LOL @ Brendan Gibbons

[UMFAN]

Good to see they are saying Lewan texted her directly. I think that issue has been covered pretty well here.

The article is lying. It's as simple as looking at the police report. It specifically states what happened. Lewan was talking to a mutual friend, asked if the girl was going to press charges, the mutual friend declined to answer, and Lewan made an inappropriate verbal comment.

The police report continues by saying the mutual friend placed a telephone call to inform others of what he allegedly said.

This is exactly my point from before. All you need to do is post this crap enough places and it takes on a life of its own. In Douglas Smith's own statements to the regents he doesn't allege a text was sent to her.

Just more of people pulling crap out of their a--es.

 

[UMFAN]

The second UM police report warns him that he could face criminal or university action for his comments, which I think is a pretty good indication that it was considered a threat by the campus police.

The article summarizes my opinion as to what happened based upon the police reports but the point of attaching all of the documentation is so that the reader can see the reports and form their own opinion, as you have. We can argue about who is more biased but the information is there.

The public previously had not seen these police reports and considering the huge problem of sexual assaults on campus and the rolling out of new policies at UM, I think the information is important.

You have conveniently ignored the majority of my criticisms.

First off, the fact that police cautioned him means absolutely nothing. When I worked as a prosecutor, this was standard operating procedure. Person brings a claim to you that you know you can't charge? We'd send a letter from the office of dispute resolution asking the other person to stop the conduct or potential legal action could follow. It was baseless assertion to attempt to end the dispute, as the majority of people that came in didn't have actual criminal complaints, but stupid neighborly disputes etc. This is why some random dude like you shouldn't be trying to analyze this stuff.

Your post does not purport to be an opinion anywhere. It is written as fact, with citations included. There is no language even implying that anything is an allegation, you just say things like "The rape occurred..." You knowingly left the other evidence out of the article because you know that 99% of the people that read it will not read the police reports, and even those that do will not understand the implications of what is said.

I'd also prefer a response on how you can file a complaint with back-to-back bullet points saying that your buddy was denied due process because he was judged on a false allegation in a police report and then in turn write a piece about an 18 year old who has had no due process and judge him based on the allegations in a police report. It's mind-blowing.

I'd also like to answer whether or not you meant to out the identity of the victim, because you surely did.

 

[douglas2k]

Y
I'd also like to answer whether or not you meant to out the identity of the victim, because you surely did.

Actually, it is you who laid out the instructions to identify her, not me.

The police reports are public documents and as such may contain some identifying characteristics but I purposely did not point them out and I left out other information from my article because it would have made it easier to identify her. You seem intent on telling people how to identify her.

 

[byco42]

MODS: I suggest that you lock and delete this tread ASAP. It's gone from a round-robin hypothetical discussion to two blokes claiming first-hand knowledge about these events and airing them here. I think it's gone beyond the pale, and will only devolve further.

 

[UMFAN]

Actually, it is you who laid out the instructions to identify her, not me.

The police reports are public documents and as such may contain some identifying characteristics but I purposely did not point them out and I left out other information from my article because it would have made it easier to identify her. You seem intent on telling people how to identify her.

Is this really how your mind works? Is this serious? You're going to try and blame me because you didn't have the aforethought to realize how easily you identified her?

Yes, police reports are public documents, and as you have pointed numerous times here you are the only person to bring them to the attention of the masses. It was well within your rights to redact her home state from the statements. People redact their address, birthday, etc from pictures they post of their mail, ID photos, etc, all the time. Even teenagers understand this.

Do you think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to figure this out? Do you think the responsibility lies with the people discussing your trash to not make a connection that a child could make? Seriously, regardless of any animosity other posters have levied against me here, I hope somebody else steps up and points out how idiotic this statement is.

I also hope you apologize to the alleged victim. Surely she has already realized this as I'm sure people have approached her/messaged her. Take some responsibility for your actions for once and quit blaming people acting like actual adults out there.

 

[douglas2k]

Is this really how your mind works? Is this serious? You're going to try and blame me because you didn't have the aforethought to realize how easily you identified her?

Yes, police reports are public documents, and as you have pointed numerous times here you are the only person to bring them to the attention of the masses. It was well within your rights to redact her home state from the statements. People redact their address, birthday, etc from pictures they post of their mail, ID photos, etc, all the time. Even teenagers understand this.

Do you think I'm the first person in the history of the internet to figure this out? Do you think the responsibility lies with the people discussing your trash to not make a connection that a child could make? Seriously, regardless of any animosity other posters have levied against me here, I hope somebody else steps up and points out how idiotic this statement is.

I also hope you apologize to the alleged victim. Surely she has already realized this as I'm sure people have approached her/messaged her. Take some responsibility for your actions for once and quit blaming people acting like actual adults out there.

Dave- you are the one trying to purposely out her, not me.

