DOJ announcement today at 11

[grzz]

Okay, apparently Gwen F. went to a different new conference then everybody else based on the headlines for her story on it.

"DOJ: Women at UM were 'belittled, disbelieved, blamed' for reporting sexual assaults"

I saw that quote on twitter and figured it would be in the story, as it should. My complaint is that he said that, but then didn't provide even one example of what the UM did to perpetuate that situation.

*Edit - The Missoulian article went in to a bit more detail. It is interesting that the main focus seems to be on Campus Police, when I believe their policy is if it is a felony, call the Missoula Police Department. I think if some of the stuff the Missoulian article pulls from the investigation info could have been proven to be true rather than just statements and stories (to be clear, I am not saying it isn't true at all, not even a bit), if they had more proof of those we might have seen fines of some sort associated with this.

 

[UMGriz75]

Okay, apparently Gwen F. went to a different new conference then everybody else based on the headlines for her story on it.

"DOJ: Women at UM were 'belittled, disbelieved, blamed' for reporting sexual assaults"

I saw that quote on twitter and figured it would be in the story, as it should. My complaint is that he said that, but then didn't provide even one example of what the UM did to perpetuate that situation.

And that's the problem. The "independent" investigation never found anything like that, the Missoulian certainly looked for it, and never found it, the best there was a woman complaining that, at Curry Health Center, the examiner asked the complaining person, "are you sure?" when she answered one of his questions. She complained that this represented a "disbelief" in her story. There are also women that believe that Husky logos promote rape.

Well, that's where we are in this world, and too often enough, rational questions in any other circumstance are politicized in this one.

The problem is, some cynic gets to say things like this at a press conference, there's not a shred of actual proof, but the University -- true to the gutless form it has taken -- has rolled over and permitted a "perception" to be established and perpetuated.

A true "leader" would have said straight out, "I will not sacrifice the honor of my institution. If you have something, file the charges, otherwise, get out of here."

UM does not happen to have one of those and so, armed with his fuzzy outlines of the relative justice of soft expectations and infinitely flexible integrity, he was glad to see an agreement that said virtually nothing, a witless sacrifice of UM once again to the careless words of public relations and perceptions, obscuring a more honorable record.

 

[Blgs Griz Fan]

Florio sure seems to have it out for the athletic department and the football program as I read it in The Missoulian article. Will this woman ever cease?

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Were they in compliance, there would have been no need for an agreement

That's not how the U.S. Department of Justice works. They love to enter into these types of agreements, because it gives the appearance that they've actually accomplished something, when in reality UM has only agreed to follow the laws they had to follow anyway. This case will now be handed off to somebody in enforcement who will work on it for several months before resigning. Then it will be handed off to somebody else, who will also quit right after getting up to speed on the case. Before long, nobody in the entire department will know or remember anything about this, and it will fade into the mahogany woodwork. But they got a nice little headline in the Missoulian, so that's good for something.

 

[grizavsfan]

Haven't seen this link posted yet. This is the complete DOJ announcement from their website.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/opa/pr/speeches/2013/crt-speech-130509.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[BWahlberg]

The current Missoulian story shares a lot more info than what was said in the conference or on the DOJ site.

 

[tnt]

Were they in compliance, there would have been no need for an agreement

That's not how the U.S. Department of Justice works. They love to enter into these types of agreements, because it gives the appearance that they've actually accomplished something, when in reality UM has only agreed to follow the laws they had to follow anyway. This case will now be handed off to somebody in enforcement who will work on it for several months before resigning. Then it will be handed off to somebody else, who will also quit right after getting up to speed on the case. Before long, nobody in the entire department will know or remember anything about this, and it will fade into the mahogany woodwork. But they got a nice little headline in the Missoulian, so that's good for something.

Sure they do, and when its all over the U will look great. The comments from the DOJ have already confirmed that. And should the U keep things up they will look even better. That doesn't mean it was all smoke. FVV and the City police department will likley NOT fare so well.

In admist all the defensive posturing was the fact what got the ball rolling was the handeling was the Saudi incident, and the fact at minimum coach had knowledge for over a year that he didn't pass along (as required) delaying university investigation (as required) As usual it was not the action that caused the problem but the attempt to cover it up or hide it....... Note the Missoula city Police department also had the information and failed to pass it on.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Okay, apparently Gwen F. went to a different new conference then everybody else based on the headlines for her story on it.

