Krakauer getting defensive?

[EverettGriz]

For verily I say unto thee, let he among us who is without agenda cast the first stone.

POTY candidate!!!!

 

[Ursa Major]

For verily I say unto thee, let he among us who is without agenda cast the first stone.

The first stone was cast by Royce Engstrom.

He did not seem much concerned with Biblical niceties.

At some point it has to end. All things do. Often in life things have to end before we can move forward. I hope we are well into the final chapter.

 

[UMGriz75]

Hey '75, are you serious about there being video evidence? And if so, who all saw it and why was it not mentioned (as far as I can recall) in any of the numerous articles on the incident?

I teach on campus. The video was well known. The matter was widely considered a joke among students, an "oops, I got caught by my boyfriend having fun" moment. "What I meant was, I was raped, even though the guys probably didn't realize it."

As to why it has not been widely reported on, that's a good question. A real good question.

Read the Missoulian's account of the Krakauer debacle.

A standing-room-only, diverse crowd of more than 600 showed up to listen to an interview of Jon Krakauer by University of Montana School of Journalism dean Larry Abramson on Wednesday night at Missoula's DoubleTree Inn.

"I thought it was actually impressive,” said Melissa Lynn, a teacher at Lowell School. “I came because I didn’t fully understand the controversy about it. My friend (Jeff Heath) had told me about the book. So I just wanted to hear (Krakauer’s) point of view, and after hearing it, I really have a greater appreciation as to his decision, as to why he wrote this book and the positive activities that it’s bringing about. I really had a greater appreciation for it, hearing what he had to say and why he wrote that.”

Lynn said she learned a lot from the forum.

“It changed my perspective on the issues around rape that I don’t think I fully understood, even as a woman, and the problems that exist with it, how it’s not considered a serious crime,” she said.

"How it's not considered a serious crime?" By whom? Are these people simply so consumed by agendas that they have to fabricate false allegations to put into the mouths of non-existent people? Is that the only means by which they have something to say? Blame somebody for something they didn't say?

And she attended the "forum" because she "didn't understand the controversy?" She claims to be a teacher. That requires a university education. And she "didn't understand the controversy?" Did she complain about the audience shouting down the participant that tried to ask questions about "the controversy?" Nope. No evidence that she did. She may have participated in the booing. So, she really was just "wondering" why there is any controversy at all? She failed to have the presence of mind to protest the booing? Indeed, she offered that she thought that a forum where the author admitted to confirmation bias and another Missoulian was shouted down was, in fact, "impressive!"

Oddly, after claiming the crowd was diverse, the reporter added this nugget:

“I thought the crowd was very supportive of Krakauer and that was great,” said Lynn Fagen. “I was very impressed with the book."

A "diverse" crowd, but the reporter could find little actual evidence for it, except for a 16 year old who apparently was the only participant uncomfortable -- he has not yet been properly "educated" -- at a Missoula audience packed with "diverse," and ostensible adults shouting down dissent.

The buried led, at the very end of the article:

Kipp said he was disappointed that a lawyer who questioned Krakauer about whether he engaged in “confirmation bias” was shouted down by the crowd after the interview.

“I also kinda didn’t like the end, how they booed that guy off the stage,” Kipp said. “People in the audience were actually biased when they were doing that. And I think they should have let him talk, I would have liked to hear what he had to say.”

A "Missoula crowd" shouts down a question? Wait a minute, just when did Missoula become a hotbed of oppression and Stalinist tactics? Isn't that kind of big news? Missoula now has people, a lot of them, so cloaked in their self-righteous regard for their own opinions that they feel the need to shout down others?

And fails to note that the "lawyer" -- the reporter knew his profession but not his name? -- only "questioned" Krakauer about confirmation bias without reporting that Krakauer admitted it? That's kind of "stepping over" a major story about this book. Why go to the trouble of leaving out the actual news there: he admitted it!

That wasn't news reporting, that was a press release.

 

[fanofzoo]

For verily I say unto thee, let he among us who is without agenda cast the first stone.

The first stone was cast by Royce Engstrom.

He did not seem much concerned with Biblical niceties.

At some point it has to end. All things do. Often in life things have to end before we can move forward. I hope we are well into the final chapter.

This play is going for several more acts. The investigation or research into all this is just getting off the ground, one day the light will shine.

 

[Sportin' Life]

Hey '75, are you serious about there being video evidence? And if so, who all saw it and why was it not mentioned (as far as I can recall) in any of the numerous articles on the incident?

