College Sports Forum

College Sports Forum

College sports discussion.

Was Gibbons Wrongfully Expelled by Michigan?

M Man's picture
April 28, 2014 at 4:58pm
144 Comments

James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal columnist and "Best of the Web" daily proprietor at WSJ.com, lays down an awesome marker in the fight over the spate of Title IX activity since the Obama Administration's "Dear Colleague" letter of April, 2012.

Get a load of this (the emphasis in the quote below is added):

Brett Sokolow, director of the Association of Title IX Administrators, has a warning for American college and university administrators: In their efforts to enforce Title IX, he argues, they are running afoul of Title IX.

Title IX is a provision of the Education Amendments of 1972 that stipulates: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Under the Obama administration, the Education Department has interpreted this law as requiring colleges and universities to police sexual misconduct involving students, on or off campus, under the broad rubric of "sexual harassment . . . including sexual violence."

In a newsletter to members dated last Thursday, Sokolow reports that "in the last two weeks, I've worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong."

He does not reveal the names of the institutions involved or any other specific details of the cases, presumably because his consultative role entails a duty of confidentiality. But he sums up the problem as follows: "Some [disciplinary] boards and panels still can't tell the difference between drunken sex and a policy violation"--that is, a sexual assault.

Sometimes that is by design. "In a recent case," Sokolow recounts, "the campus policy stated that intoxication creates an inability to consent." That makes it easy to establish a violation--except that in many cases the accuser has violated the letter of the policy as much as the accused has. "If both are intoxicated, they both did the same thing to each other," Sokolow writes. "Why should only the male be charged if both students behave in ways defined as prohibited by the policy?"

That's a rhetorical question. "I'm not suggesting we charge both," Sokolow clarifies. "Surely, every drunken sexual hook-up is not a punishable offense. . . . There must be something that the respondent does, beyond having sex, that makes a lawful act into a policy violation."

In his view, a drunken sexual encounter should be considered an assault only if the facts show that the accuser was incapacitated by alcohol and that the accused had mens rea,or guilty intent: the "knowledge of that incapacitation, whether actual or constructive"--in other words, "that the respondent know or should have known" of the complainant's incapacitation.

...

"There is no need for an intent to rape, but there has to be something more than an intent to have sex to make this an offense," he writes. "Otherwise, men are simply being punished for having sex, which is sex discrimination under Title IX, because their partners are having sex too and are not being subjected to the code of conduct for doing so." Title IX, after all, protects students of both sexes from sex discrimination.

I will bet dollars to doughnuts, that one of the cases Sokolow reviewed, was the Gibbons case.  Michigan Daily, get on it.

This is exactly where I thought that the Gibbons case (and similar matters) was headed from the first time it was mentioned here at 11W.  And at MGoBlog for that matter.

stevebelliseeya's picture

This whole thread hurt my dome.

I'm pretty certain I just don't give a shit, even in the offseason.

 

"We are eternal. All this pain is an illusion." - Tool

+3 HS
e135800's picture

Yawn.  Move along, nothing to see here.  He and his buddy Lewan are simple thugs, they got it right

 

 

+15 HS
Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

Thank you for sharing your hasty generalization with us. Your never ending stream of logical fallacies never ceases to entertain. The continued links to political editorials is also a nice touch.

+13 HS
OSU_1992_UFM's picture

Scarlet is bringing the juice!

UFM_Renewal

M Man's picture

Bumping this thread.  With this news.  Not Gibbons, but another Michigan undergrad.  Who (just as I suggested with Gibbons!) is now suing the University of Michigan in state and federal courts for having denied him his rights in a sexual assault administrative hearing.

I know Deborah Gordon, the plaintiff's attorney.  She is an extremely fine litigator, not usually associated with any purportedly "conservative" causes.  Her father was the now-deceased late night Detroit tv talk show host Lou Gordon.  She's a major league plaintiff's employment litigation lawyer.  Skilled, respected, and most often associated with left-leaning civil rights causes.  It is interesting that she has the plaintiff in this case.

A former University of Michigan student is suing the school, claiming an investigation into a sexual misconduct report that resulted in his suspension violated his constitutional rights.

Twenty-one-year-old Drew Sterrett, of New York, filed lawsuits in both federal and Washtenaw County courts in late April that say the university committed numerous violations while looking into a sexual encounter that occurred between Sterrett and an unnamed female student at Mosher-Jordan Hall in March 2012.

Sterrett was never criminally charged and the woman didn’t report any misconduct until August 2012. The lawsuit alleges the sex was consensual and the woman only reported it as misconduct after her mother found a diary chronicling the times she had sex.

...

The lawsuit gives the following account of what happened March 16, 2012:

There was a gathering at Sterrett’s dorm room. The woman didn’t want to go back to sleep at her own dorm room because her roommate had company. She decided to stay in Sterrett’s room. They had kissed prior to that night, the suit says.

Sterrett and his roommate, whose name does not appear in the suit, have bunk beds. His roommate climbed into the top bunk to go to sleep. Sterrett and the woman got into the bottom bunk.

Also uncontested by the woman is that they kissed and had sexual intercourse.

The woman did contest that the sexual encounter was “completely consensual at all times,” according to the suit.

Sterrett’s roommate was in the top bunk throughout the encounter. The woman is not contesting that she never attempted to ask him for help.

While the two were having sex, the roommate wrote Sterrett the following Facebook message at 3:19 a.m.”

“Dude, you and [the woman] are being abnoxtiously(sic) loud and inconsiderate, so expect to pay back in full tomorrow. I only don’t say anything now so I don’t embarrass you all ... Yours Truly”

The woman spent the rest of the night in Sterrett’s room, according to the suit.

“At no time did (the woman) ever tell (Sterrett) that the sexual encounter had been anything but consensual,” the suit states.

Sterrett and the woman agreed to keep the encounter to themselves the next morning.

Sexual misconduct

The woman went to the university’s Office of Institutional Equity five months later, on Aug. 2, 2012, to make a verbal, sexual misconduct complaint.

Sterrett was back home in New York when he got a call from Heather Cowan, program manager and investigator with the Office Student Conflict Resolution, a few days after that. He was told a student had filed a complaint against him, but Cowan didn’t specify what it was. He agreed to Skype with her about it later that day.

Gordon said Sterrett has still never met face-to-face with any of the university officials who were involved with his suspension.

