SI Article on Gibbons (author's only source is Washtenaw Watchdog)
I don't know if there is anything new here. My sense is it's an SI writer rehashing what's known along with a description of the allegations. We'll never know what happened, but I sure hope the program didn't actively or inactively cover anything up.
[Ed-S: The article is entirely from the P.O.V. of Doug Smith, aka Washtenaw Watchdog]
February 14th, 2014 at 2:16 PM ^
HERE you go.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:29 PM ^
Unsurprisingly, the university looks really bad in the article. (B/c, in my opinion, the university made itself look really bad through a combination of its own behavior and clumsy PR.) Sports Illustrated is not buying the "well, the university Code standards changed" explanation, nor is it buying the hiding behind FERPA.
The crux of the article:
Gibbons' dismissal raised many questions, most of which are still unanswered despite consistent pressure from The Michigan Daily and people like Smith. Why did the school not do something back in 2009 or, at the least, in 2011 when Smith brought the alleged crime to the attention of Coleman and others? Further, what prompted the school to finally examine an incident?
The article (reasonably, IMO) concludes there are as of yet no good answers to these questions. Curious to see if this spurs a response from the university, or if we continue to basically hear crickets.
Also, the article mentions Gibbons's threat to victim - widely believed to be from Taylor Lewan. The article does not mention Lewan by name, though.
I know there's disagreement on the board on this point, but it seems like more fruit of bad PR management by Michigan. I'm surprised it took this long for the story to go national.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
Actually, I thought the first 2 questions are already answered or pretty reasonably inferred by someone who's been paying attention to the case: the available evidence in 2009 and 2011 did not warrant punishment given the standard procedures and burden of proof at the time.
Question 3 is important and unanswered though, I agree with you there.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
wrap this thing up as a PR issue (although I certainly hope so). Upvote though for the reasonable tone.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
It wasn't by accident that I said "the university made itself look really bad through a combination of its own behavior and clumsy PR" above. It also wasn't by accident that I put the school's behavior in front of the PR team's competency issues. So I agree with you completely.
The bottom line is it sounds like the school did not handle this well at all. It did a disservice to the victim first and foremost, and the school at large, by appearing to sweep this under the proverbial rug. And if it did sweep this under the rug, that issue deserves some sunshine. It should not take some self-styled gadfly to get the school's attention on something like this.
(My sense is that the school did not actively sweep it under the rug, but was all-too-happy to have the victim express reluctance to press on and use that as cover to drop the investigation. Sort of the obverse of the institutional edict "don't ask permission twice". And that's not how I want my school to act.)
But I still feel the school's PR approach has only made a bad situation worse. One prominent example being Hoke fibbing about the reason for Gibbons's absence at the bowl game (for which I don't fault Hoke - I fault the legal/PR team).
February 14th, 2014 at 2:57 PM ^
Its not just a PR issue. But the way they handled it has turned what may well be a simple issue (the factrs of the story, not the sexual assualt) into something that looks like they are covering something up. And that is what's prompting people like SI (and most likely HBO, Yahoo, or ESPN's invesitagtive units) to look into it.
Any competent PR outfit would have realized this was an issue, gotten in front of the story, and ended it right then and there. Instead, due to a combination of arrogance and incompetence...here we are.
Personally, I hope this results in some sweeping changes on the PR side of things for Michigan.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^
if the vicitm doesnt want to press on and the alleged assailant isnt going to confess its generally hard to prove that there was a sexual assault i would say as most physical evidence could appear normally during a willing participation in the same acts. sexual assault is to my knowlege unwanted sexual advances and if you cant tell if they are wanted or not and both participants are adults what is there to go on? logically it would be dismissed in that case.
but i have no legal knowledge so if any of those assumptions are incorrect please feel free to correct me
February 14th, 2014 at 4:13 PM ^
These are reasonable questions. Here are some answers, based on my experience - others may disagree.
if the vicitm doesnt want to press on?