I teach on campus. The video was well known. The matter was widely considered a joke among students, an "oops, I got caught by my boyfriend having fun" moment. "What I meant was, I was raped, even though the guys probably didn't realize it."

As to why it has not been widely reported on, that's a good question. A real good question.

What department are you in 75? I sure haven't heard much about the alleged video on campus. But it was mentioned by that one drunk girl at Stockman's who wouldn't let the Jezebel reporter use her real name. There is some Rolling Stone caliber reporting. So who now has the confirmation bias again?

It is a case of a lie told often enough becomes the truth. But then again, either way the truth is damning. Let's review.

The woman went in to get a rape kit that night in the middle of the night. I doubt that she thought her boyfriend knew anything, because it is doubtful she could think strait as drunk as she was -- three times the legal limit for driving several hours after she stopped drinking. At the rate alcohol metabolizes it means she was likely in the .25 to .30 range when the incident took place. So that part of the narrative (that she thought of this scheme to cover her tracks from her suspicious boyfriend) seems really suspect. She was by any reasonable understanding of Montana law unable to consent.

So to the video. So in our player's defense we are agreeing that they fed a whole bunch of liquor to this girl, stuck their dicks in her face when she was completely blotto and then video'd it. And we are to believe the existence of this video is widely known because these people shared it with others (how else could they really know about it and what is on it?) These are the people you really want to defend. Honestly I don't know if a jury would convict them, but I would (and I probably would have voted to acquit Johnson). They are taking video of a girl without permission and spreading it around? What a bunch of creeps. Missoula is much better off if they never show up here again.

But then you will say they didn't show the video around. Then it doesn't exist, and is just a rumor. Teaching on campus you should know not every rumor among the student body is true.

Anyways, this will give you three more pages of long masturbatory rape defense posts. Have at it. Defending rape seems to make you happy, so egriz is a good place for you.

 

[PlayerRep]

Hey '75, are you serious about there being video evidence? And if so, who all saw it and why was it not mentioned (as far as I can recall) in any of the numerous articles on the incident?

I teach on campus. The video was well known. The matter was widely considered a joke among students, an "oops, I got caught by my boyfriend having fun" moment. "What I meant was, I was raped, even though the guys probably didn't realize it."

As to why it has not been widely reported on, that's a good question. A real good question.

What department are you in 75? I sure haven't heard much about the alleged video on campus. But it was mentioned by that one drunk girl at Stockman's who wouldn't let the Jezebel reporter use her real name. There is some Rolling Stone caliber reporting. So who now has the confirmation bias again?

It is a case of a lie told often enough becomes the truth. But then again, either way the truth is damning. Let's review.

The woman went in to get a rape kit that night in the middle of the night. I doubt that she thought her boyfriend knew anything, because it is doubtful she could think strait as drunk as she was -- three times the legal limit for driving several hours after she stopped drinking. At the rate alcohol metabolizes it means she was likely in the .25 to .30 range when the incident took place. So that part of the narrative (that she thought of this scheme to cover her tracks from her suspicious boyfriend) seems really suspect. She was by any reasonable understanding of Montana law unable to consent.

So to the video. So in our player's defense we are agreeing that they fed a whole bunch of liquor to this girl, stuck their dicks in her face when she was completely blotto and then video'd it. And we are to believe the existence of this video is widely known because these people shared it with others (how else could they really know about it and what is on it?) These are the people you really want to defend. Honestly I don't know if a jury would convict them, but I would (and I probably would have voted to acquit Johnson). They are taking video of a girl without permission and spreading it around? What a bunch of creeps. Missoula is much better off if they never show up here again.

But then you will say they didn't show the video around. Then it doesn't exist, and is just a rumor. Teaching on campus you should know not every rumor among the student body is true.

Anyways, this will give you three more pages of long masturbatory rape defense posts. Have at it. Defending rape seems to make you happy, so egriz is a good place for you.

I thought I had read that she went to ER later that night and did the rape kit a few days later. The Book indicated that she went to the ER because of serious injuries from the incident, but others have said it was because she was sick from alcohol. It is possible that she continued to drink/do shots during and after the incident, and alcohol does not register immediately after drinking it, so it's possible that her BAC went up after the incident not down. I saw a good blurb on that in the Missoulian comments, and will try to find and post. Some rumors on the video indicate that it shows that she initiated things, not the guys. The two most damning facts seem to be that the accuser's friend who was there, and in the same bedroom, contradicted the accuser's story, and the accuser admitted to police that the guys wouldn't have known that she didn't give consent (which is a requirement of MT law). Those 2 factors severely undercut probably cause. People can't be charged without probably cause. There's a rumor than the case of the only player to have his matter go through the university panel hearing, ended with the player winning his case 6-0. If true, it sure doesn't look like the accuser was believed or had a good case. Yes, many rumors aren't true.

