Basically what I expected. MGoBlog is nothing if not thorough.
Takeaways from the WTKA morning show (Gibbons)
We know that Gibbons was guilty of misconduct. The competent tribunal so ruled based on the standards the university has in place, and the requisite review authority confirmed the ruling.
We likely will never know if he was guilty of sexual assault. It isn't even clear to me that the principals in the case know that.
He says they had sex, she insists she said no (over and over again in the report). I think she knows.
best estimates of false rape accusations are between 2-10%, this is kind of a false equivalency.
Since this is an online forum and not a court-of-law, I'm assuming she's not lying.
EDIT: to extend further, many people in this country use the same incorrect application of "innocent until proven guilty" as they do with freedom of speech--they think it is applied to every single case of everything ever.
Do I think a person accused of rape should be thrown in jail if evidence shows they likely did it? Only if the evidence shows it without reasonable doubt.
Do I think a person accused of rape should be subject to loss of societal privileges or subjected to moral scrutiny on online boards if the evidence shows they likely did it? Yeah, seems fair to me, especially when considering how difficult it is to garner convictions in rape cases.
Between innocent and guilty. Is someone found not guilty of rape based on refusal to prosecute/lack of cooperation totally without fault? Absolutely not. At best, it's clear that, like Jameis Winston, Gibbons doesn't have a clear understanding of what consent is. Anyone giving him credit for avoiding prosecution is giving him more than the benefit of the doubt.
when people go so overboard in trying to be objective while they personally judge these situations.
So many comments are some variation of: "let's be clear, there is a victim here, but that victim is either the alleged rape victim or the falsely accused Gibbons."
Yet nobody follows that up with the acknowledgment that, on average, there's only a 10% odds of one of those things being true.
And it's even more disturbing that this line of thinking affects the police officers who are supposed to investigate rape cases. http://www.oaesv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Police-Interviews-of-Sexual-Assault-Reports-Do-Attitudes-Matter.pdf
on the accused because they could very well be innocent. Remember Brian Banks? He was accused of rape and was put into prison, but evidence emerged later on that he was in fact innocent.
I'm not saying Gibbons isn't guilty, but with the rape situation, it's best to handle this carefully and throughly. Reputations will be ruined even if found innocent because you will be registered as sex offender even though you are never guilty which is the US law.
is that, objectively, there is a waaaaayyyyyy higher probability that she is not lying than that she is lying. And people don't want to admit that. I'm just bringing it up.
I admit it for sure; however, you do not, should not, and cannot convict people of criminal conduct in the United States because the complaining witness is "probably telling the truth".
... and articulated them so much better than I could have. Thank you.
singular anectodes with many confounding variables in making all of your judgments in life.
She stated she performed oral sex in the police report.
That is a bit weird. Unless he was FORCING her to go down on him (which is possible) that doesn't sound very much like rape. I don't think people being raped generally decide to give a guy a blow job mid-rape. Sounds like she was drunk as hell. Now, if he drugged her, then he's obviously guilty of something. But if she was just drunk and did things she's ashamed of, well, that is a bit of a different story. I'd be careful at rushing to any judgment in any direction on this one.
Wrong, I know someone who was in that situation and felt it was the "best" option at the time for various reason I will not get into here...
If she was drunk and Gibbons knew it (and was sufficiently in control of his faculties) - it's rape.
Even if she said yes repeatedly.
People who are declared legally incompetent or who are physically or mentally incapable of providing informed consent - can't provide consent no matter what it is they say.
Hold up a minute......two word reminder for you.....Brian Banks.
Look I have a daughter so I'm naturally very bothered by this but I'm also a lawyer and the concept of innocent until proven guilty is very meaningful to me. It's hard to not stand in judgment but only two people know what happened and for whatever reason the aggrieved one chose to not pursue this, he never had his day in a real court and none of us get to know what the University investigation found that made them believe that this was more likely than not true.
This is a shit sandwich but sitting around smelling it isn't going to make it taste better.
If the alleged victim wasn't co-operating, I can't imagine what they had beyond the police report.
aren't you well aware that the court of public opinion in this country is not subjected to the rules of the court of law?
And, as a lawyer, aren't you well aware that false accusations of rape are the vast minority?
Although, perhaps, as a lawyer, you see a skewed poplulation pool. But even still, an oncologist who finds that 50% of referred patients have cancer knows that 50% of the population as a whole does not have cancer. So I'd assume a lawyer has that basic insight as well.
So YOU'RE saying the court of public opinion is the place to try people?
that non-legal actions against accused people such as removal from the team, removal from school, my personal judgment of people, etc. etc. are not subject to innocent until proven guilty. They're subject to whatever the people in charge of those actions deem appropriate.
So your answer is yes, the court of public opinion is all that matters.