It's very common for victims to initially be reluctant to press on. They feel ashamed, perhaps somehow guilty, and generally awful. Wanting to put the whole situation behind them is a very common reaction. The question is does the institution (law enforcement or univ.) leave it be at the first or second "I don't want to pursue this"? Many of us think that you need to revisit the situation with the victim after they've had some time to process what's happened to them. It's a process, and if you stop too early in the process, you can game it into the victim not pressing charges even though they really want to but just aren't ready to say it. (And some never get there, which is fine too - the point is give them a real chance.)
and the alleged assailant isnt going to confess
Correct - they seldom do. Part of what makes rape cases so hard to prosecute is they are largely based on circumstantial evidence, so there's a lot of he-said/she-said involved. But rapes do get prosecuted, and code-violators expelled, so it doesn't end the inquiry
i would say as most physical evidence could appear normally during a willing participation in the same acts
Here I disagree with you almost 100%. The physical evidence of vaginal tearing, etc., that shows up in the police reports is consistent with forcible penetration, and inconsistent with consensual sex. That's a presumption - there can be other explanations for the tearing, but if I'm prosecuting a case and there's vaginal tearing, it's convincing evidence.
if you cant tell if they are wanted or not and both participants are adults what is there to go on
This is back to the he-said, she-said. But here's where weight of evidence comes in, and - in particular - credibility. If her testimony is more credible than his, it gets more weight. And vice versa. You'd need a trial to really get to the bottom of this, but as a prosecutor you make an evaluation as to whether your victim is credible. Also, her post-incident (and pre-incident) behavior can fortify or detract from her credibility. Other factors, too, come into play. Does she have any reason that we know of to fabricate this charge? Is she generally reliable? All of that impacts the weight accorded to her testimony.
The bottom line is you've pointed out some reasons that rape cases are hard to prosecute. But that doesn't mean they can't be prosecuted.
Hope that's responsive (and your avatar is 100% win).
February 14th, 2014 at 4:30 PM ^
In any case, Michigan was using the widely accepted standard in 2009, and changed recently, as most schools had to, in response to direction from the department of education. So if this is a case where the evidence falls in between the two standards, Michigan may have done the right thing in both cases.
But I agree that, were I a PR person, I'd recommend getting in front of that, because at face value, for someone unfamiliar, it just sounds wrong that punishment is coming 4 years after an alleged event was reported.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
Recall I was replying to Hipster Cat's questions which were more general in nature (at least as I read them). I agree with your point about the shifting burdens of proof. If you move those in favor of making expulsion easier, then a certain number of valid claims will get through that would not have before. (And a certain number of falsely accused will be screwed.)
And the fact that you can neatly explain the situation in your two paragraphs reflects well on you (and poorly on Michigan's PR - they ought to be better at explaining things than someone casually posting on a Michigan sports-fanatics message board). So this plus one's for you.
February 14th, 2014 at 5:52 PM ^
because with regards to the university "sweeping it under the rug", it seems like it was brought to their attention and they investigated according to their rules and they just didnt have enough to go on at the time or it wasnt up to their burden of proof or whatever. so it wasnt swept under the rug or a big consipiracy cover up for the kicker who went 4/11 or whatever.
February 15th, 2014 at 3:28 PM ^
The University HAS explained that for anyone caring to keep an eye on the situation, they simply can't refer to the specifics of the Gibbons case.
February 14th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
It is obvious the University has mishandled this case on many levels and continues to do so by not going public to the extent available within the several privacy exceptions that are included with FERPA.
As a prosecutor, you, of course, appreciate that within our legal system, a defendant has an opportunity to challenge the state/face his accuser within a strict evidentiary framework. The state has to achieve a high burden of proof, namely, "beyond a reasonable doubt" to make its case.
What has challenged me is how in this instance, where it is known that alcohol was invovled and the victim has chosen to not mover forward, the University Michigan can, by throwing Gibbons out of school, permanently harm him (or others in similar situations) using a lesser evidentiary standard. Before you throw darts at me, I'm not suggestion Gibbons is innocent (or guilty), I find the change in the evidentiary standard the school is using to be very troubling for a matter of such great importance which could well impact Gibbons negatively for the rest of his life.
February 14th, 2014 at 6:18 PM ^
My prosecution experience is pretty stale, and I've not been involved in criminal law for several years. So I want to be careful not to overstate my expertise here. Furthermore, I've not seen the full files involved and don't really know the FERPA angles well. No darts from my glass house of partial ignorance.