"DOJ: Women at UM were 'belittled, disbelieved, blamed' for reporting sexual assaults"

I saw that quote on twitter and figured it would be in the story, as it should. My complaint is that he said that, but then didn't provide even one example of what the UM did to perpetuate that situation.

And that's the problem. The "independent" investigation never found anything like that, the Missoulian certainly looked for it, and never found it, the best there was a woman complaining that, at Curry Health Center, the examiner asked the complaining person, "are you sure?" when she answered one of his questions. She complained that this represented a "disbelief" in her story. There are also women that believe that Husky logos promote rape.

Well, that's where we are in this world, and too often enough, rational questions in any other circumstance are politicized in this one.

The problem is, some cynic gets to say things like this at a press conference, there's not a shred of actual proof, but the University -- true to the gutless form it has taken -- has rolled over and permitted a "perception" to be established and perpetuated.

A true "leader" would have said straight out, "I will not sacrifice the honor of my institution. If you have something, file the charges, otherwise, get out of here."

UM does not happen to have one of those and so, armed with his fuzzy outlines of the relative justice of soft expectations and infinitely flexible integrity, he was glad to see an agreement that said virtually nothing, a witless sacrifice of UM once again to the careless words of public relations and perceptions, obscuring a more honorable record.

You must have read the report to be able to summarize this minor incident.

 

[Jerry Punch]

What about this doozy, UmGriz75?

"Six University of Montana football players, including three who allegedly attacked a single woman, have been accused over the three years of involvement in sexual assaults, according to a yearlong U.S. Department of Justice investigation into how UM handled sexual assaults.

The university did not institute Student Conduct Code procedures against those three players until nearly a year after the coach knew the alleged victim had filed a report with the Missoula Police Department, according to a letter from the DOJ to UM President Royce Engstrom and Lucy France, university counsel."

Do you think the University handled that issue properly?

 

[griz4life]

Boy, if that's the "gold standard" for dealing with sexual harassment and assault, it's pretty underwhelming.

The Missoulian seems to be hanging its continuating gang rape narrative on the the fact that the term was used in a public document, which gives the paper some protection in repeating it regardless of whether it's true.

In fact, the allegations, though made, have not been proven. Furthermore, DOJ never intended to prove them.
The U.S. Attorney states that "the purpose of the investigation was to determine whether the university and law enforcement agencies acted promptly, adequately and fairly...." You would never know that was the point of the investigation or the point of today's announcement unless you read deep into today's Missoulian article.

So UM has some campus security training to do. And there are still no charges filed and and no names revealed after more than a year of Missoulian, uh, digging.

 

[PlayerRep]

What about this doozy, UmGriz75?

"Six University of Montana football players, including three who allegedly attacked a single woman, have been accused over the three years of involvement in sexual assaults, according to a yearlong U.S. Department of Justice investigation into how UM handled sexual assaults.

The university did not institute Student Conduct Code procedures against those three players until nearly a year after the coach knew the alleged victim had filed a report with the Missoula Police Department, according to a letter from the DOJ to UM President Royce Engstrom and Lucy France, university counsel."

Do you think the University handled that issue properly?

This "doozy" appears to be all or mostly from the Dec. 2010 blow job incident (see jezebel.com article). This is the one where the police/prosecutors have now declined to pursue it twice (in Dec. 2010) and again in early 2012. The university didn't institute SCC procedures because the accuser didn't got to the university to institute the procedures, which is a prerequesite. By the time the accuser went to the university to institute the process, one or more of the accused were no longer at the university (so there can't/won't be a procedure for non-students is my understanding). Note that the incident occurred before UM had amended its code to cover off-campus incidents like this, and the incident occurred off-campus. Just before graduation in 2012, one of the accused won his student code panel in a 7-0 vote, apparently. A similar charge was then dropped against at least one other accused. These two seniors were allowed to graduate.

Jeez, how much old news came be brought up by the Missoulian? By now, Florio has to know the result of that student code procedure, and certainly knows that the police declined to pursue charges, twice. In my view, Florio has just been very dishonest. Note in particular that she left out these several very key facts.

