LOL @ Brendan Gibbons

[redandguilty]

I took a picture of the young woman with me to give to President Coleman and said that she should apologize to her for failing to protect her. When I walked to the President's end of the table to put it in front of her, I got catcalls from several of the Regents. Other than that there was no response.

Thanks for the answer. I'm expecting I'll never know what they actually know and think about any of this.

 

[Michchamp]

If Douglas2k feels like answering questions: How did the Regents react the times you spoke? If this isn't the forum for it, I could see that.

also... unrelated to the topic at hand, how did he stumble upon our corner of the internet?

I assumed it wasn't too well known outside of those who made the trek from the old espn.com boards. I don't think it even shows up very high in google results, but that may depend on the terms you use in the search.

 

[douglas2k]

also... unrelated to the topic at hand, how did he stumble upon our corner of the internet?

I assumed it wasn't too well known outside of those who made the trek from the old espn.com boards. I don't think it even shows up very high in google results, but that may depend on the terms you use in the search.

It showed up in a google search. I don't remember what terms I used.

 

[redandguilty]

This board will show up on top if you pick a combination of terms unique to this board. The thought got me to try a few searches on this topic. It's being called a rape and cover up in a couple places. The cover up part of the accusation isn't clear to me at all.

 

[douglas2k]

This board will show up on top if you pick a combination of terms unique to this board. The thought got me to try a few searches on this topic. It's being called a rape and cover up in a couple places. The cover up part of the accusation isn't clear to me at all.

The idea that it is a cover up has to do with the fact that the Ann Arbor police refused to confirm that they had arrested Gibbons even though their usual practice was to release the name at the time of arrest. Then the University's refusal to allow the victim to pursue a complaint through the student disciplinary process. This again protected Gibbons from being kicked off the team, which would have resulted in the incident becoming public. Then the campus police and prosecutor refused to prosecute Taylor Lewan for his threats. There are very cozy relationships within Washtenaw County between the University, the prosecutor, judges and local law enforcement.

 

[redandguilty]

The idea that it is a cover up has to do with the fact that the Ann Arbor police refused to confirm that they had arrested Gibbons even though their usual practice was to release the name at the time of arrest. Then the University's refusal to allow the victim to pursue a complaint through the student disciplinary process. This again protected Gibbons from being kicked off the team, which would have resulted in the incident becoming public. Then the campus police and prosecutor refused to prosecute Taylor Lewan for his threats. There are very cozy relationships within Washtenaw County between the University, the prosecutor, judges and local law enforcement.

So if I'm understanding everything correctly, the complainant wanted an investigation, and it would have fallen apart at this step:

http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/decision-proceed-investigation

where a review panel including the Title IX Coordinator reviewed the complaint and it looks like the final call on whether or not to go forward falls on the Title IX Coordinator.

 

[douglas2k]

So if I'm understanding everything correctly, the complainant wanted an investigation, and it would have fallen apart at this step:

http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/decision-proceed-investigation

where a review panel including the Title IX Coordinator reviewed the complaint and it looks like the final call on whether or not to go forward falls on the Title IX Coordinator.

The link is to the new policy. The policy in place at the time of her complaint was through the Office of Student Conflict Resolution (OSCR). There was no Title IX coordinator. She was simply stonewalled.

 

[Michchamp]

geez... the way this has gone, the thread title seems a bit of black humor.

 

[thewolverines24]

The idea that it is a cover up has to do with the fact that the Ann Arbor police refused to confirm that they had arrested Gibbons even though their usual practice was to release the name at the time of arrest. Then the University's refusal to allow the victim to pursue a complaint through the student disciplinary process. This again protected Gibbons from being kicked off the team, which would have resulted in the incident becoming public. Then the campus police and prosecutor refused to prosecute Taylor Lewan for his threats. There are very cozy relationships within Washtenaw County between the University, the prosecutor, judges and local law enforcement.

How was the university going to discipline Gibbons when all they had from the police reports were two conflicting statements? They had what she said and what Gibbons said. They needed charges to be filed so this could be investigated by proper authorities and they could base a decision off of their investigation. Do you really think it would be appropriate for the university to throw a kid out of school just because someone alleges sexual assault occurred?

 

[redandguilty]

I think that by the current standards, the threshold was met to trigger a university investigation. I don't know what the standards were at that time though.