Sterrett admitted to the sexual encounter and said it was consensual. What followed was an investigation into the matter that the suit says violated Sterrett's 14th Amendment right to due process.

Gordon said he was never given the names of the witnesses Cowan was interviewing and there was never a hearing.

Students have these for other offenses, Gordon said, but not for sexual misconduct. She called the investigation "a Kafkaesque nightmare."

When Sterrett came back to school in the fall, he couldn't return to his old dorm or associate with any of his old friend, the suit claims. Since he wasn't allowed to talk specifically with his roommate who was in the top bunk, the suit also claim's the university violated his constitutional right to free speech.

The report

Cowan's report was finished by November 2012 which "determined that (he) engaged in sexual intercourse with (her) without her consent and that that activity is so severe as to create a hostile environment," the suit states.

The suit alleges the decision was partially based on Sterrett telling Cowan that he regretted the encounter. It was only at this time that the university said alcohol may have been involved. The report stated the girl was too intoxicated to have been able to give consent, the lawsuit says.

At that time, Sterrett was suspended from U-M until May 1, 2016. The appeals board, members of which are named in the suit, denied him any further action.

-5 HS
d5k's picture

I definitely agree that there is a loose legal interpretation to go from sexual assault to institutional gender discrimination.  Basically the interpretation is that by not sufficiently deterring rape and other sexual misconduct, females are being discriminated against.  They are likely going too far the other direction in some cases but it is somewhat common knowledge that there is a "rape culture" around college campuses.

+2 HS
skid21's picture

You mean wrongly expelled 4 years later? Yep, the guy certainly got screwed by the system.

+19 HS
buckeyestu's picture

Maybe we should ask the alleged victim what she thinks.Tired of the meatchicken fans acting they are above others, like their shit does not stink. As for that basketball player, "I only smoked dope once"? Yeah right!! Screw meatchicken. Ya all suck.

+5 HS
M Man's picture

1.  It would be good to ask the alleged victim.  That is, if there had even been a prima facie criminal case.  Seemingly, there was none.  But yes indeed it would be good to ask her about all of it.  Under oath, in a court of law.  With absolutely all of the legal and traditional media protections for such a complainant.  And of course, all of the legal protections owed to a criminal defendant.  Again, that is, if there had been sufficient evidence to make someone a criminal defendant.

2.  Judging by the MGoBoard, most "Meatchicken fans" have turned on Gibbons.  For my part, I've never once claimed to have known what actually transpired on that November night in 2009.  What I have contended is that such matters -- casual, reckless talk about "rape" -- belong in a court of law and nowhere else.

3.  My further continuing contention is that the passage of time will surely see one of these matters arise on the campus of The Ohio State University, and at that time my position will be exactly the same as in the Gibbons case.  Show me the evidence, in a courtroom.  Let the police do their investigative work, without interference or influence.  Prosecute crimes.  Presume innocence.  I will look with total suspicion on any sub-legal proceeding, such as a student "conflict resolution" administrative hearing.  This is not a rivalry thing.  This is not even a football thing.  This is a major federal education/Title IX policy initiative.

4.  You clearly never saw what I wrote about McGary here at 11W.

-5 HS
bucndc's picture

M man

I have an 18 year old daughter on campus. If those assholes would have done that shit to my daughter, I guarantee they wouldn't be preparing for the NFL draft. I'm 5-9 and 165.

Think,

Your so called alleged victim, is someone's sister, daughter. She is a REAL human. I am sick of you defending these fucks. They put themselves in a bad situation. Didn't your parents teach you about consequences? You get excited about some messed up legal crap. You need to go down to the Franklin County Court House, sit in the back row and jerk yourself off.

 

+11 HS
TheTeam16's picture

So then what do you have to say about the carlos hyde incident? Same situation of alleged wrongdoing, although in the Hyde case there was actual solid evidence that he indeed committed the act. Not saying that assault=rape...

I am not saying Gibbons is innocent by a long shot, but UM fans aren't the only ones who will defend their players to the death. 

Scarlet_Lutefisk's picture

Except that the 'solid evidence' pretty clearly shows that Hyde did not commit assault. Please feel free to keep torturing logic within an inch of it's life.

+4 HS
TheTeam16's picture

Yet there is more proof Hyde did something wrong than there is proof that gibbons did something wrong. Again, I am not saying he is innocent, but you cannot act like Michigan fans are any worse than OSU fans are when it comes to sticking up for their athletes.

+1 HS
M Man's picture

BucnDC:

Tell us all the worst thing that I have written about the alleged victim.

Search the Forum(s).  Quote me.

+1 HS
jedkat's picture

me.

 

too literal?

"I was tired of trying to work my way around the back, so I just ran him over"

~ Joey Bosa

+1 HS
ghalephoto's picture

u man-Why are you writing anything on here...this story wasn't important to us the day after it came out.  Anything written about Mitch McGary is certainly old news.  We simply don't care as much as you want us to, and um, probably never will.  We will let ya know, thanks for writing.

+6 HS
Mercurius's picture

Yes; he was expelled four years too late.

+10 HS
The Urban Legend's picture

So what you're saying is the university sucks at everything and not just football?

The Legend continues

+14 HS
phxbuck's picture

Awesome forum post Farva.

phxbuck's picture

Awesome forum post Farva.

bucndc's picture

I have to question the integrity of a man that would make these statements. He was supposed to be investigating the University's handling of an alleged rape, that he refers to as "a drunken hook-up". I quit reading. This man should be fired. M Man, I respect your posts, but your butthurt over Lewan and Gibbons isn't going to get any sympathy here.

 

+6 HS
M Man's picture

What on earth were you reading?

Brett Sokolow is not a University of Michigan investigator.  He doesn't work for Michigan at all.  If, as I think he did, Sokolow reviewed the Gibbons case it might well have been at the request of counsel representing the accused.  Few others would have any authorized access to the records.  At the same time, his stock in trade is consulting for universities.  He might have been asked for an institutional review, but it seems unlikely that he'd comment publicly, especially working for separate institutions.  And there are other possibilities.

Sokolow is the Executive Director of the Association of Title IX Administrators and the CEO of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management providing legal counsel and expert consulting to universities.  Here's his CV. 

As for me; I know full well that everybody here will read what I write with the maximum level of suspicion and criticism.  That's okay.  I can take it.  Just tell me what I've gotten wrong.