How is getting expelled from school remotely all that matters if there is a separate system, the fucking court of law, that has the potential to rule him guilty and throw his ass in jail for years and years???
In the matter of public opinion, the court of public opinion is all that matters.
I have not read the report but would, but would be interested in doing so. Do you have link(s) convenient for you to cite to get access?
I am a little bit late to this party, but i used to blog on criminal justice issus, and am considering making this case a focus for a while if I do. One reason---I moved to Phoenix close to where Lewan went to high school, and his presence/actions in ths case are terribly disconcerting IIRC.
If your succinct summary is correct, that is a difficult rape case to make if you are a prosecutor, but i want to keep an open mind until i review things. I will say a lot of things in this matter do not pass the smell test from the viewpoint of investigators of wrongdoing.
How do we know Gibbons is guilty? Was guilt adjudicated? No, it wasn't. And "competent tribunal"? What? One person issued an opinion based on whether he believed the complainant or the respondent. Not a preponderance of evidence, as others have claimed here, for that would imply that evidence was weighed somehow, which is not what happened. This was the result of arbitration, which is inappropriate to the determination of guilt, but is the way these cases are handled.
I am not sure what your objection is, here. Clearly, you are not referring to the Gibbons case when you say that "one person issued an opinion," nor can you plausibly aregue that you know that none of the people invol;ved in the process weighed any evidence.
The "competent tribunal" is the Student Resolution Panel (unless Gibbons chose to have a single resolutions officer) described here: http://oscr.umich.edu/statement#stage3 An additional competent tribunal would be the Appeals Board, described in the same document.
You seem to be claiming that the school doesn't follow its own policies, and that this case was decided by one person who didn't even weigh the evidence. That's an extraordinary claim, and so requires extraordinary proof. I await your presentation of such proof with anticipation; it should be a doozy.
There still seem to be so many questions...but is there a chance we never find out anything more on this? Everything seems to be under privacy laws that I cant imagine the university or Hoke/Brandon being able to address anything related to this in the press.
Get used to disappointment.
Ha! Great Princess Bride reference. +1
“We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported. The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion. The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision.”
I'm surprised you were privy to the hearings at Xavier--I wouldn't have expected that level of expertise on the case here.
My point, which I thought was pretty obvious but apparently I have to actually say it, is that for legal reasons the University will say absolutely nothing further. There will be no comments on the proceeding itself, there will never be any statement making it clear precisely what Gibbons's violation of the code of conduct consisted of. University counsel will not permit it. This is how it has been handled elsewhere; this is how it will be handled at Michigan. If you want to draw conclusions from their silence, feel free, but it means nothing because the silence is inevitable.
I've read the police report. Seems bad. Gibbons comes off as an asshole at best.
Disagree. The alleged victim admits she had a lot to drink and sounds borderline incoherent to me.
Then you walk away from a bad situation. Common sense says to not put yourself in that position as a man. There is no excuse for what gibbons did or did not do. He harassed her in the least. You don't treat woman like that. And if Taylor Lewan threatened to rape her if she comes forward doesn't help gibbons, and he should have been booted off the team.
"There is no excuse for what Gibbons did or did not do."
Seems like he mistreated this woman terribly even if he isn't guilty of his accusations. From what I have read in the report. He was a down right asshole to her period.
Based on the police report there is zero chance they would get a conviction.
She's drunk, she deserved to get raped. Yikes... people.
In the real world, what he said was, if she blacked out due to an excess of alcohol, she might not remember what happened.
And in the real world, drunk people can't consent. End of story.
In this context it's maybe worth pointing out an important difference between Michigan law and University policy: Michigan law requires coercion or force as an element of criminal sexual assault, but the University's definition of sexual misconduct merely requires lack of consent.
That appears to not always be true -
750.520d Criminal sexual conduct in the third degree; felony.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree if the person engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist:
(c) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
750.520e Criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree; misdemeanor.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fourth degree if he or she engages in sexual contact with another person and if any of the following circumstances exist:
(c) The actor knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally incapable, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless.
(i) "Mentally incapable" means that a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders that person temporarily or permanently incapable of appraising the nature of his or her conduct.
(j) "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance administered to that person without his or her consent, or due to any other act committed upon that person without his or her consent.
(m) "Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious, asleep, or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act.
They've carefully carved out the situation where a person is mentally incapacitated due to the influence of a substance they've intentionally consumed unless the person is "unconscious, asleep or physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act."
There may be some case law that impacts this. Maybe somebody's been able to get a broad interpretation of "physically unable to communicate unwillingness." But as it stands it doesn't seem that intoxication necessarily implies rape.
Which implies that its okay to have sex with them?
there's enough gray area here, simply due to her drunkenness, that a legal conviction of rape is not likely.