 

[byco42]

MODS: I suggest that you lock and delete this tread ASAP. It's gone from a round-robin hypothetical discussion to two blokes claiming first-hand knowledge about these events and airing them here. I think it's gone beyond the pale, and will only devolve further.

 

[UMFAN]

Dave- you are the one trying to purposely out her, not me.

First - no idea who Dave is.

Second - I am not the one who wrote a ridiculous blog post, posted it everywhere I could, encouraged the people everywhere I posted it to post it everywhere else, all the while leaving the necessary information out there for everyone to see. I've seen mentions of how easy it was to identify her on at least two of the places this story has been posted, and I certainly did not post this information myself. It's also funny that the original redacted version does not appear to reveal the information I mentioned, but the version you wrote out did. Funny how that works, huh?

Third - to the dude who keeps saying this needs to be locked - don't totally disagree with you. I do take offense to the statement that we're trying to say we have personal knowledge. I've repeated numerous times that everything I'm citing is from the same source as the original blog post on the Watchdog cite. The only difference is that I actually read the source material. This is the important distinction. Also, I'd like to point out that I haven't said anything offensive. I've purely pointed out facts that all of you can look up and confirm.

 

[douglas2k]

First - no idea who Dave is.

Second - I am not the one who wrote a ridiculous blog post, posted it everywhere I could, encouraged the people everywhere I posted it to post it everywhere else, all the while leaving the necessary information out there for everyone to see. I've seen mentions of how easy it was to identify her on at least two of the places this story has been posted, and I certainly did not post this information myself. It's also funny that the original redacted version does not appear to reveal the information I mentioned, but the version you wrote out did. Funny how that works, huh?

Third - to the dude who keeps saying this needs to be locked - don't totally disagree with you. I do take offense to the statement that we're trying to say we have personal knowledge. I've repeated numerous times that everything I'm citing is from the same source as the original blog post on the Watchdog cite. The only difference is that I actually read the source material. This is the important distinction. Also, I'd like to point out that I haven't said anything offensive. I've purely pointed out facts that all of you can look up and confirm.

I assure you the information you cited was in the original redacted version and not all of the information you have cited comes from the WW website.

 

[byco42]

First - no idea who Dave is.

Second - I am not the one who wrote a ridiculous blog post, posted it everywhere I could, encouraged the people everywhere I posted it to post it everywhere else, all the while leaving the necessary information out there for everyone to see. I've seen mentions of how easy it was to identify her on at least two of the places this story has been posted, and I certainly did not post this information myself. It's also funny that the original redacted version does not appear to reveal the information I mentioned, but the version you wrote out did. Funny how that works, huh?

Third - to the dude who keeps saying this needs to be locked - don't totally disagree with you. I do take offense to the statement that we're trying to say we have personal knowledge. I've repeated numerous times that everything I'm citing is from the same source as the original blog post on the Watchdog cite. The only difference is that I actually read the source material. This is the important distinction. Also, I'd like to point out that I haven't said anything offensive. I've purely pointed out facts that all of you can look up and confirm.

This is not the venue for this level of information. In my opinion. None of us here are lapping up what Doug2K is saying, either. Acknowledge and accept your rebuttal on the "personal knowledge."

 

[UMFAN]

I assure you the information you cited was in the original redacted version and not all of the information you have cited comes from the WW website.

Actually, the original version mentions the location, but the redaction makes it impossible to tell what it is referring to. The type-written version makes it plainly obvious.

If you actually give a crap about the girl, and not your site, why don't you go back, remove all mentions of where she is from in your type-written version, black out those parts of the pdf style version and rescan it, and repost it like that? Is that too much to ask, for her sake? You are the only one who has control over this, not me.

I will take your failure to do so as a sign that you do not care about revealing her identity. Perhaps I will write a blog entry about you and how you knowingly left the information up there after being informed that people aren't stupid and know the victim's identity. I'll call my site "Who watches the Watchdog?" Sound like a deal? Also, while you're at it, you may also want to alter your wording of other aspects. Also, you may want to add a disclaimer mentioning that it is a blog post and purely an opinion. Sound good?

 

[TheVictors]

MODS: I suggest that you lock and delete this tread ASAP. It's gone from a round-robin hypothetical discussion to two blokes claiming first-hand knowledge about these events and airing them here. I think it's gone beyond the pale, and will only devolve further.

I second that.

 

[Monster]

Thread Closed. Anyone attempting to start a new thread about this alleged rape must either have proof or links to an article/video/website that shows this woman actually pressing charges against him.

The entire thread has turned into two mystery posters bickering about what they claim to know and really has no basis in reality. If there are any real updates in this case, please post a new thread. If you have nothing new to contribute or you're posting hearsay, I will delete it and ban you. I don't give a damn whether you're a fan of UM, MSU, OSU, or are just a random profile.