coach) Frank (Reich) and (team owner) Mr. Irsay have great trust in our process and what we do. Ultimately, this falls on me, whether we’re right or wrong at the end of the day.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

I think Kravitz is saying then don't make the statement you did 'extensive research' (whether a sexual assault really happened) if you only rely only on the outcome of the Title IX hearings and Oreke's and close friends, football coaches etc.  statements, foregoing getting her or her attorneys  statements.  He called it selective bias, I believe. Which then begs, what was the extensive research for... if it was justifiable to draft him, or what the truth was?

 

 

Well, according to her, she just wanted the school to step in a little and make her feel safer on the campus, not necessarily arrest or expel the guy. Maybe a no contact restriction she asked for? She did get a guilty verdict against him (unenforceable), but nothing else of substance to go with it and had to leave a prestigious school she had earned a right to attend.

 

 

Maybe if Ballard just kept it to something similar to this -

 

“During the draft process when he met with us, he informed us about the event 4 years ago in 2015. I don’t want to sit here and act like we don’t have sympathy for both sides. This happened four years ago and we evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. Because there were no (police) charges and no disciplinary action taken by the university, and because of his track record since, we felt comfortable drafting him.” Nothing more.

 

Leaving out the 'extensive research' (which to me is incorrect if you only selectively investigate one side of the story) and other similar statements he might have made along those lines, which Kravitz felt was selective bias (by not taking the accusers or her attorneys direct statements into account as well). Maybe then Kravitz would not be so fired up. What is so disturbing was Okereke was found guilty by a majority, 3-2, at a beyond reasonable doubt level (which was the level in force there at that time)!

 

"Okereke was found guilty of sexual assault for a February 2015 incident by a majority of Title IX panelists at the school; the New York Times reported in 2016 that the board voted 3-2 on two occasions in favor of the complainant, but because Stanford required at least a 4-1 decision, Okereke was exonerated and allowed to continue as a member of the Cardinal football team."

 

This 2016 New York Times article shows there was a plethora of procedural violations and possible bias. (Okereke has admitted to the Colts he was the unnamed accused, he did come clean)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html

 

A second hearing granted produced the same 3 - 2 guilty verdict, but the bar being above the government recommended preponderance of the evidence level (at that time) and needing = or > 4 votes triggered the exoneration ruling.  Then they changed their procedures.

 

I think since then Stanford has a Preponderance of the Evidence level of proof now, but also requires a either a 3-0 unanimous or 2 - 1 decision (I have read both) at that lowered level of evidence.

 

I don't know what to say, but this women apparently wasn't trying to get $$, and felt compelled to leave a prestigious University (and her Stanford degree) over the incident. Why even report it to school officials back then only to suffer the process/decision/outcome, unless she felt wronged/violated?  In her words-

 

“Sometimes I regret not having gone to the police instead,” she said. “But I wanted to avoid that process. What I didn’t know was how powerful Stanford football is on campus. It’s like fighting a machine.”

 

Colts should have just stuck with its was 4 years ago, no disciplinary action was taken, and as far as we know ( because there are now weak rumors of yet another incident...) he has been clean since so we felt comfortable taking him. From here out, it is on Ballard though, and he knows it.

 

“We talked it through, and look, at the end of the day, it falls on me,” Ballard said. “I’ve been fortunate here that (coach) Frank (Reich) and (team owner) Mr. Irsay have great trust in our process and what we do. Ultimately, this falls on me, whether we’re right or wrong at the end of the day.

 

Kravitz angle strikes me as a petty nitpick of Ballard's use of a subjectively defined but commonly used phrase. "Extensive research" does not have to mean talking to all parties involved in a matter. You might think it should clear that bar, but you can't state that as if it's unassailable fact. Neither can Kravitz. 

 

I also take exception to the statement that Okereke was found guilty, or that a guilty verdict was returned. Neither of those statements is true. 

 

In a civil case, many states require a unanimous jury to return a guilty verdict. In some states, a civil case can be decided by a 3/4ths or 2/3rds majority. The 3/5ths majority for the Stanford panel falls short of both benchmarks. (I've read that other schools call for a 2/3rds majority, which again, this was not.) In a criminal case, I do not believe any state allows a jury to return a guilty verdict without it being unanimous. 

