LOL @ Brendan Gibbons

[douglas2k]

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.

I know how the University has acted in other situations because I have helped several other whistleblowers. She definitely should have worried about her scholarship.

 

[UMFAN]

I know how the University has acted in other situations because I have helped several other whistleblowers. She definitely should have worried about her scholarship.

Mr. Douglas, I am here to inform you that you need to stick to being a doctor and quit pretending to be a lawyer.

Also, before anybody accuses me of defending rape or Gibbons because I'm a Michigan fan, I am an attorney who previously worked in both prosecution and as a criminal defense attorney.

Your post really needs to be changed. It's ridiculous and misleading, regardless of the truth of what happened.

For starters, there is an obvious reason that Taylor Lewan was never charged with a crime, and it's in the police report: he didn't commit a crime. Without even taking the time to look it up for Ann Arbor/Michigan law, the typical statute relating to threats or "menacing" typically states that the assertion must be made with the intent of causing fear of physical injury to a person or their property, etc.

No prosecutor worth a crap will ever charge somebody for what Lewan said. There are numerous reasons:
1) The statement was not made to the subject of the alleged threat. You lose intent immediately under these circumstances unless the statement was specifically ordered to be passed along etc.
2) The statement was made conditional. This also kills intent in many cases.
3) The statement was most likely not made with the necessary intent regardless of whether she heard it or not. I seriously doubt Taylor Lewan literally intended to rape anybody. This is just common sense based on the way he said it.

The police report also confirms this analysis when it says at the bottom that no action is being taken because the statement was not made in the presence of the alleged victim.

Also, the way you phrase the "threats" in your post is 100% inaccurate and a complete abuse, and you should likely be sued for it. You claim that Lewan threatened she'd be raped again. The way you phrase it makes it sound like Lewan threatened that Gibbons would rape her again. His actual statement in the report clearly states that he believes that Gibbons never raped her.

Please remove these ridiculous statements from your post. They are completely at odds with the police report and are not supported by legal reasoning either.

If you want, I can also point out about 20 other "facts" in your post that are contradicted by your own citations within the post. This is ridiculous, and exactly what ruins these cases. You present a one-sided version of events that are not researched any further by 99% of the people reading them. This is dishonest.

Please remove your post if you believe a word of what you say.

Also found it funny that you made another complaint to the regents about the treatment of a friend of yours, stating he was denied due process and was unjustly judged on the merits of a false police report. Do you not see the unbelievable hypocrisy in calling an 18 year kid you have presumably never met a rapist over and over again in your article when no due process has been afforded to him, and your only evidence is a police report?

Please try and tell me I'm wrong. Please do.

 

[Michchamp]

um... his post also related to Gibbons' conduct. Lewan's conduct may not have met the elements of whatever criminal conduct may have been applicable, but he seems more concerned with the University's actions (or lack thereof) related to that.

on some other boards, posters are mentioning the possibility of a civil suit for defamation/liable. if that's the case, they should bring it. If the allegations are false, Gibbons' should get an attorney and sue.

 

[Green and White 95]

um... his post also related to Gibbons' conduct. Lewan's conduct may not have met the elements of whatever criminal conduct may have been applicable, but... there's also the matter of what Gibbons' did.

or didn't do.

 

[Green and White 95]

I know how the University has acted in other situations because I have helped several other whistleblowers. She definitely should have worried about her scholarship.

I would like a few REAL examples of this. I don't believe it. Thats a lawsuit if I ever heard one.

 

[thewolverines24]

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.

As a physician, you can't be serious with this statement. Alcohol thins your blood and when your blood is thinner it is easier for you to bruise. This is basic science here.

 

[redandguilty]

on some other boards, posters are mentioning the possibility of a civil suit for defamation/liable. if that's the case, they should bring it. If the allegations are false, Gibbons' should get an attorney and sue.

But you'd have to show that the defendant knew what he's saying was false, right? That's a pretty high bar. More than just showing that he's wrong.