That stated, I agree with you that Gibbons has not been convicted and we should not presume his guilt as a matter of principle. But I disagree vehemently that the fact that alcohol was involved is a relevant factor w/r/t a determination of guilt. You're not saying this, but the fact that the woman was drinking is no license for nonconsensual sex. The booze is almost a non-factor (it does impact the witness's credibility). As far as her not wanting to pursue, if that was really her intent the prosecution would typically respect that but not always. In my experience, individuals don't press charges - the state does.*
You also raise a very interesting point. The change in evidentiary standards moved the goal lines on Gibbons, and it seems like a bit of a raw deal. I'm not sure that there's any legal recourse for him, but I get it. Then I read the police report and makes it really hard for me to be sympathetic to the guy. Especially after the (allegedly) Lewan threat follow-up business. Until I see something more I'm in the pro-alleged victim camp - pretty squarely.
Finally, we don't know what the evidence was at the expulsion hearings. We know the result, but per FERPA I don't know that we get too much more of a look than what we've seen.
With that, it's Valentine's Day! I'm done thinking of the Gibbons ugliness for the night.
* I always smile at the "This Store Will Prosecute Shoplifters" signs you see from time-to-time. You will? In what court? The Court of Walgreen's?
February 15th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
"sexual assault is to my knowlege unwanted sexual advances and if you cant tell if they are wanted or not and both participants are adults what is there to go on?"
I don't know all the legal stuff but as I think aobut this case, one of the problems that I see with sexual assault is that it's too easy to think of it with respect to normal sexual relations which can often (maddeningly or perhaps even delightfully) be full of gray areas & uncertainty.
But if we adjust our thinking and consider it foremost as an assault (ignore the sex for a moment) then the perspective shifts. Often if you are assaulted, the savvy thing to do is just do as the attacker asks so that you don't get hurt, that is, if some one pulls a gun on you then you should give them or wallet or whatever to avoid being shot. But if you are under a sexual assault then giving in to the attacker might be misconstrued as consent.
I don't know if that makes any diference to anyone but I do think that we need to be careful of simply writing things off as simply it's just another "he said, she said" that happens all the time.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:17 PM ^
I honestly am not going to read it as not only am I sick of the topic, but the whole situation pisses me off for multiple reasons, but here you go.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:22 PM ^
I'm pissed as well. Also disappointed. At a minimum serious mistakes were made in how this matter was handled.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:18 PM ^
and if it is, I'm pissed. Title says "alleged rape" in it which was never the case, if I recall correctly. It was sexual misconduct and this is a very unfair way to present the case.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:33 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 2:36 PM ^
Unfortunately, that's probably very true, even despite the fact that "rape" is actually legally known as criminal sexual misconduct in many jurisdictions.
February 14th, 2014 at 5:13 PM ^
sexual assault----not all sexual assault is rape.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:41 PM ^
Rape is also not inaccurate, if you read the Police Reports. The horrible events the victim alleges constitute "rape" in common parlance. In some instances this is a close case, but here ... not so much.
I hate that this is true, but I think given the facts SI is well within its rights to say "alleged rape" here.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^
You don't publish a national article writing the phrase "alleged rape" without going through several layers of lawyers and having them sign off on that phrasing. Otherwise SI opens themselves up to a big ol' lawsuit.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 2:31 PM ^
February 14th, 2014 at 2:32 PM ^
It looks like the University waited until he was "expendable" as a player. What actaully did or did not happen is irrelevant to the rubberneckers of the sports world.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:42 PM ^
Gibbons was expendable as a player in 2009 when the alleged events occurred as well. In fact he was setting records for kicking futility.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^
Jason Olesnavage was the primary place kicker.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
How many people reading SI know that level of detail about a marquee football program's kicker's career trajectory? Only *some* Michigan fans. The rest of the readers see that Gibbons got kicked out at the end of his final season on the team.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:30 PM ^
That should be mentioned in the story.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:40 PM ^
who gives a crap on how this looks to the sporting world. The right thing to do is to conduct an investigation, and not just expel someone to save face.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^
The questions was ' why is this getting so much attention?" You're rebutting an argument I didn't make.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
Maybe someone smarter than I am can explain the difference between the Gibbons matter and the Winston matter, besides UM expelling the alleged perpetrator and FSU celebrating the alleged perpetrator.
