Screamin_Eagle174
Well-known member
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpgDtoj73DQ[/youtube]
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
The real details in the "unsealed document" - shocking
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
My dad's been telling me for a whole that he thinks this is a witch hunt, bunch of bullshit, and that JJ's simply only being made an example of to take the heat off the admin to make it look like they're doing something.
(For the record, Tokyogriz is not my father)
For the most part I dismissed it and thought there had to be some truth to the accusations, especially since we hadn't heard anything from JJ or anyone about it, and because I trusted the new leadership at least enough to not do something so awful just to fix its appropriately damaged reputation.
I honestly don't see how that's not exactly what they're doing anymore, though. If they're guilty of doing even just one or two of the things Paoli described in the brief, let alone all of them, that's completely outrageous.
If JJ isn't guilty, he seriously deserves an apology from many people. If he is guilty, why the hell would you go to all the trouble to silence him and ostracize him like Coture is accused of doing? I'm trying to stay objective, but it makes absolutely no goddamned sense.
Seriously. WTF is going on at UM? :evil:
(For the record, Tokyogriz is not my father)
For the most part I dismissed it and thought there had to be some truth to the accusations, especially since we hadn't heard anything from JJ or anyone about it, and because I trusted the new leadership at least enough to not do something so awful just to fix its appropriately damaged reputation.
I honestly don't see how that's not exactly what they're doing anymore, though. If they're guilty of doing even just one or two of the things Paoli described in the brief, let alone all of them, that's completely outrageous.
If JJ isn't guilty, he seriously deserves an apology from many people. If he is guilty, why the hell would you go to all the trouble to silence him and ostracize him like Coture is accused of doing? I'm trying to stay objective, but it makes absolutely no goddamned sense.
Seriously. WTF is going on at UM? :evil:
uofmman1122 said:
Good post!
I too am trying to stay open minded with these series of events but it is getting downright embarrassing. I have always taken a lot of pride in the UM. This past year has challenged that greatly.
The case was filed by the plaintiff on May 8, seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the university proceeding (pending a determination of the proper standard). On May 8, the judge denied issuing a temporary restraining order against the university. The university decision was dated May 23. The judge ordered the parties to show cause why the complaint (to stop the university proceeding) was not now moot. On June 22, the plainfiff asked that the complaint be dismissed. On June 26, the judge dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiff can file another complaint on the subject in the future, and ordered the court file to be unsealed (except for certain name).
The judge's statement about the poor univessity process, presumably including the changing of the standard during the proceeding, seems to invite another complaint. A case could be brought for a preliminary injunction (and tro) to stop the university from expelling the plaintiff. A court might accept the argument that the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by allowing the university to expel and that the plaintiff is likely to win the argument on process, especially the changing of the standard.
While the changing of the standard in mid-stream had been known and discussed, it looks like the university process and bias, of the dean and others (as discussed in this thread), were worse than anyone had known.
I have felt for some time that this matter might ultimately get decided in court, based on the bad-process and standard-changing arguments. I have also wondered if the plaintiff, if he is expelled, might have a big monetary claim against the university (and perhaps some of its employees). The plaintiff's attorney is a plaintiffs lawyer, and he has successfully sued government entities in the past. If the reactions of people in this thread are at all representative of a Montana jury, it would seem that a jury might find big-time for the plaintiff.
It looks like this process started out in the wrong direction with the involvement of the dean. He's the same guy who many believe goofed up the Saudi student matter. The same guy who said the Dec. 2010 incident was a gang rape, and then it turned out that the university panel (apparently) voted 7-0 against his view. Man, he appears to have been really bad news, as well as incompetent. Glad he's gone, but what a series of messes he's left.
I feel sorry for the accuser and the accused for many reasons, including because this has become so public. However, it could get worse if there is further litigation if the details of the incident are eventually argued in court.
The judge's statement about the poor univessity process, presumably including the changing of the standard during the proceeding, seems to invite another complaint. A case could be brought for a preliminary injunction (and tro) to stop the university from expelling the plaintiff. A court might accept the argument that the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed by allowing the university to expel and that the plaintiff is likely to win the argument on process, especially the changing of the standard.
While the changing of the standard in mid-stream had been known and discussed, it looks like the university process and bias, of the dean and others (as discussed in this thread), were worse than anyone had known.
I have felt for some time that this matter might ultimately get decided in court, based on the bad-process and standard-changing arguments. I have also wondered if the plaintiff, if he is expelled, might have a big monetary claim against the university (and perhaps some of its employees). The plaintiff's attorney is a plaintiffs lawyer, and he has successfully sued government entities in the past. If the reactions of people in this thread are at all representative of a Montana jury, it would seem that a jury might find big-time for the plaintiff.
It looks like this process started out in the wrong direction with the involvement of the dean. He's the same guy who many believe goofed up the Saudi student matter. The same guy who said the Dec. 2010 incident was a gang rape, and then it turned out that the university panel (apparently) voted 7-0 against his view. Man, he appears to have been really bad news, as well as incompetent. Glad he's gone, but what a series of messes he's left.
