Gibbons expelled for alleged sexual assault
Brendan Gibbons "permanently separated" from the University of Michigan for violating the University’s Student Sexual Misconduct Policy.
https://michigandaily.com/sports/former-kicker-brendan-gibbons-expelled…
January 28th, 2014 at 5:43 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 5:44 PM ^
The revision in 'sexual conduct policies' is *potentially* related to an ongoing lawsuit:
http://watchdogwire.com/michigan/2013/10/31/former-graduate-student-sue…
It's pure conjecture on my part, but it could explain why the system underwent changes recently.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^
This thread is ripe for lockdown
January 28th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 5:48 PM ^
There's also substantial anecdotal evidence that the policies/procedures in place at many schools fail to protect vulnerable students and/or victims. Hopefully, this can be a catalyst that causes UofM to become a leader on the issue. That would be a great example of the Michigan Difference.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:49 PM ^
This has been "rumored" for a long time.
No one still knows what happened nor anyone ever will. Same as the Winston case.
The University doesn't need the same evidence as the legal system so I still won't say he did or didn't do anything.
I don't endorse rape (nor should anyone) but I hear so many false rape claims that the "rapist" is the actual victim about half the time. Look up Brian Banks if you want a victim of wrongly accused rape.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
This is a misnomer about rape, according to a report done by UMASS over a 10 year period less than 6% of cases were classified as false accusations. Being incredibly difficult to prove does not equal a false accusation.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^
And consider then how many don't get reported in the first place.
January 28th, 2014 at 5:55 PM ^
He is no Michigan man - and should absolutely not be on the team.
Period.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:23 PM ^
Uh
No shit
January 28th, 2014 at 5:57 PM ^
never mind
January 28th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 5:56 PM ^
Well, if Gibbons had been expelled prior to the press conference, then Hoke was clearly dissembling re the cause of the kid's absence. Also, I'm not sure an expulsion is protected by privacy laws. Maybe the cause of the expulsion is, but not the expulsion itself. If that's the case, then Hoke was being doubly deceptive, no?
January 28th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
I don't think Hoke maybe fudging at a press conference to avoid disclosing something as scandalous and potentially contentious as that is a black mark on Hoke. Perhaps the University lawyers advised him not to disseminate that information. It's not Hoke's job to tell everyone about a punishment levied by the University that doesn't arise out of his playing football.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:39 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
I'm not sure if this changes anything about the discussion of the allegations, since the Daily piece points out that everything important about the University's investigation is different from a criminal one (participation of victim, burden of proof, etc.). It reads like this case could literally have been reported by that axe-grinding professor, and the victim may not have participated in this investigation either, and the outcome is totally different because the rules are different.
Not that I don't think Gibbons probably did what he's accused of, and not that I don't think his expulsion is just and overdue; I just can't see the difference between what we *know* now and what we *knew* then. (I was disgusted and conflicted all season because I believed Gibbons was probably not innocent. Hasn't changed, in either direction of certainness.)
If we can talk about football as it relates to this nasty situation, I do find myself morbidly curious if this has anything to do with Gibbons's non-participation in the OSU game. Obviously the Daily article is just laying out everything of note that has happened with Gibbons lately, but there's a tiny bit of implication in mentioning that. The article mentions a document dated 11/20/13, so maybe the wheels had started turning already and Gibbons was sitting because of this? Would be crazy considering the effect that the kicking game could have had on the outcome.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^
Athletic department has a lot of explaining to do.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:02 PM ^
No, the University as a whole does.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:00 PM ^
I know people keep saying ''not enough evidence'' and everything, but expelling him right near the end of his college career...come on. Don't tell me that doesn't sound fishy.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^
Why wouldn't they wait until after his career, then, rather than expelling him "near the end of his career?"
It makes no sense to have a risky coverup and then not take full advantage of it.