Both involved serious allegations of rape. Both resulted in no charges being filed. UM expelled Gibbons even though he had been charged with nothing. FSU kept playing Winston while police were investigating. There isn't the slightest whiff of improprieties at anyone in the UM athetic department/football program. Yet the public (or at least the reporters) are outraged at UM?
I won't even begin to ask how it compares to ND/Lizzy Seeberg.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
Well, there's the difference that the victim in UM's case decided not to go forward with the case while the victim in FSU (and also in the MSU basketball player case) wanted to prosecute.
Interesting, right? The school that acts against a player without the assistance of the victim is the one being dragged over the coals. The schools that continue failing to act against players while the victims want prosecution? Not a word.
February 14th, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
February 15th, 2014 at 1:07 PM ^
to know what the deal with Lewan is, and whether Gibbon's expulsion was known about by Hoke/Brandon prior to Gibbon's playing against Iowa, having family issues or being hurt. Glad that Gibbons got expelled as well, but I still have questions although nothing about a cover-up or anything huge for the University, that's why it's so weird that they won't answer questions about it and people can move on and have some closure.
February 15th, 2014 at 3:19 PM ^
that needs closure is the alleged victim, and by all accounts she has it. The best evidence we have of closure is that she never sought a criminal indictment.
Your desire for "closure" is a want, not a need.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:25 PM ^
"The Gibbons case and another incident of alleged sexual assault early in 2011 involving another University of Michigan athlete were among those Smith was drawn to. (No charges were ever filed against the athlete from the other incident, who later left the program.)"
I never heard of this second alleged incident. That's new to me.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
Probably referring to a purported incident involving Jordan Dumars that drew police investigations (no charges were ever filed).
The "Washtenaw Watchdogs" website (no idea if that site has even a shred of credibility) posted something on it a few days ago.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:35 PM ^
Why does the SI writer act like Smith is some experienced investigator in sexual assault issues? Why is he being quoted for his statements on University policy? It makes no sense. He's just a guy who used to work here.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^
The quote of him "We're still investigating..." made me chuckle.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:21 PM ^
In addition, it appears he upset the alleged victim by some of his actions, which makes it appear to be more of a personal agenda because he was fired by UM rather than attempting to help her. He made the comment that the victim was working to change university policy on her own when he used it for his own purposes.
I think it also should have been pointed out that the athletic director and head football coach are different than when the incident occurred.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:37 PM ^
School looks bad...it caused that....but what is the end game here? He said, she saids with no definitive evidence/witness is difficult to prosecute at any level. And no collaborating victim...impossible.
Moving forward, the school needs to have a better plan than this in terms of judicating these situations...that is clear. But do we expel ALLEGED attackers immediately in these circumstances or do we work through a timely SOP. I don't know?
February 14th, 2014 at 2:45 PM ^
Just ask Garland Rivers about their visit with the FBI.
February 14th, 2014 at 2:50 PM ^
Click Here and SI will gladly tell you about the glorious exploits of Jameis Winston for only $19.95.
Given the numerous cases of NCAA athletes that are accused of sexual misconduct each year it's strange that there is so much focus on the one where the guy actually got expelled. Where is the article asking Florida State what their policy is and whether they are looking into expelling Winston? I guess there is just a lot more money to be made on a star qb than a kicker.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:03 PM ^
The expulsion is exactly why this is getting so much attention. If UM had just ignored this, it would have never been a story.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:10 PM ^
That is such a huge element of this story. Although this gets cast in "gosh, this looks like the PSU situation" it's a fundamentally different situation. There was really very little "upside" in Michigan expelling Gibbons other than the university's determination that it was the right thing to do.
That's nearly the antithesis of PSU.
February 14th, 2014 at 3:00 PM ^
I'm glad this made national news. It brings attention to the prevelance of this kind of thing.
I don't care what the University looks like. I care what they actually did. Hopefully other schools use this incident and look internally as to how they may have handled it differently than Michigan.