 

This was not a trial, civil, criminal, or otherwise. Okereke was not charged with a crime. This university process returned a split decision, and by the rules of that process, it was determined that no action would be taken against Okereke. That process does not empower a simple majority, it requires a super majority, which appears to be typical, and is consistent with civil and criminal law around the country. 

 

So, he was NOT "found guilty" of anything, by any standard, and anyone reporting that he was is either ignorant of the facts or pushing an agenda. Not you, but definitely FoHo.

 

It's unclear, but reading the NYT article I got the impression that Stanford adopted the preponderance of evidence standard after a recommendation from 2011; if so, that lower standard would have been in place during the Okereke proceedings. 

 

I also take issue with the claim that the accuser was made to leave Stanford. She earned a right to be there, but she chose to leave. The school didn't make her leave. Okereke had earned the right to be there also. Imposing any kind of restriction on him would not have been right, after your process determined that he would not be found guilty. 

 

I don't intend for any of this to come across like I have no sympathy for the woman who brought the accusation, or for other women in similar circumstances. And I'm not saying Stanford or the Colts did everything right. I just don't think blame needs to be assigned to the institutions when they adjudicated the matter years ago in manner consistent with the law, and when the Colts researched the matter to their own satisfaction. There might always be a 'yeah but, they could have done more.' And ultimately, any team a football team allows someone accused of an assault to stay in the program, there will be people who are convinced that it's only because the player can help the team win. In reality, it may be that the team believes the player didn't do anything wrong, whether the media and fans agree or not. One thing I don't think is that media and fan outrage should be the basis for critical decision making in situations like this. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanford football is viewed as powerful on campus?    Really?   Holy Cow!   That’s breaking news!   I’ve never heard ANY Stanford person refer to Stanford football or any sport in that light.   If anything, most in the Stanford sports community feel like the athletic department is treated like the red headed step child on campus. 

 

I’ll share with my Stanford friends and see how they react to this..... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

Kravitz angle strikes me as a petty nitpick of Ballard's use of a subjectively defined but commonly used phrase. "Extensive research" does not have to mean talking to all parties involved in a matter. You might think it should clear that bar, but you can't state that as if it's unassailable fact. Neither can Kravitz. 

 

If that is the extensive research standard, just verify the one side of the story again and check the decision (which IMO is too low), then, like I said before, I have no quarrel then.  Kravitz probably will. All of the other things are from Kravitz and case related articles. 

 

My personal feeling is the first was a mistrial, the second trial a hung jury.  Both majority guilty votes but below conviction level. At that point the University should have at least offered an escort for her (for going to class, parties and other functions) to minimize crossing paths/contact on campus, at her discretion. Water under the bridge...  unless TMZ uncovers some amazing footage...  O_o

 

BTW, I am sill unclear of two things-

 

Burden of proof at Stanford, back then and now.  Was it a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, requiring a 50.1 percent chance that the charges are accurate, or a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, a higher burden of proof?

 

Also whether it is unanimous 3-0, or majority 2-1 minimum now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

just verify the one side of the story again and check the decision (which IMO is too low)

 

What we know is they didn't reach out to the accuser. That doesn't mean they only verified one side of the story. Let's say there are transcripts of the panel proceedings, wouldn't those provide insight into both sides of the story? The accuser had the assistance of a lawyer for at least a portion of the proceedings, do we know that the Colts didn't confer with that lawyer?

 

Quote

My personal feeling is the first was a mistrial, the second trial a hung jury.  

 

Neither of those equate to "found guilty," is all I'm saying. That's over the line, IMO.

 

Quote

At that point the University should have at least offered an escort for her (for going to class, parties and other functions) to minimize crossing paths/contact on campus, at her discretion. 

 

I think that would be ideal in this circumstance, but it raises a lot of questions regarding how and when you determine that an accuser should have some sort of assigned escort (Every accuser? What if the only 1 of the 5 panelists voted guilty?), and how that would be administered. Without spending a lot of time thinking about it, my initial reaction is that it's impractical.

