Bobby Okereke allegations at Stanford

[MikeCurtis]

There is this team in Blue...... they are cool...... I hope they win the Super bowl

 

I wonder if Luck will throw for 50 touchdowns.....

[dw49]

2 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

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.

 

I was being facetious . My point is 3 of 5 never convicts unless it is a civil case. 

[rock8591]

If/when one day he gets arrested, police search his house, or give him a ticket for jaywalking, then let me know.

 

Until then, it's put up or shut up time.

[EastStreet]

I wonder if a civil case will be filed now that he has a contract/money.

 

I also wonder if contract delays were on the Colts side, to more or less see how things would land in the media.

[throwing BBZ]

11 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

I wonder if a civil case will be filed now that he has a contract/money.

 

I also wonder if contract delays were on the Colts side, to more or less see how things would land in the media.

 

 Interesting that she said "all she wanted was a finding' that would have made him stay away from her so she would have felt safe. 
 If get it, that finding would have made a civil suit a Touchdown.
There is NO Question No must mean NO!
 Buyer beware meeting someone at a Frat party, going home with them, and expecting your word to be the Law, over forensic evidence.
 Take a friend, go to a public place and talk, you know, get to know a person while you both are sober to see what you each are all about.
Again, i in no way condon men forcing themselves in any way.

[Superman]

On 6/14/2019 at 2:56 PM, ColtsBlueFL said:

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.

 

Yeah, that headline does a lot of editorializing, but it doesn't make it okay to misrepresent the facts. 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Just retry and retry until you get the result you're looking for? I don't know... In a criminal case, a mistrial allows the prosecution to determine whether they'll retry the case or drop the charges. This would be the equivalent of dropping the charges.

 

They agreed to a second proceeding because there were said to be errors and mistakes in the way the first proceeding was handled. I don't remember that same claim being made about the second proceeding. 

 

Quote

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-

 

I understand and can sympathize, to a degree. But it's somewhat unfair to claim that the system has failed the accuser when the accuser didn't use the system to the full. 

 

Quote

 

 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.

 

 

I understand. I just disagree. I don't think there was anything to gain by talking to the accuser, assuming their research uncovered the accuser's testimony.

[ColtsBlueFL]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

Yeah, that headline does a lot of editorializing, but it doesn't make it okay to misrepresent the facts. 

 

The facts.. a hung jury (twice) mistrial with most voters having sided for the alleged accuser/victim... both times.

 

Quote

Just retry and retry until you get the result you're looking for? I don't know... In a criminal case, a mistrial allows the prosecution to determine whether they'll retry the case or drop the charges. This would be the equivalent of dropping the charges.

 

She (prosecution) didn't drop the charges, the school (judge/jury) did.  She wanted round 3.  She wanted a full yes or no vote (4-1 or 5-0) either way, not we're split 3-2 so we'll just call it against the majority vote and designate as "Not Responsible" because it isn't 4 or more votes either way. - 'Case closed'.

 

Quote

They agreed to a second proceeding because there were said to be errors and mistakes in the way the first proceeding was handled. I don't remember that same claim being made about the second proceeding. 

 

There were questions (and other items) from the accuser that were never allowed in or asked in follow up questioning.  I think one of the changes to the Stanford Title IX hearing rules is to also allow an attorney to be not only in attendance but to also perform all duties of representation.  And an outside group determines what is admissible as questions/evidence, follow questions, etc...

 

Quote

I understand and can sympathize, to a degree. But it's somewhat unfair to claim that the system has failed the accuser when the accuser didn't use the system to the full.

 

At some level, it did, and many things at Stanford were changed after. At the  minimum, it was a mistrial x2, with no conclusive verdict either way. Then school (not prosecution) drops the case.

 

So she really needed to report this to both the school, and also the Police.  But with what evidence does she have to convince the LEO?  Guess the gals need some hidden body cam w/audio these days, like many folks do with dash cams (like me and my wife's cars...) and be their own TMZ...

 

Video, apparently the only way things get rectified anymore...

 

3 hours ago, Superman said:

I understand. I just disagree.

 

 

No worries, at least we know each others positions.  All is good.

 

Quote

I don't think there was anything to gain by talking to the accuser,

 

Except to have (at some level) differing story from a another high achieving Stanford student about another high achieving Stanford student-

 

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/california/stanford-university/admission/

 

Quote

, assuming their research uncovered the accuser's testimony.

 

We don't even know for certain they ever got the FULL story, but articles I've read suggest that the Stanford Panel repressed/disallowed many/most of her interrogating questions and supplemental follow up inquiries to be asked of the accused.  Unless someone directly asks her directly, how could you answer as to whether her whole story was even heard or not?

 

If you are not truly interested to fully know those answers, then you don't ask.  At least, that's my perspective.