 

[griz4life]

Here's the un-Florioed version of the story written by the Associated Press writer attending the same event as GF, probably sitting right beside her, as well. Just a little different.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/deal-reached-in-university-of-montana-sex-assault-probe/article_9fc4f6b4-8c60-5ff8-a44e-20e866d5cd05.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[grzz]

Sure they do, and when its all over the U will look great. The comments from the DOJ have already confirmed that. And should the U keep things up they will look even better. That doesn't mean it was all smoke. FVV and the City police department will likley NOT fare so well.

In admist all the defensive posturing was the fact what got the ball rolling was the handeling was the Saudi incident, and the fact at minimum coach had knowledge for over a year that he didn't pass along (as required) delaying university investigation (as required) As usual it was not the action that caused the problem but the attempt to cover it up or hide it....... Note the Missoula city Police department also had the information and failed to pass it on.

The DOJ lawyer is quoted as saying there is no evidence of a cover up.

The city police have no obligation to notify the University of their investigations. They notified the football coach that they wouldn't be pressing charges. Should he have reported it up the chain? ABSOLUTELY, but you are really stretching things here...

 

[Jerry Punch]

What about this doozy, UmGriz75?

"Six University of Montana football players, including three who allegedly attacked a single woman, have been accused over the three years of involvement in sexual assaults, according to a yearlong U.S. Department of Justice investigation into how UM handled sexual assaults.

The university did not institute Student Conduct Code procedures against those three players until nearly a year after the coach knew the alleged victim had filed a report with the Missoula Police Department, according to a letter from the DOJ to UM President Royce Engstrom and Lucy France, university counsel."

Do you think the University handled that issue properly?

This "doozy" appears to be all or mostly from the Dec. 2010 blow job incident (see jezebel.com article). This is the one where the police/prosecutors have now declined to pursue it twice (in Dec. 2010) and again in early 2012. The university didn't institute SCC procedures because the accuser didn't got to the university to institute the procedures, which is a prerequesite. By the time the accuser went to the university to institute the process, one or more of the accused were no longer at the university (so there can't/won't be a procedure for non-students is my understanding). Note that the incident occurred before UM had amended its code to cover off-campus incidents like this, and the incident occurred off-campus. Just before graduation in 2012, one of the accused won his student code panel in a 7-0 vote, apparently. A similar charge was then dropped against at least one other accused. These two seniors were allowed to graduate.

Jeez, how much old news came be brought up by the Missoulian? By now, Florio has to know the result of that student code procedure, and certainly knows that the police declined to pursue charges, twice. In my view, Florio has just been very dishonest. Note in particular that she left out these several very key facts.

If what your Jezebel article says is accurate, then why did O'Day and the Coach get fired?

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Sure they do, and when its all over the U will look great. The comments from the DOJ have already confirmed that. And should the U keep things up they will look even better. That doesn't mean it was all smoke. FVV and the City police department will likley NOT fare so well.

In admist all the defensive posturing was the fact what got the ball rolling was the handeling was the Saudi incident, and the fact at minimum coach had knowledge for over a year that he didn't pass along (as required) delaying university investigation (as required) As usual it was not the action that caused the problem but the attempt to cover it up or hide it....... Note the Missoula city Police department also had the information and failed to pass it on.

The DOJ lawyer is quoted as saying there is no evidence of a cover up.

The city police have no obligation to notify the University of their investigations. They notified the football coach that they wouldn't be pressing charges. Should he have reported it up the chain? ABSOLUTELY, but you are really stretching things here...

At least under then-current UM policies and procedures, there was no requirement for the coach to pass along the information. In addition, the matter happened at a house off of the campus, and at that time the UM code had not yet been amended to include matters occurring out of the campus. Lastly, the coach was provided only minimal information by the police and not not told by the police what the accuser's name was or that she was a UM student. Even if the coach had told higher-ups at UM, it's my understanding that UM could not have instituted the student code process, as that requires initiation by the accuser.

 

[Washgrizfan1]

Sure they do, and when its all over the U will look great. The comments from the DOJ have already confirmed that. And should the U keep things up they will look even better. That doesn't mean it was all smoke. FVV and the City police department will likley NOT fare so well.

In admist all the defensive posturing was the fact what got the ball rolling was the handeling was the Saudi incident, and the fact at minimum coach had knowledge for over a year that he didn't pass along (as required) delaying university investigation (as required) As usual it was not the action that caused the problem but the attempt to cover it up or hide it....... Note the Missoula city Police department also had the information and failed to pass it on.

