Takeaways from the WTKA morning show (Gibbons)
1) We still don't know if Gibbons is guilty. With the lower standard of proof, it has not been determined he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - just more likely than not.
2) It's quite possible, even probable, that Hoke simply believed Gibbons wasn't guilty.
3) The investigation that just occured was likely the first conducted by the University.
4) The current policy requires incidents be reviewed even without a complaint by the victim. This wasn't the case under the old policy and may explain why there was such a delay.
5) It's still unclear what the differences were between the interim policy in 2011 and the current policy that took effect in 2013. Some differences may have existed that explain why the investigation and finding wasn't rendered until the current policy took effect.
6) A cover up to delay an investigation or any findings until now would have gone beyond the football program and athletic department, and would have included other functional areas of the university - highly unlikely.
January 30th, 2014 at 9:33 AM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 8:19 PM ^
The WTKA morning show discussion seems rational and sensible, without going overboard to condemn, excuse, or float wacky conspiracy theories.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:26 PM ^
He was found to have committed the sexual misconduct that got him expelled from school -- a sanction very rarely imposed (never in 2011-12).
Not sure what the hang-up over the word "guilty" is supposed to show or mean.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:29 PM ^
Particularly when he may have avoided prosecution because of violent threats of retribution against the victim.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:36 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 8:38 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^
If they did know what? We don't even "know" Gibbons did anything wrong to date.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
Of course we "know" he did something wrong -- he committed sexual misconduct as defined by university policy and was expelled from school for it.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:51 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 9:07 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 8:43 PM ^
I quickly tune out when UM or Staee is the topic. Or just don't listen altogether. Not worth it.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:44 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:49 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:52 PM ^
Your posting history doesn't indicate you support this coach or the university.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:46 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 9:08 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 9:15 PM ^
http://theenlivenproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rapist_visualiz…
I would spend my time worrying about much more relevant fears.
January 29th, 2014 at 9:46 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:01 PM ^
is alarming.
Not even sure where to begin...
January 30th, 2014 at 7:22 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 9:50 PM ^
That is very disturbing!
January 29th, 2014 at 11:04 PM ^
"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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:12 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:17 PM ^
Notice I didn't specify a crime in my first post. I do appreciate the information.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:24 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 12:16 AM ^
bottom line is that your fear of being falsely accused of any crime has literally no practical relevance to this situation.
January 30th, 2014 at 2:16 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 9:25 PM ^
Those in the know are aware how she got the last laugh. Good for her.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:56 PM ^
How do the privacy laws impact Hoke and Brandon commenting on why the players were or were not kicked off the team? That decision is within their discretion and they made it, and their failure to make the right one and/or apply the right standard is why they should probably be fired.
Seems to me they can comment on that without saying a thing about Gibbons's school records or the school's disciplinary process.
January 29th, 2014 at 8:57 PM ^
January 29th, 2014 at 9:14 PM ^
Wait... Which question would that be?
January 29th, 2014 at 9:01 PM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:42 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 12:47 AM ^
January 30th, 2014 at 8:28 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 9:45 PM ^
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?
January 29th, 2014 at 9:53 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
This is an incredibly old story, and there doesn't appear to be anything new in this recent public "outcry". If the supposed "men" of this board viewed women as normal mistake-prone humans and not these "untouchable mythical infallible" creatures, they would begin to see the world in a different positive way.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:15 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:42 PM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:57 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:27 AM ^
"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.
January 30th, 2014 at 7:05 AM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 7:28 AM ^
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.
January 29th, 2014 at 10:45 PM ^
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.
January 30th, 2014 at 6:28 AM ^
Understandable, but isn't there something unfair about that?
January 30th, 2014 at 8:56 AM ^
Yes there is something unfair about it. .