 

[Michchamp]

But you'd have to show that the defendant knew what he's saying was false, right? That's a pretty high bar. More than just showing that he's wrong.

he'd have his attorney send him a letter informing him that the reports are false and demanding he take them down first.

if he doesn't take them down, then he sues.

to put it simply, if they are not false, Dr. Douglas wins, and Gibbons gets a whole lotta bad press. The standard depends on whether Gibbons is determined to be a public figure. there's a lower standard for liable/defamation/slander if you're a private figure. I'm guessing a college athlete falls under the "private" category, but I'm not 100% sure. But he likely wouldn't have to prove he knew they were false in that case. there are some other aspects that could factor in, like how the allegedly defamatory material is presented, etc., but for the most part that's what it will come down to.

 

[hungry]

what does him being a freshman kicker that sucked have to do with it? is the situation different for an all American? please explain

I think it's pretty obvious. Douglas2k is accusing the University of covering up an incident for a star athlete. Well, at the time, Gibbons was not a star. He was a freshman kicker that sucked.

Did I really need to spell that out?>

 

[hungry]

Your statement is typical of an old school of thought about what constitutes rape. If the person is too drunk to give consent, then that is also rape. The days of getting your date so drunk that you get "lucky" should be behind us.

I disagree that Gibbons story is more credible but even if you take the position that her memory was incomplete, she knows enough to still say that she did not consent.

What if both people are drunk?

 

[hungry]

She said that she was receiving "threats", plural, so I assume she was receiving threats from others as well. She was also dependent on an athletic scholarship and so she may have worried that she would lose her scholarship. I think you can also tell from the many comments on this blog and others that she feared she would be subjected to all kinds of verbal attacks on her character by Michigan football fans.

Lewan's threats (there were two of them) were probably particularly credible to her since he was Gibbons best friend.

I think her decision, then and now, not to go ahead with a criminal trial was complicated but the threats from Lewan were a factor.

Nothing that has been said on this message board, it's not a blog, would show that she would be subject to any verbal attacks or otherwise. No one here has even implied that they might do such a thing

This guy is just making stuff up now.

 

[hungry]

No, dipshit -- I'm just helping you to understand what Hungry meant because I didn't find it so hard to get. You are insinuating that Gibbons was given "special treatment" because AT THIS POINT, he's still on the team.

What Hungry was saying is that ...Gibbons COULD'VE BEEN KICKED OFF the team but wasn't and what is it to a football program to boot a Freshman guilty of such an aggregious act.

You're fixated on the fact that Gibbons goes to Michigan.

Talent has EVERYTHING to do with it. There IS a sliding scale relative to punishment.... sorry if that flies in the face of your idyllic world of college football where justice reigns supreme.


How many times was Honeybadger in trouble before LSU was FORCED to boot him?? Three ...four times?! How many years were there insinuations about Tressel before something finally broke .... about a decade?!?! How was it all those starters in Gainesville never happened to miss any big SEC games or the game against FSU...??

Why is that?? Oh, it's because of talent.


So it's up to you to PROVE that Gibbons was allowed to remain on the team DESPITE clear evidence proving him guilty and that he was allowed to stay BECAUSE OF TALENT and bias for TALENT alone.

Hungry is simply saying that he'd be gone, back then, were he actually guilty of the charges or deemed to be by the program.

Sbee wants to believe that this is how I feel things should be. No, I don't think things should be this way and I'd like to believe that MIchigan wouldn't cover this up for anyone.

I'm just replying to exactly what Douglas2k said and that is that the University covered this up for a star athlete. That is simply not true. At the time, Gibbons was a nobody, the kind that no one would care about getting kicked off the team.