-6 HS
bucndc's picture

Where did I call him a University of Michigan Investigator? It clearly states he works for the government, Director of Title IX.

Our difference was, I said investigate, you said review. He's still an asshole. How could you as a professional call an alleged rape, drunken hook-up? It's totally irresponsible. If he were my counsel, I would seek to have him sanctioned. But yet, you choose to use this idiot as some kind of proof of innocence.

 

+3 HS
M Man's picture

No.  Wrong.  He does not "work for the government."

The Association of Title IX Administrators is a private organization.

If an alleged rape is in fact not a rape and, after reviewing something like, say, the entire transcript from an administrative hearing... Then, yeah, one could reasonably determine that what had at one time been alleged as a rape was in fact a drunken hook-up.

-2 HS
bucndc's picture

If an alleged rape is in fact not a rape

 

Where is that a proven fact? His statements do not conclude that is a fact. Where do you see that? I will not argue this any further. You are defending scumbags. That is a fact. I don't care if they are from Michigan, OSU or anywhere else. Lewan and Gibbons' actions have shown they are less than desirable human beings.

The last time I went to court (ex-wife) my attorney summed up my ex's attorney by stating, " He's not a total scumbag".

 

 

+4 HS
Johnny-Shane_Utah-Falco's picture

M Man, 

I'm with you on this. You bring up very interesting points.

Also, there are some extreme radicals in that administration who are trying to police everything, even free speech. Don't even get me started on Eric Holder.

If we could still upvote thread topics...you'd get an upvote from me.

-10 HS
skid21's picture

M Man, 

I'm with you on this. You bring up very interesting points.

And what would those be?

+2 HS
skid21's picture

Judging by the MGoBoard, most "Meatchicken fans" have turned on Gibbons.  For my part, I've never once claimed to have known what actually transpired on that November night in 2009.  What I have contended is that such matters -- casual, reckless talk about "rape" -- belong in a court of law and nowhere else.

OK. So why wasn't it ever brought before the court of law?

-5 HS
hodge's picture

If I recall, it's because the Ann Arbor PD (who's been pretty harsh with athletes in the past) investigated the matter and determined that it wasn't worth pressing charges.

+1 HS
skid21's picture

Yet the university, 4 years later, decided it was worthy of him being booted. Then the head coach lied about why he wasn't playing. But you say the Ann Arbor police are the ones we should trust because they are so harsh with athletes? Sorry but that is hilarious.

+4 HS
hodge's picture

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't.  I'm merely stating fact.  

If Gibbons committed rape, then by all means he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  The issue here is when the university comes to a different conclusion than the law, then either one of two outcomes are occurring: (1) the law is failing to do their due diligence and letting a guilty man skirt, or (2) the university is acting unilaterally and condemning someone innocent (in the eyes of the law, at least) with suspect evidence.  I don't know which outcome is correct, but I do think it's just as easy to conclude that UM is being overzealous without the burden of proof as it is to say that the police precipitated a cover up.

I'm not trying to defend Hoke here, but Urban did consciously avoid Spence's situation too.

+5 HS
M Man's picture

Oh lord, Skid21.  You've missed a lot of this class, haven't you?

The Ann Arbor Police Department investigated, in 2009.  Everybody in town knew what had transpired.  That the girl had made a report, Gibbons had been brought in for questioning and he answered all questions without asking for a lawyer.  The local newspapers, and the Michigan Daily all knew about it.  MGoBlog knew about it.  I knew about it, within hours of Gibbons' leaving the department offices.  AAPD investigated.  They investigated for several weeks.  In the end, they did not submit a case to the Washtenaw County Prosecutors office.  This is the same Prosecutors office that laid a felony charge (since dismissed per the Holmes Act) on Frank Clark, prosecuted numerous OUI cases against Michigan athletes and even tried to make a case under ridiculous circumstances against former d-back Josh Furman who took it to a bench trial and won a not guilty verdict.  Listen to your friend Hodge, who is always paying attention in this class.

Gibbons will assuredly never be prosecuted for criminal sexual assault; that case has so completely collapsed now it is no longer funny.  Gibbons would never have been brought up on student conduct charges but for two things.  One was a relentless local gadlfly who had his own checkered history as an employee of the U-M Medical Center; the guy (an early retiree now) has been bashing his own pet causes with the university regents for years.  He was apparently the guy who made a belated Department of Education Office of Civil Rights complaint.  And even that would have gone nowhere, but for the Obama Administration's 2012 policy change on pressing Title IX investigations in connection with supposed sexual assaults on campus.

Brady Hoke's dissembling about Gibbons' missing the Michigan bowl game due to a "family matter" had nothing to do with the imposition of Gibbons' expulsion; the expulsion was a fait accompli at that point.  I have publicly criticized Hoke for that characterization here at this blog.  It was a bit of dumb and pointless hyper-defensiveness on the part of Hoke.  But of course, Gibbons was owed his privacy in the administrative proceeding as well, and that privacy was illegally trashed by someone.

-3 HS
TheTeam16's picture

Thank you Hodge. Everyone and their mother is trying to pin this lack of an investigation on Brady Hoke, or MSC, or the University of Michigan. 

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DECIDED TO NOT INVESTIGATE! I am pretty sure if a trained senior officer of the law said there was no need to investigate a suspicion at ohio state or any other university for that matter in regards to an athlete, it would be case closed by the university as well. If you think otherwise you are being ignorant. 

If anyone should be receiving punishment from this it is the police chief in AA (who has a extensive history of being as hard on UM athletes as he can be) who decided to no longer pursue looking into a rape case with plenty of supporting evidence. 

-5 HS
M Man's picture

Well this is wrong.

The police absolutely and positively DID investigate.  They investigated the case for weeks.  There were at least two detectives on the case.  Ann Arbor's Chief of Police had no personal role in the case as far as I know.

So it is NOT true to suggest that AAPD "decided not to investigate."  There are pages of investigative reports.

NO -- what the AAPD decided was to not refer the case to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor for prosecution.  It is a pure falsehood on your part to suggest that Ann Arbor's Chief of Police had anything to do with any decision "to no longer pursue looking into a rape case with plenty of supporting evidence."  We've had two chiefs in Ann Arbor during the relevant period of time by the way.

TheTeam16's picture

I should not have said "did not investigate," poor choice of words on my part. Meant to convey did not pursue further action...