 

[UMGriz75]

Hey '75, are you serious about there being video evidence? And if so, who all saw it and why was it not mentioned (as far as I can recall) in any of the numerous articles on the incident?

I teach on campus. The video was well known. The matter was widely considered a joke among students, an "oops, I got caught by my boyfriend having fun" moment. "What I meant was, I was raped, even though the guys probably didn't realize it."

As to why it has not been widely reported on, that's a good question. A real good question.

What department are you in 75? I sure haven't heard much about the alleged video on campus. But it was mentioned by that one drunk girl at Stockman's who wouldn't let the Jezebel reporter use her real name. There is some Rolling Stone caliber reporting. So who now has the confirmation bias again?

It is a case of a lie told often enough becomes the truth. But then again, either way the truth is damning. Let's review.

The woman went in to get a rape kit that night in the middle of the night. I doubt that she thought her boyfriend knew anything, because it is doubtful she could think strait as drunk as she was -- three times the legal limit for driving several hours after she stopped drinking.

If you haven't "heard much on campus," it is likely because everyone on campus at that time, except the slow ones, have graduated. They're gone. Who would be "discussing it" among the dwindling current student body? Oops. Those nasty details.

Oh, she was blottoed but "went and got a rape kit that night?" How? She said she had passed out. Did she drive? Did her roommate, the one that took the video and testified that she appeared to be enjoying it and actively participating, indeed, "initiating"? Or is this just another one of the false statements designed to prove something that didn't happen? That she didn't get a rape kit "that night."

Of was it her statement to the investigating officers that the guys likely "did not think" it was rape? Of course, in your world, the testimony of all the witnesses cannot count for anything especially if the testimony of an admittedly drunk women conflicts with the testimony of a drunk girl at the Stock's? Right? Because drunk women do or don't tell the truth? Or just when one drunk version fits your bias?

Or are those just "inconvenient truths" for your confirmation bias?

 

[UMGriz75]

There's a rumor than the case of the only player to have his matter go through the university panel hearing, ended with the player winning his case 6-0. If true, it sure doesn't look like the accuser was believed or had a good case. Yes, many rumors aren't true.

That is my understanding. That key "facts" played into the unanimous decision: 1) the admission that the guys wouldn't have known, 2) her admission that her boyfriend had demanded she report it as a "rape," 3) the unanimous testimony of all of the witnesses including her roommate that she was an active, and gleeful, participant, and 4) the video.

My understanding also is that she voluntarily downed a number of jello shots in rapid succession just before the activities. She was "looking to party." However, BAC is not an measure of consumption, it is a measure of absorption.

"For normal social-type drinking, the highest BAC is usually achieved within 30 minutes after completion of consumption, though it could take as long as 60 minutes. When large amounts of alcohol are consumed over a short time interval, ... the absorption phase may not be complete for up to two (2) hours after last consumption."

That is consistent with the testimony that well into the "activities" she did in fact begin slurring and finally did pass out. It is also consistent with her admission that, at the time, the guys likely could not have known she "was not consenting," aside from the fact that she offered every indication that she was consenting. There was a point at which she clearly could not. The absorption curve suggests that was later, not sooner. It was also over at that point.

The unfortunate point underscored is that Missoula's main reporting source, the Missoulian, and now, Krakauer, have not evidenced objectivity in any sense. Florio clapping enthusiastically even as Krakauer admitted "confirmation bias" demonstrates that the enthusiasm for reporting the "facts" of that incident is low. Indeed, the very people complaining that the incident has been "poorly" reported, and that everything seems based on rumor is, in fact, the problem. For some reason, there is no clearly reported set of facts from those sources who have devoted the time and interest on reporting on it. Their reporting appears reluctant to set out a clear narrative.

Was there a video? I've certainly heard from sources that "ought" to know that there was. The "rumor," if it is one, is certainly out there. Isn't it odd that the Missoulian, in covering the incident recently, failed or refused to put the "rumor" to rest?

The angry participant certainly knows it is out there. After all, it has been published by Jezebel, and Missoulian comments have mentioned it. The "rumor" is well known and well-circulated.

