The real details in the "unsealed document" - shocking

[mtgrizrule]

Cheers to getting florioed up!!!

 

[go96griz]

I took the time to read about half of the case documents today. In my humble opionion, the University is in deep trouble due to the actions of the Dean of Students and the Chief Legal Counsel. JJ will take them to the cleaners if he is ultimately dismissed after the comedy of errors that took place in this process. The judge's comments about UM's actions against JJ speak volumes. I am extremely impressed with Paoli as well. It's nice to finally get some clarity in this situation.

 

[UMGriz75]

The "scandal" at the University of Montana may be the utter lack of competence in Main Hall under this Administration.

They can't get the Veteran's tuition budget straight, they threaten the Foresters, Engstrom invokes a hearsay outside study that says there's a problem when the author found allegations at one-third the rate of the sister university, the Dean of Students practically goes out for lunch with a Saudi student who allegedly committed violent sexual assaults on campus, then virtually railroads a proceeding against a student athlete to the point that even a Federal Judge was appalled.

Do athletes want to attend UM in the future? Do Vets? Does anyone?

 

[GrizPony]

I took the time to read about half of the case documents today. In my humble opionion, the University is in deep trouble due to the actions of the Dean of Students and the Chief Legal Counsel. JJ will take them to the cleaners if he is ultimately dismissed after the comedy of errors that took place in this process. The judge's comments about UM's actions against JJ speak volumes. I am extremely impressed with Paoli as well. It's nice to finally get some clarity in this situation.

Does anyone think that RE "accepted" Couture and Aronofsky's retirement because they Florio'd the hearing in JJ's matter so bad that to keep them on would only increase JJ's penultimate verdict against the U?

 

[garizzalies]

what a perfect shitstorm

star qb vs. ex-girlfriend vs. feminazi witchhunters vs. UM vs. feds vs. ncaa ......

you can't make this stuff up. if it were a movie, we'd all call it super fake

 

[Phat Cat]

what a perfect shitstorm

star qb vs. ex-girlfriend vs. feminazi witchhunters vs. UM vs. feds vs. ncaa ......

you can't make this stuff up. if it were a movie, we'd all call it super fake

That's no shit...... I have one question. How do you say "I think I was rape?" I'm sorry. That's frickin buyers remorse......It was her crib, her bed, her legs. I don't buy it folks. I just don't. Sounds like someone didn't want to be, just the flavor of the month. "So he raped me." Shiiiiiiiit.

 

[Ursa Major]

what a perfect shitstorm

star qb vs. ex-girlfriend vs. feminazi witchhunters vs. UM vs. feds vs. ncaa ......

you can't make this stuff up. if it were a movie, we'd all call it super fake

That's no shit...... I have one question. How do you say "I think I was rape?" I'm sorry. That's frickin buyers remorse......It was her crib, her bed, her legs. I don't buy it folks. I just don't. Sounds like someone didn't want to be, just the flavor of the month. "So he raped me." Shiiiiiiiit.

If what was reported in the document from the flawed UM "court" are accurate she would have had to have made that decision moments after the event took place. This jilted girlfriend defense doesn't seem to fly anymore.

 

[PhxGriz]

So JJ was drunk at a University function and got a ride home from a woman he had shared previous flirtation/kissing etc. He appears to have pushed the woman further than she wanted to go. At least that is her perspective. My belief is that she was asking him to stop but that he wasn't hearing her. Literally he did not hear her say 'Stop'. And literally, she did say 'Stop.' Is that grounds for dismissal from The University of Montana? Maybe not. It is certainly behavior inconsistent for the leader of a team.

But in this age of distorted moral boundaries it is not hard to imagine JJ believed he was always in the right. Will he be able to lead his teammates after all that has happened? Will they want him to? Will the coaches want someone who is not of the 'highest moral fiber' leading the team? I think the answeer to all three questions is 'Yes.' Will anyone care about all these sexual accusations if JJ is a good QB in the middle of October? I think not.

My guess is that JJ plays all year with little repercussion. He and the team will even use it is a rallying cry: 'Everyone tries to bring us down, but we will survive and become Champions!' All in all, that is what the fans want. They want JJ to play unless he is guilty of a first degree felony. Go Team! Win. Same as it always was... Same as it always was...

WOW, talk about a post open to every interpretation possible. I read the 1st part, and was about to lose it. The middle brought me back to neutral. The ending has left me clueless in what to think of the post. That is a rare talent. :thumb:

With that said, nobody knows to what extent JJ is guilty, or innocent? In hindsight, I think he is guilty of messing with the wrong kind of woman, and/or being a college student having some fun.

Good one man. :lol:

 

[PhxGriz]

what a perfect shitstorm

star qb vs. ex-girlfriend vs. feminazi witchhunters vs. UM vs. feds vs. ncaa ......

you can't make this stuff up. if it were a movie, we'd all call it super fake

That's no shit...... I have one question. How do you say "I think I was rape?" I'm sorry. That's frickin buyers remorse......It was her crib, her bed, her legs. I don't buy it folks. I just don't. Sounds like someone didn't want to be, just the flavor of the month. "So he raped me." Shiiiiiiiit.