I'd say the conspiracy nuts are falling from the trees on this one. I'd also say that I am disappointed to find that the evidence against Gibbons was a lot stronger than I believed when I first heard about the case. I wanted to believe him when he said he was innocent. I no longer believe nor want to believe.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:01 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 7:17 PM ^
thank you captain obvious, your work here is done.
lol
January 28th, 2014 at 6:08 PM ^
Not exactly a HOT TAKE but I would encourage everyone to reserve judgment on how the University handled this until more facts come to light. Obviously the delay in judgment seems strange - and may very well be due to mismanagement on the part of the University - but there's no need to weigh in now when clearly all, or even a majority of, the facts surrounding this matter have not yet surfaced.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^
Now it's a matter of the university and the athletic department coming clean which in all honesty, given the info we have I'm a little suspect on.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:10 PM ^
Like most everybody else, I wish it would have happened sooner. Just odd timing. I'm sure there is an explaination for the long delay and I'd love Brad Anlauf, Dave Brandon and the outgoing president to comment on it.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:15 PM ^
I've read several different versions of what happened with Lewan and I bet they all stem from 1 or 2 sources.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
Is this from the original incident?
January 28th, 2014 at 6:21 PM ^
based on rumor or accusion is the accused could very well be innocent because the "victim" could lie about it which happens all to often. It's better to investigate immediately and gather all datas and evidence than just to slander the accused because that will ruin their livelihood and reputation if found innocent. This is why it was a rumor to begin with. It has not been offiically concluded.
Remember Brian Banks who had to spend several years in prison after being falsely accused of rape? This is a big reason why it's better to gather all of the evidences and datas before coming into conclusion. If found guilty, then yes, by all means, release the name of the guilty party to the public. If found innocent, it's better to keep their name out because I've seen reputations have been ruined by a simple accusion from the "victim".
I'm not condoning the actions by Gibbons, but I'm saying that the University have found sufficient evidence that he was involved in this incident. It's better to take a while and get it right as opposed to rushing and screwing it up.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:44 PM ^
It's better to take a while and get it right as opposed to rushing and screwing it up.
There is a huge difference between doing your due diligence/doing a proper investigation and waiting 4 years to take action. Speedy due process goes both ways for the plaintiff and defendant.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:07 PM ^
The question is did they really wait 4 years to take action? I'm not completely sure about it.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:22 PM ^
The evidence suggests that the matter was investigated by the police, who found insuffiicient evidence to get the DA to proceed with charges. It isn't clear when or why OSCR got involved in the case. It is entirely possible that the victim didn't go to OSCR until the rules got changed and she found out they got changed, and her perceptions of her chances for getting justice changed. It could have been just a few weeks or months before he was expelled.
The assumption that this was squelched by the university for four years, or that two consecutive ADs somehow conspired to keep the story under wraps, are ridiculous ion the face of them. What were anyone's motives for such behavior?
The simpler solution (that something chaged fairly recently that led to Gibbons's expulsion) seems much more likely to me than a conspiracy (complete with threats from one of the most non-threatening guys ever associated with Michigan football) to keep the case under wraps until just before the Ohio State game.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:34 PM ^
jumping into conclusion based on the article is silly because we don't know the fact about it and how they conducted the investigation.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:36 PM ^
jumping into conclusion based on the article is silly because we don't know the fact about it and how they conducted the investigation.
January 28th, 2014 at 11:05 PM ^
the idea that she decided to press her accusation when she learned that the standard of proof had changed - that may not be the answer, but at least it makes sense.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:24 PM ^
In general, I roll my eyes at about 90% of references to "Michigan Men" made on WTKA and elsewhere. The phrase obviously had meaning at some point, and there are obvious exceptions where that meaning holds true - the work with Mott sticks out.
But the phrase now more than ever seems to be a bit pro forma, based more upon performance on the field or star rating of a recent recruit.
Regardless of what the title means anymore, if the allegations here are true, then more than one person should give up their claim to it.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:24 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 6:25 PM ^
I'm at a loss of words.. It's sad something like this happened and nothing was done for 3 years. Feel terrible for the victim and now think the dude is quite a garbage individual.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:31 PM ^
“You will be permanently separated from the University of Michigan effective December 20, 2013,” reads a Dec. 19, 2013 letter addressed to Gibbons at his Florida residence from the University’s Office of Student Conflict Resolution, which facilitates disciplinary proceedings against students. The Michigan Daily did not obtain these documents from the University.