Wouldn't her natural goal in bringing this to the attention of the Missoulian to be, first, to denounce it as a "d*** lie?"

If it was?

 

[PlayerRep]

Here's the well-written Missoulian comment on BAC:

"As to the alcohol evidence, there is no "legal limit" in Montana There is a blood or breath test result by which a jury may infer, but does not have to infer, that a person was impaired in driving. It ONLY applies in DUI cases. It has no application anywhere else. As to the result of .219, a bare number says nothing. This was, apparently, a result taken at a hospital some time after the events in question. Because the people were apparently drinking shots, it is entirely possible that the girl's BAC could have been lower, not higher at the time of the incident. Why? Because it takes a variable amount of time for alcohol to be absorbed into the blood stream. That is why a person drinking shots of alcohol will seem and feel all right for a period of time before the alcohol "hits." Without knowing any more, there is no way to tell what her BAC was at the time of the incident. Further, if it was a hospital blood test and draw, then it was probably a test of serum, vs. whole blood. That method can make a BAC 25%-30% higher than a test on whole blood."

 

[UMGriz75]

The BAC confirms that she did go to the ER later in the evening, and that the complaint was for alcohol poisoning. I have not been able to find that there was any complaint of "rape" while at the ER that night. It is also suggestive that the BAC had maxed by the time she was tested, but offers nothing at all about what her BAC might have been at the time of the "incident." Indeed, in a criminal proceeding, it would likely be subject to a motion in limine as prejudicial without offering probative value.

If "injuries" from rape had been the reason for the visit the ER staff would have been obligated for those kinds of injuries to proceed as though a rape had occurred and in particular for a highly inebriated person, including a rape kit and a police report. That kind of evidence would have been hugely in her favor in both the University proceeding and for the purposes of filing criminal charges. While injuries do not necessarily indicate rape, they certainly raise the issue and in particular if the person is inebriated.

Judging by the muddled coverage offered by the Missoulian and Krakauer, that evidence did not exist.

 

[EverettGriz]

Good post, Sportin.

75, I think you may want to consider that it might well be time to give this a rest.

 

[UMGriz75]

Good post, Sportin.

75, I think you may want to consider that it might well be time to give this a rest.

Unfortunately, according to Krakauer, he doesn't think so, and if he wins his lawsuit, will likely write another book, more "JJ and Football program" specific. He does not feel he has done enough damage. JJ will be made to "pay" for being found "not guilty." Anyone that supports that agenda needs to have their head examined.

What it is "time" to do is to push back against the "narrative" with actual facts, a "narrative" that has so far cost this University plummeting enrollments and nearly $30 million in lost revenue, because of mendacious reporting of it, supported by apologists.

 

[Umista]

Naw, I think 75 is telling the facts way ahead of the Krak's and the Missoulian's blubbering accounts of the rape.

This side of the information should end up in the Missoulian rag. However the dumb are doomed to not "get it".....

 

[EverettGriz]

Good post, Sportin.

75, I think you may want to consider that it might well be time to give this a rest.

Unfortunately, according to Krakauer, he doesn't think so, and if he wins his lawsuit, will likely write another book, more "JJ and Football program" specific. He does not feel he has done enough damage. JJ will be made to "pay" for being found "not guilty." Anyone that supports that agenda needs to have their head examined.

What it is "time" to do is to push back against the "narrative" with actual facts, a "narrative" that has so far cost this University plummeting enrollments and nearly $30 million in lost revenue, because of mendacious reporting of it, supported by apologists.

75, I'm certainly fine with proffering the fact that rape cases are rarely black and white, and that innocent people are sometimes charged. I'd simply suggest that you've already made that point well, and repeatedly.

I simply submit for consideration that continuing to trumpet the 4-player gang-bang situation as an example to support that position may not be the best course of action. Was that sex consensual? Did the woman have the legal ability to consent? Is there a video? Does it corroborate the player's story? I dunno.

What I DO know is that in the best case scenario -- BEST case -- the players put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation, and made some terrible moral decisions leading to some very questionable actions; decisions and actions most of us would not want our own sons to make and take.

That seemingly doesn't help propel the discussion we wish to have, I don't believe. We're going to lose that argument in the court of public opinion, perhaps rightly so.

 

[PlayerRep]

Good post, Sportin.

75, I think you may want to consider that it might well be time to give this a rest.