 

Quote

 

Burden of proof at Stanford, back then and now.  Was it a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, requiring a 50.1 percent chance that the charges are accurate, or a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, a higher burden of proof?

 

Also whether it is unanimous 3-0, or majority 2-1 minimum now?

 

 

The NYT article isn't clear about the burden of proof. It says Stanford adopted the preponderance of evidence standard after the 2011 recommendation, but it doesn't say exactly when, and I don't think it indicates whether that was the standard at the time of the Okereke proceedings.

 

The article is clear about the 3-0 vote. You might have seen conflicting info somewhere else, I haven't. NYT also states that other universities allow a 2-1 majority to establish guilt, so maybe that's where that came from? 

 

And I just want to go back to something I said a couple posts ago. In saying that the reason there was no additional action taken is because the accuser chose not to submit to a police investigation, I'm not saying that this means there was no violation. I don't feel that way at all. I'm only saying that the accuser made that decision, not Stanford, and not Okereke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Superman said:

 

 

Remember, I was just reporting on articles I chased down that began with a story in the Athletic where Kravitz had issues.  I said I only (even qualified it as maybe) agreed with his position of 'extensive research' in vetting and 'due diligence' before drafting the player.  From a Colts standpoint, there's nothing there to keep them from drafting him, and they did. And he has been clean since.  (I'm not giving credence to another FoHo article until something more substantial comes about).

But somehow I feel they truly don't want (nor need) to know the whole story (hers as well), likely just how he saw it and how it will direct him on forward.

 

Quote

What we know is they didn't reach out to the accuser. That doesn't mean they only verified one side of the story. Let's say there are transcripts of the panel proceedings, wouldn't those provide insight into both sides of the story?

 

To a degree.  I only read a few follow up articles to where Kravitz was coming from.  In a few I saw where victim was not allowed to cross examine, nor were questions submitted to ask the accused used/allowed, etc. And there were numerous procedural errors (leading to a successful getting a second trial).

 

"The accused and accuser appear separately before the panel. Each can submit follow-up questions, for the panel to ask the other, but it does not have to use them.
She found extra files added to the case. When she asked to postpone the hearing so she could ask for redactions of statements that she deemed prejudicial as well as suggest follow-up questions for an investigator to ask the witnesses, she said she was denied without an explanation.
After listening to his version, she said that she offered follow-up questions to the panel. She said that they did not ask them."

 

Not everything she had to say or wanted to bring out was included in the proceedings transcripts/records, it seems.

 

Quote

The accuser had the assistance of a lawyer for at least a portion of the proceedings, do we know that the Colts didn't confer with that lawyer?

 

 

This from the Kravitz article {excerpt}-

 

"They never talked to the alleged victim in the case.

They never talked to the lawyer for the alleged victim in the case.

Never tried. Not at all."

 

“No, we did not,’’ Ballard said when I asked the question. “Because there were no charges and discipline, we didn’t feel the need to.’’

 

For her lawyers presence at one of the proceedings-

"Her lawyer was there only for support and was prohibited, under the rules of the proceeding, from guiding her testimony."

{from NY Times article}

 

Quote

Neither of those equate to "found guilty," is all I'm saying. That's over the line, IMO.

 

Yes, agreed. Neither is exonerate - as to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame.

That is is also not in the equation. The order handed down was that the "football player would not be given a finding of responsibility."  There is no 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty' finding here either.

 

But check this New York Time headline about it-

 

"A Majority Agreed She Was Raped by a Stanford Football Player. That Wasn’t Enough."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html

 

I'm not stating my feelings, only showing what was (and still is still) out there.

 

Quote

 

I think that would be ideal in this circumstance, but it raises a lot of questions regarding how and when you determine that an accuser should have some sort of assigned escort (Every accuser? What if the only 1 of the 5 panelists voted guilty?), and how that would be administered. Without spending a lot of time thinking about it, my initial reaction is that it's impractical.

 

Maybe only if there is a majority for the victim, but still a mistrial? Case by case basis, like Ballard states? You have two people here, both who have rights. If some acceptable concession can't be made by a hung jury/mistrial, then continue to re-try with a new panel until a true ruling one way or the other is obtained. She was denied a third trial, with no explanation.