However, there's enough in the police report for anyone with horse sense to know that Gibbons was an ass hole from the first time they met, and did the wrong thing on that evening. It is clearly misconduct from a university perspective, and Lewan's subsequent threats are absolutely reprehensible.
I deeply regret that either of those two set foot on the football field again. it doesnt take a court of law to validate whats right vs wrong, and those two didn't deserve the scholarship they received.
The WTKA morning show discussion seems rational and sensible, without going overboard to condemn, excuse, or float wacky conspiracy theories.
thread jack but who on the west side heard the Huge Blustering Dickbag's Strong Take this afternoon? I caught the last 2 minutes of his windbaggery and gnawed holes in my steering wheel.
Seemed to me he's holding Hoke and Brandon 100% to blame and says axe them both. Didn't catch it all though. I may be misunderstanding him.
Did know they should be gone.
If they did know what? We don't even "know" Gibbons did anything wrong to date.
Are fully aware what happened seeing two football players where the ones who told on him. And had the victims back. It's a matter of when they found out.
You're saying Hoke and Brandon knew Gibbons was guilty of rape but turned the other way, jeopardizing the university that way? To save one player - a kicker?
If you believe that 1) You need to think it through again and 2) if you still really believe that, you shouldn't remain a Michigan fan. I wouldn't.
But as has been covered ad nauseum here it seems unlikely they knew before Iowa and sat him for Ohio when they almost assuredly knew. Huge made no mention of that discrepancy that I heard.
I quickly tune out when UM or Staee is the topic. Or just don't listen altogether. Not worth it.
My takeaway is that 24 hours later we've yet to hear anything from the University or the AD other than Ablauf, which is pretty disgusting.
You must spend a lot of time being disgusted, if this is your threshold for "pretty disgusting."
I'm not sure what you are expecting. Silence is what I am expecting, given the privacy laws in place.
Your posting history doesn't indicate you support this coach or the university.
I'm not about to comment because I have a hard time remaining objective for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, I know several people who are close with the victim.
Secondly, one of my bigger fears is being falsely accused of a crime and there being just enough evidence, perhaps circumstantial, to result in negative consequences.
I'm just glad this is looking less and less like an actual cover up.
Was that when people were randomly hypothesizing?
I would spend my time worrying about much more relevant fears.
Yeah, like how statistics can be manipulated to seem like they make points they don't really support!
Your "visualizatiuon' says that accusers are found guilty at about 20% of the rate that the accused are found guilty. Extrapolating that to cases where no one is convicted, then of everty 1,000 reported rapes, 200 are false accusations and 800 are true ones.
That's a high enough false accusation rate that people should be worried. It doesn't excuse the number of rapes that are truly rapes, but it says that either (1) we should discoveer better ways to ascertain the truth, or (2) we shouldn't use bogus statistics to make our points.
Not even sure where to begin...
I'd say it was your interpretation that is alarming. The graphic does not AT ALL support a contention that only a small portion of accusations were false. It only supports the contention that only a small portion of the probable rape cases ended with a finding that the accusation was false, just as it supports the contention that only a small portion of the probable rape cases ended with a finding that the accusation was true. The ratio of the former to the latter is about one to five.
You can assume, if you wish, that all the cases that didn't end with a finding of false acusation were true rape cases, but that result comes from your assumption, not the statistics themselves.
In the absence of further information, it probably is more reasonable to assume that the unknown mirrors the known.
That is very disturbing!
"Individuals who are falsely accused of rape outside of the justice system would not be counted in this figure."
Legal consequences aren't all I'm concerned about. Please don't take this the wrong way...I truly understand that rape and rape culture are major issues in our society and I don't mean to diminish that. Just don't be disingenuous about this.
estimate is 10% of reported rapes are false accusations.
So much higher than in that picture, but still, so low that having that be a life fear is as silly as a fear of flying.
Notice I didn't specify a crime in my first post. I do appreciate the information.
you may very well have meant being falsely accused of any crime in general, but rape in particular is a crime that often boils down to a he-said she-said, and there is a societal myth that the she-said is an outright lie equally as often as the he-said is. So to bring up the "I don't like to rush to judgment in cases like this because I have a fear of being falesly accused of crimes in general" is a straw man; it happens sometimes that men are falsely accused of rape, but it is a rarity, so it is an irrelevant comment.
There are a host of reasons (I'm sorry if you thought that was the only one), and that's not a straw man. It may be an overblown fear and might apply less to this case, but a straw man is when you erect a position that the opposition does not hold, often a parody of their real position. I fail to see how that applies here.
You know what IS a straw man? Implying that I claimed the "she said" is an outright lie an equal amount of time as the "he said." Nothing like that can be found in my posts.
bottom line is that your fear of being falsely accused of any crime has literally no practical relevance to this situation.
