How is he casting bullshit? Everything Wahlberg put out there is in the giant PDF released by the Missoulian.
-
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
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
BWahlberg said:
You were only 1/2 way through the document but your opinion is so important that you need to cast doubt on the alleged rape victim? Come on!!
If you're going to form an early opinion and cast doubt on an alleged rape victim, you probably shouldn't couch your opinion with the disclaimer that you only have half the story. You're a complete tool.
You really weren't clear on why you were embarased to read that kind of information. Do you think someone is lying?
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
Griz-O-Matic said:
You list your fan of as "Montanan Florios".
That says it all asshat.
There is no guilt or not guilt in this thread. You are either intentionally misleading with your post or just plain stupid.
The entire thread casts doubt on the "Unbiased" investigation that UM performed by Coutre/Engstrom in their Kangaroo court. Thats it stupid.
Why dont you grow a pair and post your name asshole?
Brandon Palmer
Griz-O-Matic said:
1. I was halfway through the document with my original post after reading all of the information in the documents (have you read them yet?) in which I reported the documents which did indeed cast a TON of doubt but most all of it as you read it is around the process - not the victim per se. Point out to me in the original post where I directly brought out question to the victim herself. Additionally once I got the other parts done I edited the original to add links to it to be easily found.
2. Give me the other side then, it might sway my opinion.
3. I was embarassed to read the alleged way a supposed "impartial" dean of students acted in an investigation yes.
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
BWahlberg said:
If I come across any victim affidavits I'll pass them your way, as long as you include "shocking" in the title when you post them here.
funny water
Well-known member
Tokyo I noticed this Grizo-matic shockingly ignored your request.....
Not real sure how BW took a side in any of this when all he did was summarize a document.... go read it yourself GM then post your own summary.....
Not real sure how BW took a side in any of this when all he did was summarize a document.... go read it yourself GM then post your own summary.....
Some miscellaneous items:
1. In Engstrom's June 6 letter to the accused, agreeing with the panel's conclusions and expulsion, Engstrom's last line is: "I am sorry that your career at the University must come to an end."
2. In Engstrom's letter, he says he agreed to Paoli's request to meet with him, so he met with Paoli and "Mr. Lynd". Who's Mr. Lynd?
3. In the dean's March 27 letter, finding a preponderance of the evidence to support the evidence, the dean cites 7 bullet points in support of the decision.
"Your previous misconduct in your Residence Hall" [What does that have to do with the sexual assault allegation.]
"Your assertion the television in the main room in the victim's home was playing at normal volume; as you know, two witnesses have testified otherwise." [I thought it was said that the roommate(s) were playing video games in the other room.]
"Your failure to attempt to retrieve your watch that you forgot at the victim's house, despite your assertion that (sic) watch had been a present to you from ___." [Huh, that's evidence of sexual assault? Did he know where the watch was?]
4. The dean wrote a letter to the accused saying discussing the alleged misconduct with others "would result in your immediate dismissal".
5. Paoli's affidavit says: "DOS Couture's letter did not analyze or even mention the various post-event statements by Ms Smith to DOS Couture and others in whihc she expressed doubt and confusion about what had occurred on the night in question and whetehr she should share in responsibility for what happened."
6. Paoli requested a copy of a statement submitted by a female friend of the accuser, but the university wouldn't provide it. Paoli says: "This statement may contain exculpatory information as well as other information about the case."
7. Early on, Aronofsky told Paoli to "get off the track before [he is] run over by the oncoming train." He also told Paoli to "shut up" in a meeting.
8. In Paoli's April 24 letter to Branch, he says: "Please read the accuser's various statements she has made. In these, she expresses direct claims of responsibility for the events which occurred in her bedroom .... With her statements that she is responsible and that she gave [accused] mixed signals ...."
9. In the May 23 university court decision, no. 17, it says: "On ___, 2012, Ms. ___ met with School of Pharmacy Assistant Dean Lori Morin, where Ms. ___ relayed the events of ___, 2012 to Asst. Dean Morin, who later called the SARC Coordinator on Ms. ___'s behalf.
10. Paoli has made the state equivalent of a freedom of information request of the university, involving alot of people including the people on the university panel, the board of regents, and various MT higher education people. This was done in a June 13 letter.
11. Paoli is an even better lawyer than I had thought, and I had always heard he was very good.
1. In Engstrom's June 6 letter to the accused, agreeing with the panel's conclusions and expulsion, Engstrom's last line is: "I am sorry that your career at the University must come to an end."
2. In Engstrom's letter, he says he agreed to Paoli's request to meet with him, so he met with Paoli and "Mr. Lynd". Who's Mr. Lynd?
