Jump to content
Click here to get your free tickets for Colts Training Camp today!
Steamboat_Shaun

Bobby Okereke allegations at Stanford

Recommended Posts

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

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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :thinking:
 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


 

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...