+1 HS
Poison nuts's picture

Sun on sun violence :)

"Do not pass me, just slow down - I can move right through you" Superchunk - Precision Auto.

+4 HS
buckskin's picture

TTUN fans having a verbal spat on a Buckeye website.  WTF?  Go home losers.

+1 HS
Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

M man...Didn't the victim in this case go on to found some kind of Anti-rape group ? I thought I had seen something a long those lines a while back but I cant seem to find it now. Figured with as much interest you have in this case your memory might be a little fresher on the subject.

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

-4 HS
M Man's picture

No, to the best of my knowledge that is untrue.  The complainant has not become an activist.  And the local blogger who has made a living out of the case is no activist for feminist causes.  He was at one time an Ypsilanti-area Tea Party activist.

The complainant woman was, like Gibbons, a scholarship athlete at Michigan.  She took at least one term off (more, I am not sure about) but it is my understanding that she kept her athletic grant-in-aid.

 

***Edit/Update*** - This was such a provocative question that I checked into it further.  I have paid little or no attention to the accuser in this case.  Her name ought not be published, under routine journalistic standards pertaining to sexual assault victims, alleged or proven or anything else.  I will not publish her name.  While it does not change a single word that I have posted anywhere else in this thread, I must now say that yes, Gibbons' accuser has now become very actively involved in sexual assault prevention/activism.  I don't wish to say any more, and I don't think it has any bearing on the substance of what I have been writing.  I left intact my original response just above, where I said I was unaware of her becoming an activist.

-3 HS
Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

Thanks for coming clean on that one, I had pretty much discredited everything else you had written when I seen your answer to my original question. Bravo

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+1 HS
M Man's picture

How did you know?  I wouldn't mind telling you how I figured it out, but I am highly sensitive to the moral rule against publishing the identity of a sexual assault victim.  I will say that the alleged victim doesn't seem to be doing much to lead a strictly private life.

-2 HS
Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

Honestly it all started in a thread similar to this one that took place months ago on another site. A *ichigan fan was empathetically telling chatters how Gibbons was being set up and how he and Lewan were choir boys who were being taken advantage of. Another poster had responded to him that would he believe it if the victim had  since the incident dedicated herself to some advocacy group to help prevent rape if indeed she was making it all up. Enough information was given at that time to really interest me so I did  some googling and fact checking and seen it was indeed the truth. I couldn't remember her name and I wouldn't post it if I did know it but I figured a guy like yourself that has done some obvious research and has maybe a small vested interest would know about that because I myself found it to be a pretty telling fact. Ive seen a lot of sexual assault cases from multiple angles but have never seen a woman subject herself not only to a rape kit(aka the 2nd rape) but also  to dedicate and volunteer herself to help future victims in that form if she was indeed "Just making it up".

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+1 HS
rosycheeks's picture

Yes, he was wrongfully expelled. Michigan is where a bum like him belongs.

+4 HS
TheTeam16's picture

Lots of bums attend the 28th ranked university in the country... #Logic

-8 HS
rosycheeks's picture

I didn't say that every attendee is a bum. #morelogicalthanyou #boomgoesthedynamite

-4 HS
OSU_1992_UFM's picture

Well, that was a good thread fight.....

UFM_Renewal

Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+1 HS
bucndc's picture

Bottom Line M Man,

You have posted this topic numerous times. Once is a discussion, twice is follow-up. Now you are just trolling. You even state in your comments you are going to get negged. That is trolling by its very definition. Can we please put an end to this at eleven warriors? FUCK Gibbons, FUCK Lewan. If you feel the need to discuss their horseshit, go back to mgoblog. I have a feeling they would treat you almost as bad as me.

+2 HS
M Man's picture

To the best of my recollection, this is the first time I have ever started a thread on this topic.

There have been lots of discussions on matters relating to Michigan, Gibbons and Lewan.  Started by other 11W readers, because they were interested in the discussion.  And I have contributed.

I try my best to keep my posts factual; and I try to source everything that requires sourcing.  I know that in offering a contrarian view, that I will get extra scrutiny.  I'll be challenged.  And readers will call me names.  I get that in almost anything I write here.

At 11W, I try my best to behave like a guest.  Provide news and views that the main contributors might not supply, and to do so clearly and hopefully with an engaging writing style.  I do my best to stay on point and not respond to personal attacks.  This thread seems like as good an example as any.

There's not a month that has gone by where I haven't somehow gone out of my way to offer my sincere respect for the Ohio State University and its athletics on this Forum.  If I am a troll, then I think that anybody who simply has a differing viewpoint would qualify as a troll.

 

+9 HS
OSU_1992_UFM's picture

Hate Meatchicken, hate that state up north....but don't bash M Man for stating his views, he states his sources. So its not like hes pulling this out of no where. Upvotes for standing your ground sir

UFM_Renewal

+2 HS
buckeyedexter's picture

"the campus policy stated that intoxication creates an inability to consent."

Not specific to this case, but to me this is a very scary statement.  How would you know she is intoxicated and not just drunk?  What if you are both drunk?  I would bet most of you at one time got drunk and hooked up with someone who was also drunk.  If she woke up and didn't exactly remember or regretted her decision the night before, you are now a rapist.

+3 HS
Go1Bucks's picture

That happens - exactly like that - more often than you know.  That is one of the components of M Man's original post.  The whole subject has been a Pandora's box both as part of Title IX and and part of the law for a very long time.  I remember the argument in pre law class and as an outright argument in a woman's studies class that I was required to take.  I am not defending either side with this statement, only that the argument exists and I know of some first hand accounts of claims that changed from late night hookup to something else. 

Go Bucks!

+5 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Do these "drunken hookups" that are being considered rape usually end with a female getting a Rape Kit and showing signs of sexual abuse?  Is that normal for these "drunken hookups"?  Also, do these normally involve friends of the male counterpart threatening the female to keep quiet about consensual "drunken hookups"?

 

This original post sounds ALOT like the JoeBots in creepy valley, except they are defending a guy that allowed rape to happen where the OP is defending an actual rapist.    Gibbons is a piece of shit, Lewan is a piece of shit and anyone who defends either of their actions is a piece of shit.

+1 HS
M Man's picture

I keep making these same points in a calmly-written voice and in measured terms.