This explains the delay from the expulsion to the news coming out. The University will not disclose anything about student matters - The Daily obtained the documents on their own, likely very recently.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
That it was not aware of any criminal charges being filed. Wait a minute! This is a sexual assault allegation from 2009 and the district attorney has not come to a conclusion about whether the facts warrant filing criminal charges?
One might then conclude that the prosecution determined that evidence of criminality was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, the circumstances may be similar to the FSU situation this year where no charges were filed against the QB but the alleged victim is pursuing civil remedies. The Daily did not report on that alternative.
The entire situation is very strange.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
We have had shit karma. Happy that Gibbons and Lewan are gone.
Hopefully the locker room cliches that are rumored to exist also disappear.
January 28th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 8:15 PM ^
Put this on the front page. Thank you for solving the case anonymous internet tough guy!
January 28th, 2014 at 6:40 PM ^
In light of action taken by the university it's harder now to hold onto a claim of plausible innocence, especially as outrage is vented. I've kicked this particular hornet's nest several times and exhausted various sources, losing a good one forever over it. And I never came up with anything convincing either way.
There's a highly plausible sequence of events wherein Gibbons raped that girl, and she didn't have enough evidence to convict him, and his friends and teammates believed his protestrations of innocence (I can think of two cases historically when Michigan players were falsely accused of something bad and their coaches at the time didn't believe them) and that was that until OSCR reopened the investigation, found more than ample evidence, and finally removed him.
There's another plausible sequence of events wherein Gibbons did not rape that girl, and the case was dropped because he didn't rape that girl, but that because he's a football player her friends and self-deputized investigators ready to believe the worst made it their mission to take down a jock under protection of the other jocks, and that they managed to finally reopen the case inside the university and get what they perceived as justice from the same info.
I haven't been able to get to a point where I believe one or the other. I've been tepid in my coverage of Gibbons his entire career because of it.
The best job I can do at hazarding a guess is a college freshman boy high on being a football player and away from home and in a frat house, probably drunk, surrounded by people who trivialize casual sex and devalue women and call it "joking around," stepped over a very serious line with a woman who was also not in her best decision-making position when she got into it. And because of her own small mistakes and a justice system that overblows them, she wasn't able to get justice; in fact there wasn't enough to effect any punishment whatsoever.
And once that was the finding of the justice system, there were only two extremes for anyone to go to: 1) he's a rapist and should be in jail not kicking legendary field goals for Michigan's football team, or 2) he's not a rapist but he's under assault from people obsessed with bringing rapists to justice. If I had enough information to declare 1 or 2 I'd gladly do so. But I don't.
Rape is inexcusable. Punishing a person for a crime they didn't commit is inexcusable. Neither is really our purview. You know what is our purview? The actions or non-actions of our AD and our head coach. If we're to call for anything, I think we ought to be demanding that Brady Hoke and Dave Brandon and Taylor Lewan and even Rich Rodriguez explain what they knew, what they believed, and why they acted as they did. Rape is inexcusable. Punishing an innocent person is inexcusable. Either way not coming forth with information that could prove either one or the other is inexcusable.
January 28th, 2014 at 7:02 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 8:53 PM ^
Hopefully not often, but false claims have indeed been made in the past, and no doubt will occur in the future.
January 28th, 2014 at 9:47 PM ^
January 28th, 2014 at 9:48 PM ^
I can think of one reason Rodriguez would have maybe given Gibbons the benefit of the doubt; he really had no one else. Remember the comment he made prior to our trip to Penn St in (09?) about maybe "finding one on the way to the game"? It's not like he had a better guy, or he would have played...
January 29th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
I have, unfortunately, had some proximity to (I was going to say "involvement in" but that came out wrong) a sexual assault case a bit closer to home, and one thing that has become absolutely clear as things have gone on is that a lot, and I mean a LOT, of people have a poor understanding of the legal definition of rape, and in particular the concept of consent in that context.
It's very easy for me to imagine that these two groups of people could have exactly the same facts in hand regarding the sequence of events and, in good conscience based on their understanding of the term, reach opposite conclusions on whether there was an assault or not.