Hey you misogynistic bastige. Don't be hating on women on this board. You might get another faux Missoulian story started.

 

[moose/squirrel]

Noches, I'm not sure I get your point. On the one hand you are saying that the University in this instance is not held to the same standard of due process that is afforded an accused criminal and you imply that they are free to expel or take some sort of punitive action based on the preponderance of evidence alone.

On the other hand you indicate that the University is not an entity unto itself. I believe you used the term "fiefdom". Which one is it?

From what I am able to discern after what has come to light this week this University has not only trampled all over a student's right to a fair hearing at what ever tribunal has been set up, they have completely taken it upon themselves to rewrite the common law doctrine of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and made it GUILTY until proven innocent!

While there is no doubt that the University can establish its own internal process for dealing with these matters, it must still abide by the common law that governs virtually everything we do, regardless of the actual written statute.

Looking back, yes I can see how that would be confusing. Maybe this will help.

On one hand, we had situations that went something like this, and I'm generalizing: Victim-student goes to University to obtain help for alleged incident. University investigates and determines that no immediate action is necessary, other than to notify the accused. For privacy reasons, no reporting is done and other off-campus law enforcement is not involved. Some prefer it that way, others do not. The Saudi incident is one of the most embarrassing, where by sheer arrogance (or ignorance) the University determined that it could handle the situation on its own. The University could have contacted law enforcement to have the Saudi's passport pulled or even arrested him and argued for a high bond due to what is undoubtedly a flight risk. I think most people would agree that the University cannot say in this situation that they have the authority to act as their own fiefdom. The result, applying that process here, was tragic.

On the other hand, we have a situation where a prominent, out of state athlete was accused of rape. The University again decided it could handle the litigation internally. The process now seems to have been a complete disaster for everyone involved, including both the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator. Because the University voted to expell Jordy based on that flawed procedure, there are more people who now recognize just how flawed it is to have a campus process trying to adjudicate business that is best left to real courts of law. The result again is incredibly tragic, because whether or not Jordy is actually guilty of rape isn't the focus of the campus investigation. The result of the investigation determined whether or not he could be a student at this University, and we now know how that turned out.

I don't claim to have all the solutions to this current problem, but the process as it exists now for students and student athletes at the University of Montana is flawed. The lives of young people can be ruined by this process, both students and student athletes alike. If we didn't realize it during the Saudi situation and we finally realize it now, at least it is better now than never.

Well said and spot on.

 

[mtgrizrule]

what a perfect shitstorm

star qb vs. ex-girlfriend vs. feminazi witchhunters vs. UM vs. feds vs. ncaa ......

you can't make this stuff up. if it were a movie, we'd all call it super fake

That's no shit...... I have one question. How do you say "I think I was rape?" I'm sorry. That's frickin buyers remorse......It was her crib, her bed, her legs. I don't buy it folks. I just don't. Sounds like someone didn't want to be, just the flavor of the month. "So he raped me." Shiiiiiiiit.

Let's add to the story lines of U of M ties.
(1) NFL DE married to a tv reality diva, or whatever you want to call her. Meanwhile, his former Safety college teammate just goes about having an obscure quiet NFL life. What does he know, and can he fill us in how "real" the reality show really is?
(2) After being given an extra year of NCAA eligibility, and facing criminal court, make the most of the 2nd chance. He gets drafted, makes the roster, and makes a good impression. Starting his 2nd year, he is thrown into competition for starting safety, all while being on Hard Knocks.
(3)Undrafted FA WR, and CB, find themselves making themselves known, and competing to make the league.
(4) Former FCS all american CB, gets drafted, and likely to be in nickel packages as a rookie. He his former college teammate is now a coach of his.
(5) Former FCS all american safety, on the verge of being a special teams pro bowler, having to fight his way from a bad injury.
(6) The underdog WR/returner has to continue fighting for playing time thanks to higher priced under achieving higher draft picks. Can he get a break?

Got to admit, hard for any college program to have more diversity of interest, and entertainment than our GRIZ. :thumb:

 

[moose/squirrel]

It appears that Engstorm and company feel it is important to make JJ appear as guilty as possible. Without him being guilty, Engstrom loses his justification for firing Pflugrad and O'Day.

Not sure about that. I am not sure that one has anything to do with the other. Engstrom really did not need any further justification for what he did with Pflugrad and O'Day. Change in leadership is enough to not renew contracts. In fact, my guess is that something came to light with the numerous investigations going on, especially the NCAA one that he felt he needed to change the leadership to be proactive.

I think this is Couture compensating for the Saudi student and alleged gang rape thing. It sounds like he was out to make a statement and did just that.

For the umteenth time, UM fired the two guys. It was not a decision not renew contracts. If an employee merely gets a notice not to renew, the employee continues to work at his job for the rest of the term of his contract. It's true that the university does not have to have a reason not to renew a contract.