 

[douglas2k]

How was the university going to discipline Gibbons when all they had from the police reports were two conflicting statements? They had what she said and what Gibbons said. They needed charges to be filed so this could be investigated by proper authorities and they could base a decision off of their investigation. Do you really think it would be appropriate for the university to throw a kid out of school just because someone alleges sexual assault occurred?

You can argue with the rules set out by the Dept. of Education if you like but those rules say that the University is supposed to investigate and provide protection to the student, independent of whatever the police do. The University had two conflicting statements but they had physical evidence of injuries that were consistent with the victim's statement and they had her immediate reporting of the incident. The standard of proof in the University's investigation is supposed to be a "preponderance of the evidence" not, as in a criminal investigation, "beyond a reasonable doubt". They had most of the evidence that would have been available in a criminal trial and they would have had a hearing process to develop any additional evidence they needed. The only other thing that the police would have done is process the rape kit but in view of the fact that Gibbons admitted to having sex with her, that would not have added anything more to the evidence.

In addition, they had ample witnesses to the threats from Taylor Lewan. In the police report from the campus police, when they went to tell him to stop making threats and to have no contact with her, it does not say that he even denied the threats.

 

[thewolverines24]

You can argue with the rules set out by the Dept. of Education if you like but those rules say that the University is supposed to investigate and provide protection to the student, independent of whatever the police do. The University had two conflicting statements but they had physical evidence of injuries that were consistent with the victim's statement and they had her immediate reporting of the incident. The standard of proof in the University's investigation is supposed to be a "preponderance of the evidence" not, as in a criminal investigation, "beyond a reasonable doubt". They had most of the evidence that would have been available in a criminal trial and they would have had a hearing process to develop any additional evidence they needed. The only other thing that the police would have done is process the rape kit but in view of the fact that Gibbons admitted to having sex with her, that would not have added anything more to the evidence.

In addition, they had ample witnesses to the threats from Taylor Lewan. In the police report from the campus police, when they went to tell him to stop making threats and to have no contact with her, it does not say that he even denied the threats.

I was not aware they would have a hearing process. They should have done so in this situation. That was an oversight.

The bruises don't really prove anything. Some people bruise easily. Some don't. You bruise MUCH easier when you are extremely intoxicated like she was. They could have just been from the weight of him on her arm and he may not have been forcefully holding her down. They could have been from forcefully holding her down. We don't know.\

Lewan's threats were idiotic, unacceptable, and should have never happened. I'm sure they came from him being irate about the accusations of a close friend. Some people get overly emotional in those situations and will say anything to try and protect a friend. Lewan was told to stop with the threats and it seems like he did. There is no information I have seen that Lewan continued with threats after he was told to stop.

 

[Green and White 95]

You don't know if she drunkenly consented or not because of the fact that she may or may not even remember herself.

I said she was undoubtedly too drunk for him to have sex with and it should not have happened. I've been in a very similar situation with a friend before. We were making out at the bar and we went back to her house. She climbed on top of me and tried to have sex with me in her living room. I said no let's go to your room in case anyone comes home. I laid her on the bed and we started making out and undressing. We started making out again, but she ended up passing out because she was too drunk. I tucked her in to bed, went and got her dog and put her dog on the bed with her because they always sleep together, and I then walked away. Called her friends to make sure they came and checked on her.

How easily could I have been blamed for doing something wrong here even though I didn't? I was lucky in the fact that my friend remembered what happened, apologized to me for what happened and we remain friends to this day.

If the situation was altered and she never passed out, we had sex, but she blacked out and didn't remember what really happened then what? I'm a rapist because of drunken memory loss? No. If that's the case, then I've been raped by a woman before.

Exactly. I have drank with many people that I thought weren't very intoxicated only to see them passed out 10 minutes later and wake up the next morning with no recolection of the previous nights events. The thing is, we don't know anything outside of what a police report and some people from the internet are telling us. Does it sound like something happened ? Maybe. Maybe not. Its very easy to cry rape for many number of reasons. Embarassment, rejection, anger, etc, etc. I know someone who was accused of rape by an ex girlfriend, because he ended their relationship. She later recanted her accusations, but the damage had been done.