Many things in Sportin's post are not true. Why would you support posts that are inaccurate? Perhaps you need to step back from your agenda. 75 was responding to Sportin's post. Maybe you should direct your views toward Krakauer and Missoulian. They are the ones that are continuing their crusade. If people like Sportin, Krakauer and the Missoulian weren't spouting incorrect info and not on their crusade, I assume that 75 would be silent on this subject.

 

[PlayerRep]

Good post, Sportin.

75, I think you may want to consider that it might well be time to give this a rest.

Unfortunately, according to Krakauer, he doesn't think so, and if he wins his lawsuit, will likely write another book, more "JJ and Football program" specific. He does not feel he has done enough damage. JJ will be made to "pay" for being found "not guilty." Anyone that supports that agenda needs to have their head examined.

What it is "time" to do is to push back against the "narrative" with actual facts, a "narrative" that has so far cost this University plummeting enrollments and nearly $30 million in lost revenue, because of mendacious reporting of it, supported by apologists.

75, I'm certainly fine with proffering the fact that rape cases are rarely black and white, and that innocent people are sometimes charged. I'd simply suggest that you've already made that point well, and repeatedly.

I simply submit for consideration that continuing to trumpet the 4-player gang-bang situation as an example to support that position may not be the best course of action. Was that sex consensual? Did the woman have the legal ability to consent? Is there a video? Does it corroborate the player's story? I dunno.

What I DO know is that in the best case scenario -- BEST case -- the players put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation, and made some terrible moral decisions leading to some very questionable actions; decisions and actions most of us would not want our own sons to make and take.

That seemingly doesn't help propel the discussion we wish to have, I don't believe. We're going to lose that argument in the court of public opinion, perhaps rightly so.

Just because you don't know the answers to your 4 questions in your second para, doesn't mean that others, like 75, don't know. Experienced investigators and prosecutors looked at your questions (or 3 of them) at two different times, and already answered those questions. I think I heard that the Montana AG's office also looked at the situation and came to the same conclusion as the police/prosecutors, but maybe this related to another matter. It never ceases to amaze me how many posters on egriz seem to be that if they don't know something, then no one else can know that something either.

I agree with your 3d paragraph. Horrible decision by the guys. I wonder how their conversations went with their parents after Pflu made them call their parents and tell them what had occurred.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Why don't you write a book, Mr. Dove? That way you can expound upon your narrative to your heart's content, and anyone who's interested can buy a copy and read it with a flashlight under his bed sheet. And enrollment will go back up, and Engstrom will be fired, and a statue of JJ will be erected on the courthouse lawn, and all of your other fantasies will come true.

I ain't an apologist - I'm just bored with it, and a little creeped out. Sorry.

 

[EverettGriz]

Good God, pr. Your continued defense of the defenseless actions of those players is reprehensible. Was it crime? Who knows. And frankly, who cares. What they did was wrong. And if you cannot admit that, seek counseling.

And great post AWF.

 

[UMGriz75]

I simply submit for consideration that continuing to trumpet the 4-player gang-bang situation as an example to support that position may not be the best course of action. Was that sex consensual? Did the woman have the legal ability to consent? Is there a video? Does it corroborate the player's story? I dunno. ... That seemingly doesn't help propel the discussion we wish to have, I don't believe. We're going to lose that argument in the court of public opinion, perhaps rightly so.

The court of public opinion was inflamed by a recent front page article by the angry participant, an article artfully designed to present "her" opinion that everyone was wrong but her. The article left out so much, it was yet another press release for a particular narrative.

Unfortunately, the "narrative" is being driven now by Krakauter's announced intention of doing a book more focused on JJ, and his recent public comments that went far beyond what he said in his Novel. Naturally, these are being -- as one national reviewer noted -- artfully co-mingled with other incidents, and then repeated, in an obvious effort to leverage facts and non-facts into narratives that have no other purpose than to prove a point that cannot be made, and in particular about popular White Quarterbacks who, because of "privilege" must be held accountable, and if the legal system "fails," it is not because of lack of guilt, it is because the legal system itself fails to incorporate social justice needs independent of facts or actual guilt or innocence.

Letting those fabricated "facts" go unchallenged permits the athletes to be found guilty as charged in precisely that "court of public opinion."

 

[getgrizzy]

PR and 75 are great entertainment. But I agree with Everett that their stances on this are embarrassing to our supporters everywhere. They don't seem to understand that people can observe the same set of information and come to varying conclusions.

My concern has shifted to what the NCAA will do if it's found that the guilty verdict from the U court was overturned improperly? Will we be sanctioned again if JJ was participating in games when he should've been expelled?