I feel sorry for the accuser and the accused for many reasons, including because this has become so public. However, it could get worse if there is further litigation if the details of the incident are eventually argued in court.
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
Finally, some progress in getting to the heart of this whole nightmare,for everyone tied the U of M. I am really beginning to think, Engstrom will be gone. O'day, and Pflu will be vindicated of whatever they were let go, and will have rather good life, moving forward.
When that happens, can we get O'day back, at least?
When that happens, can we get O'day back, at least?
In a criminal court case, I believe the accuser's texts would likely be considered to be hearsay and not admissible in court, unless they were admitted under some except--like the "excited utterance" exception. See wiki, below, on the that exception. I don't know whether texts could be considered to be excited utterances. The admitting of the texts, or not, would presumably be hotly contested by both sides in court. Of course, there isn't a court case pending, so this is just a presumably irrelevant tidbit that I thought I'd pass along (because a criminal lawyer friend, not in Missoula, mentioned it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
WaGriz4life
Well-known member
Dude you are a good poster but when you talk seriously about the NBA Finals being fixed and O'day being reinstated as AD, you are hard to take seriously.mtgrizrule said:
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
WaGriz4life said:
As for the finals, being fixed, I did not post that. I posted playoffs are "somewhat" influenced, to help the NBA get the results they prefer, without being overly obvious. Difference in being fixed, and influenced. I am entitled to my opinion, and you do not have to agree with it.
AS for O'day, I am being a smart ass, and very much doubt that would ever happen. However, if it did happen, I certainly would love it happening. :thumb:
Thanks Brint and PR for your explanations.
It seems to me that there is a lot more to come down relating to this case and that it is not going away soon or without a bigger fight. I just don't understand the actions of Couture and the University and if the Judge chastised the University's handling of this inquiry I don't possibly see how the University could go through with the expulsion. Seems to me the accused could end up owning a University.
In my mind I have a rough time seeing this go forward through the legal system. If it does and if the accused is determined to be guilty by the legal system then so be it. However, I think that is a separate and distinct problem than the University's handling of this situation.
It seems to me that there is a lot more to come down relating to this case and that it is not going away soon or without a bigger fight. I just don't understand the actions of Couture and the University and if the Judge chastised the University's handling of this inquiry I don't possibly see how the University could go through with the expulsion. Seems to me the accused could end up owning a University.
In my mind I have a rough time seeing this go forward through the legal system. If it does and if the accused is determined to be guilty by the legal system then so be it. However, I think that is a separate and distinct problem than the University's handling of this situation.
goatcreekgriz
Well-known member
This is all very disappointing, and I am glad DP pushed it. The appeal to the BOR may be necessary to exhaust administrative remedies. I think the text may be admissible as a statement against interest given where the roommate was during the activities. Judge C was certainly disappointed with UM and its counsel. So am I.
So as I understand it nothing will happen regarding the appeal until after July 24th. Does anybody know if there is a time limit that Clay Christian has in making a decision? We're likely looking at August before a decision is made. If the ruing is confidential how will we know? I'm sure the rumors will start to fly. We'll have to wait for the first gd snap of the season if we have to rely upon Go.griz.com roster info.
OK some more stuff as I round out the document:
- Text convo on page 121/122: The victim texting a friend (possibly the exculpatory evidence left out of the hearings?) where the victim states, "he will take care of everything
he would do everything in his power to convict him bcuz he is on my side." Quite obviously the "he" taking care of everything is Coture, and the "him" being convicted is the defendant.
- Plaintiff "Doe" (the accused student) has requested a whole new investigative process citing clear bias of former dean Coture. Furthermore Paoli points out that title 9 states the accused is given the right of an investigative process that is impartial, which Coture was not.
- It appears a lot of the sealed documents on behalf of the accused student were provided to the Msla DA's office upon their own request and granted by the UM.
- Page 221 is Engstom's letter to the accused student he states the "Dear Colleuage" letter (preponderance of evidence) gives enough evidence to uphold the verdict. He additionally finds no procedural error and suggests the process was fair. (It would lead me to believe that Royce did not review statements such as the ones Paoli points out in the first 100 pages or esle I could not imagine how one would find this hearing fair).
- The UM has until July 13th to provide their reponse to the current appeal, Paoli and his defendent then have until the 24th of July for their portion.
- Page 230, Commissioner Christian will review both sides and make a decision of what to do. This letter is blurry on the line but I think I read it is July 9 that all info must be recieved and then a ruling will be made within 3 weeks.
- There was a June 22nd hearing to discuss if the "case is now moot and should be dismissed" or "unsealed" either totally or partially. It seems all that was sent in was a status report from both sides with arguments over editing original copies and what was permissable.
------
It appears that this is where it stands.
- Text convo on page 121/122: The victim texting a friend (possibly the exculpatory evidence left out of the hearings?) where the victim states, "he will take care of everything
he would do everything in his power to convict him bcuz he is on my side." Quite obviously the "he" taking care of everything is Coture, and the "him" being convicted is the defendant.- Plaintiff "Doe" (the accused student) has requested a whole new investigative process citing clear bias of former dean Coture. Furthermore Paoli points out that title 9 states the accused is given the right of an investigative process that is impartial, which Coture was not.