3. In the dean's March 27 letter, finding a preponderance of the evidence to support the evidence, the dean cites 7 bullet points in support of the decision.
"Your previous misconduct in your Residence Hall" [What does that have to do with the sexual assault allegation.]
"Your assertion the television in the main room in the victim's home was playing at normal volume; as you know, two witnesses have testified otherwise." [I thought it was said that the roommate(s) were playing video games in the other room.]
"Your failure to attempt to retrieve your watch that you forgot at the victim's house, despite your assertion that (sic) watch had been a present to you from ___." [Huh, that's evidence of sexual assault? Did he know where the watch was?]
4. The dean wrote a letter to the accused saying discussing the alleged misconduct with others "would result in your immediate dismissal".
5. Paoli's affidavit says: "DOS Couture's letter did not analyze or even mention the various post-event statements by Ms Smith to DOS Couture and others in whihc she expressed doubt and confusion about what had occurred on the night in question and whetehr she should share in responsibility for what happened."
6. Paoli requested a copy of a statement submitted by a female friend of the accuser, but the university wouldn't provide it. Paoli says: "This statement may contain exculpatory information as well as other information about the case."
7. Early on, Aronofsky told Paoli to "get off the track before [he is] run over by the oncoming train." He also told Paoli to "shut up" in a meeting.
8. In Paoli's April 24 letter to Branch, he says: "Please read the accuser's various statements she has made. In these, she expresses direct claims of responsibility for the events which occurred in her bedroom .... With her statements that she is responsible and that she gave [accused] mixed signals ...."
9. In the May 23 university court decision, no. 17, it says: "On ___, 2012, Ms. ___ met with School of Pharmacy Assistant Dean Lori Morin, where Ms. ___ relayed the events of ___, 2012 to Asst. Dean Morin, who later called the SARC Coordinator on Ms. ___'s behalf.
10. Paoli has made the state equivalent of a freedom of information request of the university, involving alot of people including the people on the university panel, the board of regents, and various MT higher education people. This was done in a June 13 letter.
11. Paoli is an even better lawyer than I had thought, and I had always heard he was very good.
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
Tokyogriz said:
I disagree, there is guilt in this thread. This thread is meant to cast doubt on the process that has taken place up to this point. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, what I'm saying is it is too early to do that, what we just read in this whole thread was a case brought by an alleged perpetrator and dismissed on that perpetrators request. Maybe everything in this whole information dump is true, and the whole case is bullshit. However, I don't believe there is enough information out there for the general consumption for the readers of E-Griz to make that assumption yet. My point is it's a pretty shitty thing to cast doubt on an alleged rape victim with only half the story. And you can say BW's point of this thread wasn't to cast doubt, but looking at BW's posts and the follow up posts makes me think otherwise. Everybody has an opinion, and it seems everyone's opinion in this thread is pro-alleged perpertrator, when only half the story is out.
Thank you for your time, yours truly,
Asshat
I would suggest you all relax. GOM Should be allowed to state something that is contrary to the "preferred reality" on this board but shouldn't be attacking BW on his comments of what seems to be a mangled process by the UM. Baring any alcohol or drug use there are only two individuals that know the truth here. All you "heroes" of all stripes might want to just discuss things in a rational way and cut the shit out. Like that's going to happen...
Griz-O-Matic said:
Grizomatic,
Sounds like you're describing the dean, the supposed impartial investigator, not BWahlberg.
Much of what is in these documents is what the university and witnesses were saying. It's not just what the accused and his lawyer were saying.
Why aren't you complaining when the Missoulian continues to print only one side of the various stories, i.e. from accusers and their attorneys?
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
It's not "SHOCKING" like when Wahlberg posts it.
Griz-O-Matic
Well-known member
BWahlberg said:
I'm saying you're at the 0.2K point of a 5K race. I can read all three hundred pages and can come away with the assumption that U.M fucked up and JJ is going to get paid big for that mistake regardless of what happens in the future. You are right, the accusations against Coture, Arofnosky and Engstrom are shocking, almost as shocking as the alleged accusations that started this whole shit storm.
This discussion is starting to get eerily similar to getting tazed, everyone calling bullshit, taking a 1/2 a quarter off, then pleading guilty.
Griz-O-Matic said:
You don't know what you're taking about. I've read the entire bunch of docs. You are obviously too lazy to even look at them, but you're attacking BWahlberg, who is trying to report what's on the docs for the board (and doing a good job). The issues regarding the conduct of university officials and the university are real and significant. Even the federal judge agreed generally with the complaints about them. Almost nothing in this thread is about the accusations between the accuser and accused. Because you are too lazy to even look at the docs, you don't know what Wahlberg is talking about, yet you still want to attack him.