 

Something inside me doesn't like cases ending like this, nor any setting that would have the victim have to negotiate with the accused.  And this case (and those like it) is the only way I can truly think I understand a woman's reluctance to even report it in the first place.  That and an article at the bottom of this post.

 

Quote

 

The NYT article isn't clear about the burden of proof. It says Stanford adopted the preponderance of evidence standard after the 2011 recommendation, but it doesn't say exactly when, and I don't think it indicates whether that was the standard at the time of the Okereke proceedings.

 

I have since found out they rolled out a new policy in Feb 2016 that included 3-0 vote (as you have noted) and included 'preponderance of the evidence' language in it, but I ...  wait. OK, I found it. Stanford's response to NY Times article. It's all in here-

 

https://news.stanford.edu/2016/12/29/stanford-university-statement-new-york-times-story-dec-29-2016/

 

To which the NY Times doubles down against in response to Palo Alto online-

 

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/01/05/in-the-spotlight-again-stanford-rebuts-new-york-times-story-on-sexual-assault

 

Quote

The article is clear about the 3-0 vote. You might have seen conflicting info somewhere else, I haven't. NYT also states that other universities allow a 2-1 majority to establish guilt, so maybe that's where that came from

 

Seems to be the case.

 

Quote

And I just want to go back to something I said a couple posts ago. In saying that the reason there was no additional action taken is because the accuser chose not to submit to a police investigation, I'm not saying that this means there was no violation. I don't feel that way at all. I'm only saying that the accuser made that decision, not Stanford, and not Okereke.

 

She's on record regretting not doing so now, but she felt the school would/could handle it back then. But there are loads of studies and articles on why many do not go to the Police. Here's but only one, a short 1 page consolidated one-

 

https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

 

And from a lawyer concerning just the schools process - “The process is complex and takes a long time. It is very difficult to get a 3-0 decision from a panel, and these young women are terrified and traumatized and just want it to be done.”

 

This isn't about the player, nor want any Double Jeopardy; here or elsewhere.  He has a string of top notch credentials.  But after reading that Kravitz article, I still somewhat agree with Kravitz, only in regard to, hearing of performing extensive research and vetting due diligence (including character) and being sensitive to the victim when there was no reaching out to the lawyer and accuser during the process. Nothing more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

Remember, I was just reporting on articles I chased down that began with a story in the Athletic where Kravitz had issues.  I said I only (even qualified it as maybe) agreed with his position of 'extensive research' in vetting and 'due diligence' before drafting the player.  From a Colts standpoint, there's nothing there to keep them from drafting him, and they did. And he has been clean since.  (I'm not giving credence to another FoHo article until something more substantial comes about).

But somehow I feel they truly don't want (nor need) to know the whole story (hers as well), likely just how he saw it and how it will direct him on forward.

 

 

To a degree.  I only read a few follow up articles to where Kravitz was coming from.  In a few I saw where victim was not allowed to cross examine, nor were questions submitted to ask the accused used/allowed, etc. And there were numerous procedural errors (leading to a successful getting a second trial).

 

"The accused and accuser appear separately before the panel. Each can submit follow-up questions, for the panel to ask the other, but it does not have to use them.
She found extra files added to the case. When she asked to postpone the hearing so she could ask for redactions of statements that she deemed prejudicial as well as suggest follow-up questions for an investigator to ask the witnesses, she said she was denied without an explanation.
After listening to his version, she said that she offered follow-up questions to the panel. She said that they did not ask them."

 

Not everything she had to say or wanted to bring out was included in the proceedings transcripts/records, it seems.

 

 

This from the Kravitz article {excerpt}-

 

"They never talked to the alleged victim in the case.

They never talked to the lawyer for the alleged victim in the case.

Never tried. Not at all.

 

“No, we did not,’’ Ballard said when I asked the question. “Because there were no charges and discipline, we didn’t feel the need to.’’

 

For her lawyers presence at one of the proceedings-

"Her lawyer was there only for support and was prohibited, under the rules of the proceeding, from guiding her testimony."