The DOJ lawyer is quoted as saying there is no evidence of a cover up.

The city police have no obligation to notify the University of their investigations. They notified the football coach that they wouldn't be pressing charges. Should he have reported it up the chain? ABSOLUTELY, but you are really stretching things here...

Why should the matter have been reported up? Police had declined to pursue. No policy at the time to report up. Coach had mininmal information and wasn't informed by the police that the woman was a student, or was her name given. What would the university have done with the information?

 

[Washgrizfan1]

This is a quote from the DOJ release.

"The problems we found at the University of Montana were real and significant. These concerns, however, are not unique to this campus."

Haven't many people been saying all along that all campuses and college towns have issues with sexual assault, and that by the stats, the problems in Missoula are lower than they are in other similar college towns?

 

[grzz]

Sure they do, and when its all over the U will look great. The comments from the DOJ have already confirmed that. And should the U keep things up they will look even better. That doesn't mean it was all smoke. FVV and the City police department will likley NOT fare so well.

In admist all the defensive posturing was the fact what got the ball rolling was the handeling was the Saudi incident, and the fact at minimum coach had knowledge for over a year that he didn't pass along (as required) delaying university investigation (as required) As usual it was not the action that caused the problem but the attempt to cover it up or hide it....... Note the Missoula city Police department also had the information and failed to pass it on.

The DOJ lawyer is quoted as saying there is no evidence of a cover up.

The city police have no obligation to notify the University of their investigations. They notified the football coach that they wouldn't be pressing charges. Should he have reported it up the chain? ABSOLUTELY, but you are really stretching things here...

Why should the matter have been reported up? Police had declined to pursue. No policy at the time to report up. Coach had mininmal information and wasn't informed by the police that the woman was a student, or was her name given. What would the university have done with the information?

Because the football coach has a boss, and they should tell that boss about serious matters. If this scenario was in any other position, most people on this board would agree a supervisor should have been told. At any rate, I think you should focus on the bigger issue I am laying out here that TNT is making this bigger than it is, and not this completely irrelevant point.

 

[uofmman1122]

What about this doozy, UmGriz75?

"Six University of Montana football players, including three who allegedly attacked a single woman, have been accused over the three years of involvement in sexual assaults, according to a yearlong U.S. Department of Justice investigation into how UM handled sexual assaults.

The university did not institute Student Conduct Code procedures against those three players until nearly a year after the coach knew the alleged victim had filed a report with the Missoula Police Department, according to a letter from the DOJ to UM President Royce Engstrom and Lucy France, university counsel."

Do you think the University handled that issue properly?

This "doozy" appears to be all or mostly from the Dec. 2010 blow job incident (see jezebel.com article). This is the one where the police/prosecutors have now declined to pursue it twice (in Dec. 2010) and again in early 2012. The university didn't institute SCC procedures because the accuser didn't got to the university to institute the procedures, which is a prerequesite. By the time the accuser went to the university to institute the process, one or more of the accused were no longer at the university (so there can't/won't be a procedure for non-students is my understanding). Note that the incident occurred before UM had amended its code to cover off-campus incidents like this, and the incident occurred off-campus. Just before graduation in 2012, one of the accused won his student code panel in a 7-0 vote, apparently. A similar charge was then dropped against at least one other accused. These two seniors were allowed to graduate.

Jeez, how much old news came be brought up by the Missoulian? By now, Florio has to know the result of that student code procedure, and certainly knows that the police declined to pursue charges, twice. In my view, Florio has just been very dishonest. Note in particular that she left out these several very key facts.

If what your Jezebel article says is accurate, then why did O'Day and the Coach get fired?

Really?? I know you've been here regularly for quite a while. Are you just willfully ignoring everything that happened this year?

Both got fired because of the JJ incident. It was made apparent during the trial despite the prosecution's best efforts to imply otherwise.

 

[indian-outlaw]

Here is the biggie, they didn't say yea or nay. After the fact they can only speculate whether the cops did their job or not. Knowing the Missoula town clowns I wouldn't be very confident saying there was no wrong doing by the cops or the district attorney. I think RE is doing the right thing by cooperating and not taking a hard line stance with the feds. It will be good in the long run to play along with them.

"Federal officials declined to discuss specific cases or to say if any cases went unprosecuted without good reason."