The Gibbons case was investigated by Ann Arbor Police, with written reports.  Gibbons gave a voluntary interview in that process, without assistance of a lawyer.  The Ann Arbor Police determined not to forward a charging request to the prosecutor after their investigation.  They have left their file open.  But there have been no charges.  I'll bet anyone right now a thousand dollars that there will never be any charges.

University Police investigated the claim that Lewan somehow "threatened" the complaining witness.  By the terms of their report, according to every witness, Lewan had no direct contact with the complaining witness.

The University of Michigan only determined to pursue a student "conflict resolution" administrative hearing versus Gibbons after a major change in federal Title IX policy, dating to an April, 2012 letter from Russlynn Ali of the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights.  A White House appointee.  And only after a direct complaint made by Washtenaw County's resident gadfly, Doug Smith, ex- of the university's medical center.

Compare to Penn State, where the perpetrator was arraigned on 52 felony counts, tried to jury verdicts on 48 counts and found guilty on 45 counts.  And high ranking university administrators were found to have been derelict in their duty to report the matter.  It is a preposterous and even grotesque comparison to what happened at Michigan.  Where the alleged crime was promptly reported and investigated, with no interference (by any account) from the university or its athletic department and where the basic case is apparently very much doubted and in dispute.

I say again, this isn't about football or big college athletics and certainly not about rivalries.  It is about a wholly new paradigm -- politically charged -- in Title IX's role in higher education.

There.  I did that without any personal attacks on anyone. 

+5 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Lewan was turned in by his own teammates for threatening the girl, and was told by police not to have any more contact with her.  Why would that happen if he had no direct contact with her? Lewan also denied assaulting those OSU fans after the Game last year, but was then charged with it so its safe to say his credibility is non-existant.  You seem to believe because the AAPD didn't arrest him, he didn't do anything which is pretty naive.

As for Gibbons, he has his side of the events that he likes to portray, unfortunately for him the evidence doesn't back it up:

The report of the physical examination of the victim has just become available in response to a new FOIA request.

The examination showed that there were linear tears in the skin of the labia minora. An internal examination was not possible because it was too painful to perform.

The frequency of genital injuries, visible in direct examination, in rape victims is from 20 to 40%.[1] The use of dyes and magnification to detect more subtle injuries can increase the frequency of injury detection. Tears of the labia minora are one of the most common injuries found in rape victims. The incidence of genital injuries following consensual sex has not been adequately studied but tears of the labia minora have rarely been described in studies of consensual sex. Even in studies of consensual sex, findings of injuries are almost always associated with reports of dry, painful sex.

The genital injuries and the bruising of the upper arm are more consistent with the victim’s report than with Gibbons’ report of consensual sex.

I never said that this was similar to Sandusky, I said the rationale you used in the OP was similar to the rationale that alot of PSU fans use to vindicate Paterno.  This is at best a HUGE stretch by you to show that Gibbons may have been wronged and the incident was handled correctly by the University.  For starters, Gibbons case was not mentioned anywhere in the article you site, you make that correlation based on a gut feeling.

Aside from all of that, you didn't answer my question about these false rapes that are really "drunken hookups".  So do they usually end with evidence of sexual trauma and one of the parties notifying every authority outlet she can find that she was attacked?  Does the friend of one of these parties usually threaten the other not to talk to police or he will assault her again?  Is this normal in the type of situation you are saying Gibbons was a part of?

 

+4 HS
M Man's picture

Taylor Lewan never contacted the supposed victim.  Not once.  Not ever.  Lewan is supposed to have stated privately to third persons, "If she does [press charges], I'm going to rape her because he [Gibbons] didn't.”  By every single account, Lewan never communicated that statement to the supposed victim.

Lewan didn't know the supposed victim.  He didn't know what she looked like.  In a casual conversation with fellow students, he asked if one of the women present was the woman in question.  She was not.

I presume one thing in all of this.  That Lewan knew his friend Gibbons and in being very close to the situation, Lewan felt strongly that the complaint against his friend Gibbons was false.  Lewan was pissed off about it.  And he said something intemperate.

Without finding any cause for a disciplinary action against Lewan (much less any criminal charge), the University (not Ann Arbor) police instructed Lewan to have no contact with the supposed victim.  NOT "any further" contact, although the report is poorly written in that regard.

Your italicized quote is, I presume from Ann Arbor's eccentric blogger, Doug Smith.  Before Gibbons sues the University of Michigan, I hope he sues Doug Smith for defamation.  Smith has falsely, maliciously and recklessly called Gibbons a "rapist," and deserves to be sued for that libel.

-1 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Poorly written?  It says it in plain english:

http://www.washtenawwatchdogs.com/um-police-report.html

"he was not to have further contact with the victim"  Seems pretty cut and dry.  He was also turned in by his own teammates for the remarks he made, so unless they are lying he clearly threatened her.  Sure he's denied it, but he's proven to be incapable of telling the truth so why does he get the benefit of the doubt here?

As for Smith, he may have an agenda and he may not.  Doesn't change the facts, unless you feel the outcome of the rape test was falsified by all involved?  Also, why was a Rape Kit even performed if this was a "Drunken Hookup", let alone came back with symptoms of rape? The University of Michigan called Gibbons a Sex Offender when they booted him from school for sexual misconduct, so there is basis to call him that.  

Let Gibbons sue for Defamation, because then he has to prove Smith's comments aren't factual.  I'd love to see that, but I guarantee the University of Michigan doesn't want any light shed on their handling of this case from 2009 to 2013.  Starting with the way the complaint was originally handled and ending with why Hoke played Gibbons against Iowa.  I would love to see them all explain their failures under oath.

 

 

+2 HS
M Man's picture

And you took the bait.  If Lewan was not supposed to any "further" contact with the supposed victim, then you can tell me when the first/previous contact was.

Save yourself the effort; it never happened.

Saying Lewan was to have "no further" contact with the supposed victim was poor writing by the police officer-author of the report.  It was overly-casual language usage.  When what was intended was that Lewan was to have "no contact" or "no future contact," although the latter phrase would be redundant, as none of us can initiate any "past contact" in the non-Star Trek world.

As any lawyer who has done criminal defense work knows, such errors are common in police reports.

-3 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Say you're right, any he didn't say it directly to her.  Is it any different that he said it knowing it would get back to her?  Same message, no?  He clearly said it, so by default he threatened her.

+1 HS
M Man's picture

Okay.  I'll say I'm right.  Thanks and have a nice day.