{from NY Times article}

 

 

Yes, agreed. Neither is exonerate - as to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame.

That is is also not in the equation. The order handed down was that the "football player would not be given a finding of responsibility."  There is no 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty' finding here either.

 

But check this New York Time headline about it-

 

"A Majority Agreed She Was Raped by a Stanford Football Player. That Wasn’t Enough."

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/sports/football/stanford-football-rape-accusation.html

 

I'm not stating my feelings, only showing what was (and still is still) out there.

 

 

Maybe only if there is a majority for the victim, but still a mistrial? Case by case basis, like Ballard states? You have two people here, both who have rights. If some acceptable concession can't be made by a hung jury/mistrial, then continue to re-try with a new panel until a true ruling one way or the other is obtained. She was denied a third trial, with no explanation.

 

Something inside me doesn't like cases ending like this, nor any setting that would have the victim have to negotiate with the accused.  And this case (and those like it) is the only way I can truly think I understand a woman's reluctance to even report it in the first place.  That and an article at the bottom of this post.

 

 

I have since found out they rolled out a new policy in Feb 2016 that included 3-0 vote (as you have noted) and included 'preponderance of the evidence' language in it, but I ...  wait. OK, I found it. Stanford's response to NY Times article. It's all in here-

 

https://news.stanford.edu/2016/12/29/stanford-university-statement-new-york-times-story-dec-29-2016/

 

To which the NY Times doubles down against in response to Palo Alto online-

 

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/01/05/in-the-spotlight-again-stanford-rebuts-new-york-times-story-on-sexual-assault

 

 

Seems to be the case.

 

 

She's on record regretting not doing so now, but she felt the school would/could handle it back then. But there are loads of studies and articles on why many do not go to the Police. Here's but only one, a short 1 page consolidated one-

 

https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

 

And from a lawyer concerning just the schools process - “The process is complex and takes a long time. It is very difficult to get a 3-0 decision from a panel, and these young women are terrified and traumatized and just want it to be done.”

 

This isn't about the player, nor want any Double Jeopardy; here or elsewhere.  He has a string of top notch credentials.  But after reading that Kravitz article, I still somewhat agree with Kravitz, only in regard to, hearing of performing extensive research and vetting due diligence (including character) and being sensitive to the victim when there was no reaching out to the lawyer and accuser during the process. Nothing more.

 

es, agreed. Neither is exonerate - as to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame.

That is is also not in the equation. The order handed down was that the "football player would not be given a finding of responsibility."  There is no 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty' finding here either.

 

How could a person ever really be "exonerated" from a charge like this when sex did take place ? I can't possibly judge on ANYTHING in this case as there really aren't facts to determine innocence or guilt . However I would at least like to think that he was judged on what was heard and not the fact that he played football. If I had a daughter in college , i would advise her to go to the police rather than the college. 

 

Furthermore many are complaining about the "majority" (3-2) said he was guilty . Is this a civil case ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dw49 said:

 

"Yes, agreed. Neither is exonerate - as to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame.

That is is also not in the equation. The order handed down was that the "football player would not be given a finding of responsibility."  There is no 'Innocent' or 'Not Guilty' finding here either."

 

How could a person ever really be "exonerated" from a charge like this when sex did take place ? I can't possibly judge on ANYTHING in this case as there really aren't facts to determine innocence or guilt . However I would at least like to think that he was judged on what was heard and not the fact that he played football. If I had a daughter in college , i would advise her to go to the police rather than the college. 

 

Furthermore many are complaining about the "majority" (3-2) said he was guilty . Is this a civil case ? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Furthermore many are complaining about the "majority" (3-2) said he was guilty . Is this a civil case ? 

 

No, it's a School Administrative process for Title IX cases.  But I guess it was modeled similarly to the state of California Civil trial case rules.

 

Stanford required a 4 - 1 or 5 - 0 panel vote to get a ruling of 'Responsibility' at that time.

That case went 3 - 2 in favor of the accuser, twice. Then was dismissed.

Stanford changed it to a unanimous 3 - 0 panel vote not long after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...