 

[hungry]

I know hungry is saying he'd be gone if he was found guilty or if the administration thought it was warranted. what I am also saying is that it seems like he might not have been gone if it was Denard or a more prominent player at the time, kind of strange.

also, Vic, just understand that everyone posting in this thread is doing so because Gibbons goes to Michigan. I know that your infatuation with me blinds you from reality but would any of you post on this topic on this board if it were a soccer player from Ferris state? don't call me out for doing the same thing everyone else does, just because I went to MSU. grow up Vic, come on, you're embarrassing yourself with this bullshit.

hahahah I love it how when someone disagrees with your bs, then they're infatuated or obsessed with you. Yet, you continue posting...are you obsessed or infatuated with Victors? I think so.

 

[hungry]

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?

Well, she had a bruise on her arm and vaginal tearing

Oh, any other male on the planet could have done that while she was intoxicated beyond belief?

hmmmmmmmm

 

[thewolverines24]

What if both people are drunk?

I provided a very personal example of this. He had no response.

His jump to conclusions mat only has one space.

 

[thewolverines24]

Well, she had a bruise on her arm and vaginal tearing

Oh, any other male on the planet could have done that while she was intoxicated beyond belief?

hmmmmmmmm

I'm sorry but everyone here does realize that vaginal tearing does not equal rape right? Vaginal tearing can occur because there isn't enough foreplay and the vagina isn't ready for penetration. Just do a little research on it and you will see that it is not that uncommon for it to occur during intercourse.

Again, thinner blood = easier bruising. He may not have done anything forceful to cause the bruise. He may have. We have no clue so the bruise proves nothing for us.

 

[TheVictors]

hahahah I love it how when someone disagrees with your bs, then they're infatuated or obsessed with you. Yet, you continue posting...are you obsessed or infatuated with Victors? I think so.

It's this stupid, childish M.O. brought over from ESPN. I hate this type of message board crap. Don't like my being blunt to you in a thread in which you're misrepresenting the issue and other posters' quotes to serve a point you're trying to make ....well change the subject and then reply by calling me infatuated and telling ME to grow up! And around and around we go in a gay little sbee thread back and forth.

Whatever that mean kid wearing a MICHIGAN shirt did to you back on the playground is not my fault and I'm sick and tired of having to bear the Sparty angst when it comes to where I went to school and the football team I root for.

 

[douglas2k]

As a physician, you can't be serious with this statement. Alcohol thins your blood and when your blood is thinner it is easier for you to bruise. This is basic science here.

Where did you ever get the idea that alcohol "thins" the blood. I would like to see a citation for that.

First of all "thinning" of the blood may be in reference to one of two factors in clotting. The coagulative proteins or the platelets.

For example, I take Coumadin, which "thins" the blood clotting proteins but I have no increased tendency to bruise. This is because bruising has more to do with the injury and to platelets than to coagulative proteins.

Even with platelets, the bleeding time is not significantly affected until you get down to about 10% of the normal number of platelets. Alcohol does not affect the platelet level.

You are confusing an increased chance of suffering a bruise because you don't protect yourself as well when you are drunk with an actual increased sensitivity to bruising.

 

[thewolverines24]

Where did you ever get the idea that alcohol "thins" the blood. I would like to see a citation for that.

First of all "thinning" of the blood may be in reference to one of two factors in clotting. The coagulative proteins or the platelets.

For example, I take Coumadin, which "thins" the blood clotting proteins but I have no increased tendency to bruise. This is because bruising has more to do with the injury and to platelets than to coagulative proteins.

Even with platelets, the bleeding time is not significantly affected until you get down to about 10% of the normal number of platelets. Alcohol does not affect the platelet level.

You are confusing an increased chance of suffering a bruise because you don't protect yourself as well when you are drunk with an actual increased sensitivity to bruising.

"From ACER News Release
Updated October 14, 2005
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board

Researchers have confirmed that drinking even moderate amounts of alcohol can affect blood coagulation -- acting as a "blood thinner" -- which can have both positive and negative health effects."

 

[easye688]

Here is a citation for when alcohol thins the blood: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/health/a/blacer051015.htm