-5 HS
Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

So it is ok for Lewan to say if the girl presses charges Im  going to rape her myself because I know damn well Gibbons didn't? Are you sure these are the type of people you want to defend? The victim was a scholarship athlete too and reported this crime immediately and had obvious injuries and bruising to back up her story. But your hope in all this is that Gibbons can somehow win a lawsuit against the university you love enough to name your moniker and picture after? He is the victim in your eyes with the information we have available?

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+2 HS
M Man's picture

I love my alma mater enough to want to make damn sure that it is not operating a semi-secret kangaroo court for student "discipline."

As I have said every single time this topic has arisen on 11W; this isn't a Michigan problem.  It is a national problem.  My one and only prediction is that it is merely a matter of time before a Gibbons-type matter occurs in Columbus.  Not because Urban Meyer is a lax disciplinarian (I will argue that he isn't) or any other low-level sportsfan trashtalk.  The Ohio State university has a very large athletic department, with a lot of student-athletes.  That's it.  Numbers, and time.  That is why I say it is going to happen in Columbus.

When it does, my philosophical/ideological position will be the same.  Such cases belong in court.  They should be investigated.  Not swept under any institutional rugs.  And they belong in courts of law.  Not university conference rooms.  And the federal government ought not to be making Title IX threats against universities based on individual cases.

+3 HS
Whoa Nellie's picture

I'm sure you understand that the federal government is using Title IX as leverage precisely because sexual assault claims are not being properly investigated, by police, universities or university police, and are being swept under whatever rug is handy.   

We can debate whether this policy is wise or not, hopefully keeping in mind that the latest Dept. of Justice survey says 1 in 5 female students, and 1 in 33 male students, claim to have been sexually assaulted at school.  That is a national problem, and a &ichigan problem,  But this is a governmental policy decision and this is a political debate that while fine on another forum, doesn't belong here.  That's why your regular visits to re-hash your political views on the topic are unwanted. 

And, BTW, characterizing these cases as "drunken hookups"; not rapes is offensive.  Can't an intoxicated person be raped? 

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

+1 HS
M Man's picture

That mendacious "Justice Department" statistic on campus-based sexual assaults is demolished by my friend Mark Perry in this piece he wrote for his AEI blog.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/how-about-a-renewed-call-for-the-white-...

Christina Hoff Sommers points out here how that 1-in-4 (later amended to 1-in-5) number that you say came from the Justice Department was developed by some other survey group under a grant from the Justice Department and;

The Justice Department stamped a disclaimer on every page of the survey report, 
advising that it is not a publication of the Justice Department and does not necessarily 
reflect its positions or policies.

Her own AEI monograph is here:

http://www.aei.org/files/2011/06/05/In-Making-Campuses-Safe-for-Women-Ch...

 

-3 HS
Whoa Nellie's picture

I think you're proving my point by citing the neo-con American Enterprise Institute as God's own truth and calling the Justice Dept's research agency's report "mendacious".

Again, this is a debate you and your friends should have with Jon Stewart, and not on 11W.

Also, if it's "only" 1 in 20 women students who are raped, is that not too many?

 

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

+4 HS
M Man's picture

One rape, anywhere, any time, would be too many.  But of course that isn't even part of the numbers being thrown around by the administration.  They have defined "sexual assault" as any unwanted contact with any sexual connotation.  So trying to steal a kiss and being rebuffed is a reportable "sexual assault."  "Grabbing" without any force at all is a reportable "sexual assault."  Verbal threats without any physical contact are reportable "sexual assaults."

Rapes are serious criminal matters.  If there really is a rape problem, there needs to be a lot more police investigations and prosecutions.  Not a lot more meetings in university conference rooms.  Real rapists need to be prosecuted, not expelled, and this is the precise point I endeavored to make, without making a greater issue out of the DoJ's dubious involvement.  You did that; and now I have responded in the most direct way I know.

-2 HS
Whoa Nellie's picture

Nice try, but you started this thread.  In this and in others, reduced to its essence, your premise is criticism of the the current administration's policy. That's the textbook definition of a political rant.  Not mentioning the elephant in the room doesn't make it disappear.  Enough.  We can continue this argument on C-Span, where it belongs. 

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

+3 HS
M Man's picture

Sort of, but not really.

Look through this thread, and you'll see: I haven't argued the ultimate merits of the case, except to carefully point out, "Careful, there's another side to what you allege..."

I have said that this is political.  And that everyone ought to be on the alert as to the politicization of this issue.  At Michigan, at Xavier, at Auburn, at Holy Cross, at Vassar, at Williams, at St. Joseph's and, someday perhaps, at the Ohio State University.

-2 HS
prevetbuck's picture

But of course that isn't even part of the numbers being thrown around by the administration.  They have defined "sexual assault" as any unwanted contact with any sexual connotation.  So trying to steal a kiss and being rebuffed is a reportable "sexual assault."  "Grabbing" without any force at all is a reportable "sexual assault."  Verbal threats without any physical contact are reportable "sexual assaults."

This is where you're crossing the line for me. This one set of statements is offensively invalidating to anyone who may have felt violated by someone else. Just because a penis didn't penetrate, does not mean that sexual violence did not occur. The point of the 1-in-5 number has never been "this is how many women we know have been forcefully penetrated by a stranger in a dark alley"; the point is that we are changing our definitions of sexual violence, and that is a good thing. Because these troubling acts you speak of as being so innocent are the gateways of disrespect towards others that lead to the "rape culture" that pervades our society.

That cute little boy trying to "steal" a kiss from the little girl that clearly doesn't want him to kiss her while all the surrounding adults coo and talk about how adorable it is? He's learning that girls should always want him to kiss them because he wants to; that he's entitled to it. That little girl is learning that her feelings don't matter; that no one will believe that she actually didn't want him to, because it was just soooooo cute. Then, as they both grow up, he'll learn that sex is a currency that is bartered for with dinner dates and gifts, and if he puts in those efforts he deserves it. She'll learn that if she won't have sex then she's a prude, but if she will (and heaven forbid- actively enjoys it) then she's a slut/whore. That it's okay for people to grab her "without any force" (I'm not even sure what you meant by that) even if it makes her supremely uncomfortable. The whole mentality is completely f*cked up.

Whatever your thoughts are about school's involvement in the investigations of reports of sexual violence, please do not belittle the feelings of those who have been subjected to violation of a sexual nature that did not involve an out-and-out rape.