Nope, don't think your guess about something coming to light in the investigations is accurate. This has been indicated by dozens of people at and around the university. I think Couture is just incompetent and a bad guy.

I think he's a bully and a jerk too...such a meanie.

And after an amazing sequence of events this D bag is Dust in the Wind.

 

[Tokyogriz]

The puppeteer is not gone yet. When Engstrom has packed his desk and handed in his parking pass then this will be done.

 

[Grizlaw]

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.

The exception that I would think would be more likely to apply would be the "prior statement by a witness" exception. Presumably, the alleged victim would testify at the trial, and her testimony would be consistent with what was in the text to the roommates. If the defense were to argue that she fabricated the story after the fact, then the texts could be offered to rebut that argument.

 

[grizfromhel]

Hey guys, a prior statement from a witness who is available to testify is not hearsay---the witness can either admit or deny the veracity of the prior statement---if it is now denied, it can be offered as a prior inconsistent statement Don't get yourself wrapped up in the exceptions to the hearsay rule for something that is not hearsay..

 

[grizfromhel]

I have been out of town and m just catching up on this. All I can say is "Holy Sh**". The UM Student Conduct proceeding makes a kangaroo court seem like a dignified proceeding. We need to continue the cleqn up at Main Hall and get rid of the spineless Engstrom, then bring back Pflu and O'Day, who should never have been fired. I also have to give kudos to my old friend Fred Van V for standing up to the feds. Anybody who thought that Fred was just going to kowtow to the feds for political xpediency doesn't know Fred very well.Good on ya, Fred.

 

[PlayerRep]

Hey guys, a prior statement from a witness who is available to testify is not hearsay---the witness can either admit or deny the veracity of the prior statement---if it is now denied, it can be offered as a prior inconsistent statement Don't get yourself wrapped up in the exceptions to the hearsay rule for something that is not hearsay..

Below is what wiki says. It seems to say that the text is not hearsay only if one of several other conditions are met, assuming the witness is in court testifying and subject to cross-examination. Note that the second condition is consistent with what Grizlaw said, i.e. the text could be admitted to counter the defense saying the witness was lying. I don't know the rules of evidence, so I don't know from knowledge or experience what the answer is. I asked a criminal lawyer whether the text could be admitted. He said it would be hearsay, unless some exception like excited utterance applied, and the witness would have to testify. I didn't pin him down on whether the text could be admitted, if the witness testified. Based on my discussion, what Grizlaw said and the wiki summary below, I'm thinking that the text would be admissible only if Grizlaw's B condition below applied, or there was an applicable exception from the hearsay rule. Again, I don't know this subject area of the law.

"Prior statement of a witness
A prior statement is not hearsay if the person who made the statement (the "declarant") is currently testifying and is subject to cross-examination at the current trial/hearing/proceeding/deposition, and
(A) the prior statement is inconsistent with the declarant's testimony at the current trial/hearing/proceeding/deposition and the prior statement was given under oath at a prior trial/hearing/proceeding/deposition—in which case it may be used both for impeachment and substantively; or
(B) the prior statement is consistent with the declarant's testimony, and is offered to rebut a charge that the declarant has made a recent fabrication, or a charge of the declarant's improper influence or motive, i.e. the declarant's bias; or
(C) the prior statement was an identification of a person made after perceiving that person.[5]"

 

[bearister]

If you're going to be getting legal advice from the web, at least ask Bob Shapiro. Wikipedia? Seriously? It's likely a moot point, or a "mute" point as one of my friends would say, because I doubt if the Montana Rules of Evidence apply in the context of the Student Conduct Code.

 

[Dillon]

I have been out of town and m just catching up on this. All I can say is "Holy Sh**". The UM Student Conduct proceeding makes a kangaroo court seem like a dignified proceeding. We need to continue the cleqn up at Main Hall and get rid of the spineless Engstrom, then bring back Pflu and O'Day, who should never have been fired. I also have to give kudos to my old friend Fred Van V for standing up to the feds. Anybody who thought that Fred was just going to kowtow to the feds for political xpediency doesn't know Fred very well.Good on ya, Fred.

Fred definately has a pair! He definately earned his paycheck this week! :clap: Plus bring back Pflu and O'Day! Petition anyone?

 

[mtgrizrule]

I have been out of town and m just catching up on this. All I can say is "Holy Sh**". The UM Student Conduct proceeding makes a kangaroo court seem like a dignified proceeding. We need to continue the cleqn up at Main Hall and get rid of the spineless Engstrom, then bring back Pflu and O'Day, who should never have been fired. I also have to give kudos to my old friend Fred Van V for standing up to the feds. Anybody who thought that Fred was just going to kowtow to the feds for political xpediency doesn't know Fred very well.Good on ya, Fred.

Fred definately has a pair! He definately earned his paycheck this week! :clap: Plus bring back Pflu and O'Day! Petition anyone?

Doubt it would happen. In hopes it could, I'd sign.