What's disingenuous about admitting that my judgment is clouded, even if it's for what you deem an irrational reason? I think you're a little too caught up in your own thing.
Those in the know are aware how she got the last laugh. Good for her.
Wait... Which question would that be?
FERPA covers the info in an educational record. They can read the findings and discuss the contents. That is the same thing as disclosing the record.
Yes, because Hoke should be fired for an incident that happened before he arrived, had been deemed closed, and he most likely would be violating student privacy laws by discussing (which COULD get him fired/ sued). Not sure if you're just a very determined troll or what, but your incessant calls for Hoke to be fired for this whole thing are not only annoying, they're downright ludicrous. I feel stupid even replying to your insane comment , but no one seems to have called you to task. Good lord, even Eleven Warriors is giving this a more even- minded treatment than this drivel.
Oh, and perhaps Hoke truly answered in a manner that was consistent with facts. Gibbons may have been hurt for the OSU game. And I'm damn certain getting kicked out of school for alleged rape would create "family issues." In either case, those aren't fire-worthy offenses even had they been total fabrications. If the NCAA asked him and he lied, different story. A bunch of reporters? It's not their business.
Fwiw, I think he's probably guilty, but it's true that we'll never know. On the guilty side, the victim told people right away, didn't have anything to gain, her account is that she told him no repeatedly and kept trying to pull her leggings up, and she had physical injuries consistent with force.
On the other side, she was seriously drunk, he didn't get a lawyer, talked to the police, and said yes when they asked if he would take a polygraph. (They never gave him one, though.). Also, I don't have much confidence in the fairness of college disciplinary processes, although for all I know, UM's is scrupulously fair.
I can totally see a drunk 18 year old kid kind of ignoring the lack of consent, then figuring that if she ultimately gave up, it meant consent. That still means guilty, although tragically so. I know the schools try their best to educate these kids, but man - just don't have sex with super drunk distraught post breakup friends in situations where you are inferring consent.
When did it become acceptable in this country to ruin a reputation and life based on one person's statement and a preponderance of evidence standard, especially 5 years after the fact. Stop putting women on a pedestal and read the Constitution for comprehension. As a lawyer, I understand this is not a court of law and the Constitution is not considered to be applicable here, but maybe it should be. We, as alumni, should have the most say in how our University is run. Who is making these rules?
Agreed, but how are you going to identify that person,... you know, the one who ruined a life and reputation... you know, the person that leaked this story?
Gibbons got his due process, and the university did everything it could to protect his identity, given that what he was dismissed for was a violation of school rules and no one's business but his and the school's. Some asswipe decided to undo that, though, and leaked this stuff to the Daily, which, of course, printed it knowing that it would have the effect of tarnishing Gibbon's life unfairly.
I don't really blame the Daily, given that journalistic standards essentially don't exist any more, but I sure as hell blame the one person who is responsible for the Daily even knowing about it.
The accusor is blameless, as far as I know, and if you have a beef with the system as it exists, then you should be complaining about specifics instead of the one person's statement.
if more people looked at objective facts about rape statistics and did far less victim blaming, there would be more rape convictions in this world, and over time, there would be fewer rapes.
I wouldn't convict someone based on statistics. I also wouldn't declare somone more likely guilty than not based on statistics. The individuals involved deserve better.
you use the facts present in that specific case. However, if you're part of that jury and you're listening to arguments by the defense attorney, and they're trying to give you a motive for why the women would lie about the rape, it would not be unfair to consider the fact that it would be a rare instance for this women to be outright lying about the rape.
If it is just me and you sitting here at 11pm on MGoBlog, however, I'm definitely looking at this and saying, 1 of these 2 people are lying, and if I'm going to form an opinion on the matter without even close to all the facts, I'm going to for sure rely on statistics about general rape cases which indicate that false accusations are the exception, and it will surely lead me to assume it's more likely that she is not lying.
"I'm going to form an opinion on the matter without even close to all the facts." I have a problem with that - apparently you don't.
It would be terribly unfair, and for that reason, among others, it is neither admissible evidence, nor can such a thing be considered by any juror who is following the law.
Your assumption that this is a black-and-white "either he is lying, or she is" case is unwarranted. In the real world, people perceive things differently, and when you get alcohol involved memories become even more blurred. It is entirely possible that both are telling the truth, as they know it. I know that doesn't fit into your bogus statistics very well, but then, the real world seldom does match bogus statistics.
I have three college age daughters and am absolutely in favor of action that punishes rapists and reduces the liklihood of rape occurring on college campuses. All I know is, though, if I had a son in college accused of rape, even if I were absolutely certain he was not guilty, I would advise him to withdraw/drop out and/or transfer immediately. I wouldn't wait around for some committee to decide with a slightly greater than 50% certainty his fate on something this important.
Understandable, but isn't there something unfair about that?