Whoa Nellie's picture

 If there really is a rape problem,

This statement by the *ichigan lawyer is the one that convinced me to tune him out.  That, and the old Cajun adage: "Never rassle with a pig.  You both get dirty -- and the pig likes it."

Prevetbuck, very well stated.

“Don’t fear criticism. The stands are full of critics. They play no ball. They fight no fights. They make no mistakes because they attempt nothing. Down on the field are the doers, they make mistakes because they attempt many things.”

e135800's picture

Wondering why it's important for M-MAN to make us think that Gibbons isn't a rapist and lewan is a nice guy?

 

 

+3 HS
M Man's picture

You have missed the point completely.  I have no need to make anybody think that Gibbons isn't a rapist and Taylor Lewan is a nice guy.  I am trying to prove neither thing.  For someone to call Gibbons a "rapist" at this stage of the game is probably per se defamation.  It is an assertion that Gibbons is a sex criminal, when in fact he's never been convicted or even charged with such an offense.  Similarly with Lewan; accusing him of having "threatened" a witness is defamatory.

I don't want less light on these stories; I want more light on them.  I'd like to see Brendan Gibbons sue the University of Michigan and throw the light of civil discovery on his administrative case.  I want Taylor Lewan to go to trial on his simple assault charge.  I maintain that Gibbons' alleged sexual assault case belonged in an open Circuit Court room.

The two players have been convicted in the court of public opinion.  Which is one of the worst tribunals we have ever created.

I am trying to draw a very bright line around the new wave of university- (not legal-) based administrative hearings under the federal threat of Title IX sanctions.  That's my issue.  It isn't rooting for my team or any one of our current or former players.  My war is with the forces behind current Title IX policy and with a credulous media on all of these matters.

Have I not made these points clearly enough?

jamesrbrown322's picture

He's probably enough of a public figure for it to not be defamation. There also has to be malice, and knowledge that the allegation is false, depending upon the state.

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+2 HS
M Man's picture

I think you are probably wrong.  It would be, however, a close call.

Amateur athletes are generally "limited purpose public figures."  The New York Times v Sullivan analysis would hold, as long as any published falsehoods related to athletics and competition.  (Things like cheating, recruiting scandals, performance, etc.)  Falsehoods relating to private matters removed from student-athletics would likely not be covered.

Michigan defensive back Marlin Jackson got in a fight with some schmuck in Ann Arbor while a student.  The schmuck told police that Jackson hit him for no reason with a bottle.  The schmuck also sued Jackson.  Jackson countersued, and got a $225,000 jury verdict (for defamation) against the schmuck.  That verdict was overturned on appeal, but not on Sullivan grounds.

-2 HS
jamesrbrown322's picture

True, but the "schmuck" knowingly gave false information. This is entirely different, as you say, "none of us knows." Defamation standards are generally pretty high, at least here they are anyway.

I would also say that based upon what most people do know, and the eventual actions taken to expel him, the conclusion is a reasonable one, therefore is not defamation.

But, whatever, this is an OHIO STATE FAN site, not a legal one.

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+5 HS
original buckeye's picture

M Man--if you're so interested in this topic and in shedding light on it, why not shed some light on why exactly it was that the University of Michigan determined on November 20, 2013 that a preponderance of evidence supports "a finding that Gibbons engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment," and yet Gibbons was still permitted to suit up for the Michigan football team and kick three extra points on November 23, 2013 (a full three days after said finding)?

That series of events makes your university look horrible, such that I would think you'd be more interested in having that question answered rather than the ridiculous fool's errand you're on in starting this thread.

+4 HS
Poison nuts's picture

I've edited my question (taken it off) so as not to participate in this thread or debate....

"Do not pass me, just slow down - I can move right through you" Superchunk - Precision Auto.

Chief B1G Dump's picture

Whoops, didnt mean to post here...dont mind me.

jamesrbrown322's picture

So, at what point can we stop blaming everyone else except for the person who put themselves into a bad situation and conceivably made bad choices?

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+5 HS
e135800's picture

Have I not made these points clearly enough?

Perhaps,  but I didn't care to read anymore about michigan rapists and thugs years after it was covered up. No audience over at mgoblog?

 

 

M Man's picture

This issue is as divisive at MGoBlog as it is here.  And I'm not certain about how the division(s) run.

It could be political; opponents of the current administration versus fans/apologists.

It could be legal; attorneys versus laypersons.

It could be generational; millennials versus boomers.

It could be social; media critics and cognoscenti versus media consumers.

It is assuredly not "Michigan versus Ohio State."  I have declaimed that status in every way I possibly can.

But I don't think any one of these divisions works.  I'm still trying to figure it out.  I do think that MGoBlog is a good blog, most particularly its Brian Cook-authored and edited main content.  The MGoBoard is a mess, with thousands of idiotic posters and dozens of smart ones.  The moderation is irregular and often senseless.  It is a much bigger message board than Eleven Warriors.  With that volume, the quality is very much lowered.  I'd be happy to offer up my detailed take on the MGoBoard if anyone in charge of Eleven Warriors asked me.  

-2 HS
jamesrbrown322's picture

You forgot about those of us that have children, especially daughters.

Also, remember this - DAs and AGs all over the country choose to not pursue charges because they think they probably won't get a conviction. They may sugar coat it, but that's what they do. Remember, "not guilty" does not necessary mean innocent. I understand your frustration with the government stepping in and using a lower burden of proof, however, the reason that the burden of proof is so much higher for criminal offenses, is because someone would be deprived of their liberty.

You've got to remember that as a Michigan fan, fair or not, you come off as an apologist, rather than an impartial observer. If you were coming to the defense of Jim Tressel, Bruce Pearl, or Joe Paterno, it would be different. However, the way the REAL world works is that your argument carries little weight due to your fan allegiance. I am not saying it is fair, I am just saying that it is true.

Do I disagree with this particular interpretation of Title IX? Sure! Do I also think that high level athletes get away with a lot more than they should? Sure. Do I think that schools should not be permitted to regulate themselves and essentially adjudicate criminal charges internally, and that the federal government, which subsidizes the university should step in, in order to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of potential victims of a system that treats the accused more favorably that the accuser? Probably.

Bottom line is that this kid is just like Jameis Winston. I am not saying that either of them is rapist, nor am I saying they are not. But, if you put yourself in potentially bad situations, then there are potentially bad outcomes. It's not difficult to understand that!