If something like this happened to me, i sure as hell would want justice, and wouldn't stop because a university and prosecutor said drop it. In todays day and age of media witch hunts, i'll bet somebody would run with the story and give me my day for justice. Who cares if some football player made threats. Report it. If they don't listen, report it to someone else, etc,etc. Don't just give up. Something doesn't seem right for this to be brought back up aftyer 3yrs. Just not believing this whole story.

 

[douglas2k]

I was not aware they would have a hearing process. They should have done so in this situation. That was an oversight.

The bruises don't really prove anything. Some people bruise easily. Some don't. You bruise MUCH easier when you are extremely intoxicated like she was. They could have just been from the weight of him on her arm and he may not have been forcefully holding her down. They could have been from forcefully holding her down. We don't know.

Speaking as a physician, there is no truth to the notion that you bruise more easily when you are drunk. You may do things that cause bruising or not notice that you are being bruised because you are drunk but alchohol does not make you bruise more easily.

Again you may not agree with the DOE rules but a "preponderance of the evidence" standard means that the finders of fact only have to find it more likely than not that she is telling the truth rather than him. It is a very different standard than in a criminal trial.

The reason that the DOE sets this standard is because the maximum punishment is to expel the student, not to put him in jail. Thus, they want University's to maximize the protection of the victim.

 

[redandguilty]

Is the specific point where the system failed known (provided that it did)? Was it an OSCR group that decided they didn't need to investigate? Was there some intervention from higher up the org chart? Or is it possible there was an investigation and only the parties involved are aware of the results?

 

[douglas2k]

Lewan's threats were idiotic, unacceptable, and should have never happened. I'm sure they came from him being irate about the accusations of a close friend. Some people get overly emotional in those situations and will say anything to try and protect a friend. Lewan was told to stop with the threats and it seems like he did. There is no information I have seen that Lewan continued with threats after he was told to stop.

Do you really need to be told not to make that type of threat?

By the time he stopped it was winter break and she did not return for 2 months. The damage was already done.

 

[douglas2k]

Is the specific point where the system failed known (provided that it did)? Was it an OSCR group that decided they didn't need to investigate? Was there some intervention from higher up the org chart? Or is it possible there was an investigation and only the parties involved are aware of the results?

You have to separate the criminal prosecution from the University hearing process.

The criminal investigation was stopped because she decided she could not go through with a criminal trial. The University should have protected her better from the threats and reassured her that they would do everything possible to protect her from things like losing her scholarship or harrassment from other students while she pursued her rights in the criminal court.

In the University process they simply refused to hear her complaint and they told her it was because she did not pursue the criminal trial. Whether that was policy or if someone higher up told the OSCR to say that we don't know.

 

[redandguilty]

You have to separate the criminal prosecution from the University hearing process.

The criminal investigation was stopped because she decided she could not go through with a criminal trial. The University should have protected her better from the threats and reassured her that they would do everything possible to protect her from things like losing her scholarship or harrassment from other students while she pursued her rights in the criminal court.

In the University process they simply refused to hear her complaint and they told her it was because she did not pursue the criminal trial. Whether that was policy or if someone higher up told the OSCR to say that we don't know.

So the policies had to have been different, or they didn't follow them. The current policy does not depend on there being a criminal trial.

 

[Green and White 95]

You have to separate the criminal prosecution from the University hearing process.

The criminal investigation was stopped because she decided she could not go through with a criminal trial. The University should have protected her better from the threats and reassured her that they would do everything possible to protect her from things like losing her scholarship or harrassment from other students while she pursued her rights in the criminal court.

In the University process they simply refused to hear her complaint and they told her it was because she did not pursue the criminal trial. Whether that was policy or if someone higher up told the OSCR to say that we don't know.

Why would she lose her schollie if she pressed csc charges on another athlete ? Was the university supposed to give her an escort everywhere she went to make sure no one harassed her ? If a crime was committed, she should have persued the criminal aspect of this, threats or not.

 

[douglas2k]

So the policies had to have been different, or they didn't follow them. The current policy does not depend on there being a criminal trial.

Yes the current policy is different and they say that they would never handle a case the way this one was, ever again, but the proof will be when another hard case comes along. Until they have a track record, I will be skeptical.

That is part of the value in having a public discussion of this case, to make the public aware of past difficulties and hopefully make them more aware of whether the University really mends its ways.