- It appears a lot of the sealed documents on behalf of the accused student were provided to the Msla DA's office upon their own request and granted by the UM.
- Page 221 is Engstom's letter to the accused student he states the "Dear Colleuage" letter (preponderance of evidence) gives enough evidence to uphold the verdict. He additionally finds no procedural error and suggests the process was fair. (It would lead me to believe that Royce did not review statements such as the ones Paoli points out in the first 100 pages or esle I could not imagine how one would find this hearing fair).
- The UM has until July 13th to provide their reponse to the current appeal, Paoli and his defendent then have until the 24th of July for their portion.
- Page 230, Commissioner Christian will review both sides and make a decision of what to do. This letter is blurry on the line but I think I read it is July 9 that all info must be recieved and then a ruling will be made within 3 weeks.
- There was a June 22nd hearing to discuss if the "case is now moot and should be dismissed" or "unsealed" either totally or partially. It seems all that was sent in was a status report from both sides with arguments over editing original copies and what was permissable.
------
It appears that this is where it stands.
Finally near the end of the document you find a 2 page bulleted summary prepared on behalf of Dean Coture that outlines his case against the accused student:
- The accused student texts the alleged victim, she picks him up to watch a movie at her place, in her room.
- They had been to multiple dances together, have been on at least 1 date, and had kissed before.
- Roomates were there playing video games.
- Kissed on her bed with shirts off.
- Accused student presses the issue, alleged victim says, "No, not tonight." Report states that she says this many times. Pressed onto the bed, tries to push him back with her legs.
- Afterwards accused student gets a towel to clean up, alleged victim texts roomates, "I think I was raped". She then drives him somewhere. Later she picks up a friend from the bar who notices her crying, she tells him she thinks she was raped.
- Next day she goes to SARC and gets counciling, red marks on her chest, evidence of vaginal intercourse.
- Lots of redaction after this, looks like a suggestion that the offical filing of a claim takes place a few weeks later though.
-------
Of this as you read it straight forward it's open and shut. However the claims that her information changed by the defense and then a refusal by Coture to admit it (even though also being told by her) is where it gets odd. As earlier suggested, if this case is so open and shut why was Coture so obviously biased and apparently immediately "out to get" this accused student? The victim in the revealed text even shows that Coture has promised to fight for her - a clear title 9 violation stating the investigation must be without bias.
- The accused student texts the alleged victim, she picks him up to watch a movie at her place, in her room.
- They had been to multiple dances together, have been on at least 1 date, and had kissed before.
- Roomates were there playing video games.
- Kissed on her bed with shirts off.
- Accused student presses the issue, alleged victim says, "No, not tonight." Report states that she says this many times. Pressed onto the bed, tries to push him back with her legs.
- Afterwards accused student gets a towel to clean up, alleged victim texts roomates, "I think I was raped". She then drives him somewhere. Later she picks up a friend from the bar who notices her crying, she tells him she thinks she was raped.
- Next day she goes to SARC and gets counciling, red marks on her chest, evidence of vaginal intercourse.
- Lots of redaction after this, looks like a suggestion that the offical filing of a claim takes place a few weeks later though.
-------
Of this as you read it straight forward it's open and shut. However the claims that her information changed by the defense and then a refusal by Coture to admit it (even though also being told by her) is where it gets odd. As earlier suggested, if this case is so open and shut why was Coture so obviously biased and apparently immediately "out to get" this accused student? The victim in the revealed text even shows that Coture has promised to fight for her - a clear title 9 violation stating the investigation must be without bias.
.....most of us connected and or employed by the U have known for years the levels of incompetence represented by Main Hall...none of this surprises me. Dennison gathered this Cluster F%#^ over his years of bullying and intimidating anyone who did not share his views.
Having opportunities to 'engage' many of these folks I left with dismay...leadership has never been a strong suit. I am always or was always surprised to see who got hired in these national talent searches....
Having opportunities to 'engage' many of these folks I left with dismay...leadership has never been a strong suit. I am always or was always surprised to see who got hired in these national talent searches....
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
BWahlberg said:
You should be ashamed of yourself Wahlberg, the title of this thread makes me sick. You're taking the Plaintiffs court filing (without a response from the alleged victims representative), and using it to try to cast doubt on the alleged victim. This federal case was brought by the alleged perpetrator and dismissed at his request. What was the point of the case in the first place? I hope it wasn't to get documents out there in the interweb without a response from the other party. This isn't a popularity contest. Grow up (better yet grow a pair), and at least wait until you have more facts before you start casting your bullshit around.
Also Griz-O-Matic, if you happen to have any affadavit filed on behalf of the victim please pass them my way, I'll provide the same info there. What I have to go off is what was printed in that document. The summary written by former DOS Coture is 2 pages long practically, that's all I had to go off.