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+8 HS
M Man's picture

I don't think I said, "not guilty means innocent."

I think I will say, "never even charged with a crime means you can't seriously call him a rapist."

-2 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

So he didn't rape anyone unless he's charged?  Pretty blatant disregard for the evidence, but what should I expect from someone who vehemenently defends the actions of Gibbons and Lewan.  Like I said earlier, you're on par with PSU fans that protect Paterno.  Old Joe was never charged either.

+2 HS
M Man's picture

People so want to picture me as Gibbons' defense lawyer.

I don't know what happened.  Like you don't know.  And neither one of us knows what transpired in Gibbons' university "hearing."  But even without any of that, it seems that most of the world is content to call Gibbons a "rapist" and presume his guilt.  Along with a presumption that the police investigation of Gibbons was scuttled, that Michigan athletics might have illegally derailed it, and that through sheer incompetence the University of Michigan at first ignored the case for three years and then suddenly jumped on it and tossed Gibbons when he was no longer useful as a placekicking specialist.

There's no evidence for any of that.

I prefer my evidence in extra-large helpings, in court and under oath with plenty of adversarial cross-examination.

-1 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

There's plenty of evidence against both Gibbons and Lewan, you're just choosing not to acknowledge it and deflecting from it by bringing up Doug Smith's credibility.

 

Here's what we know:

Brendan Gibbons had sex with her

She claims it wasn't consensual

Her medical examination shows evidence for her account and against Gibbons

Taylor Lewan made threats toward the victim advising her not to press charges

The University of Michigan found sufficient evidence that Gibbons was guilty of Sexual Misconduct and expelled him

Brady Hoke still played Gibbons vs Iowa, 3 days after the University found Gibbons guilty of Rape

Brady Hoke then lied multiple times to the media regarding Gibbons.

There's an extra-large helping of evidence for you.

+4 HS
M Man's picture

More of what we know:

Gibbons and his accuser had sex, including oral sex with his penis in her mouth.  Asked how that happened without her consent, the accuser couldn't explain.  She told police she had had a lot to drink.

Gibbons claims it was all consensual, and that afterward, the woman told him, "We shouldn't have done this."

Under questioning by police, in which Gibbons voluntarily participated, they asked whether Gibbons would be willing to take a polygraph as to his version of events.  Gibbons said "yes."

Taylor Lewan never had any personal contact with the accuser, whom he is widely (and wrongly) presumed to have "threatened."

Someone leaked to the press the letter from the University of Michigan Office of Student Conflict Resolution to Brendan Gibbons.  It is a selective leak insofar as we don't know anything else about the proceedings; who were the hearing officers, what was said, was there any testimony, any cross-examination, any statement, any evidence, any counsel, et cetera.

That letter was dated December 19 and indicated a separation date of December 20, 2013.  Brendan Gibbons played his last game for Michigan (against Iowa) almost a month earlier, on November 23, 2013.

As of the time of the Iowa game on November 23, Gibbons had been sent a letter dated November 20, which stated that a preponderance of evidence was present to find Gibbons responsible for the alleged sexual assault.  That was apparently without any possibility for Gibbons to even respond to the charge, and without any formal determination of punishment.  It seems to have been a sort of a charging document.

I have been roundly critical of Brady Hoke for willfully misleading the press on matters relating to injuries, player discipline, roster changes, etc.  The ONLY discernible motivation on the part of Hoke in those cases is to conceal information from opponents for purposes of game-planning and the protection of his players' private lives.  No intelligent person has to my knowledge ever made a credible allegation that Brady Hoke did anything to foil any investigation in the matter of Brendan Gibbons.

So you see; I wanted a second helping of evidence.

-3 HS
jamesrbrown322's picture

I think I will say, "you probably shouldn't call him a rapist." But hey, I call O.J.  a murderer, so what do I know? Also, imagine for just a minute that Sandusky dies before any of the revelations about his behavior surface, and he is never charged. Does that mean that he is not a child molester?

I am not calling Gibbons or Winston a rapist, but I also am not going to just assume that they did absolutely nothing wrong. I've been close enough to the culture to know that probably neither scenario is the truth.

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+2 HS
e135800's picture

I'd be happy to offer up my detailed take on the MGoBoard if anyone in charge of Eleven Warriors asked me.  

That would strike as more boing of a read than reading about "non-guilty" rapists and thugs up there in the AA Country Club.

 

 

hodge's picture

FYI: M Man's review of Three and Out was phenomenal, and made the front page here I do believe.

+1 HS
gobucks96's picture

M Man,

Take a step back and review this guy you are defending. Include in that review his comments to the media after hitting the game winning field goal of your BCS bowl and ask yourself the blaring question one would ask someone who was acccused of rape. "Why on earth would he say that and why on earth would a head coach use that as motivation for him?"

Then reassess why you are wasting your time on here defending him. He may be not be guilty, but what the heck, man? Why take the chance if you don't know?

 

M Man's picture

This is the second time in this thread and the umpteenth time I have had to say that I don't know enough to defend Gibbons but that I do know enough to know, for an absolute fact, that the only reason that Gibbons was expelled from the University of Michigan was because of a new Department of Education Office of Civil Rights policy.

If Gibbons is in fact innocent -- neither one of us knows for sure but as a society there is just one way that we pronounce guilt and that sure as heck hasn't happened in Gibbons' case -- then just think of what he's gone through and is going through.

Some of you guys should never, ever serve on a criminal jury and certainly not one involving a criminal sexual conduct matter.

 

-5 HS
gobucks96's picture

M Man, 

This is over the fourth time I've said this to you..

You are repeatedly bringing this issue up and only pointing to positive items for Gibbons here. YOU ARE DEFENDING HIM! If you don't know if he's innocent or not, why are you bothering to post only positive items for him on this site? 

Now back to my original point. If you are a person being accused of such a crappy crime, why on god's green earth would make the comments he did on camera after the BCS Bowl game? And why, as a coach, would you use the motivational tactic for this particular person at that time?! It reeks of slime, guilt or not. 

+2 HS
M Man's picture

I would say that I am consciously and carefully countering all of the popular notions leading people to conclude that Brendan Gibbons is somehow a "rapist."  Which is widespread here, and which is even rather widespread at someplace like MGoBlog.  

If I have pointed to any "positive items" in Gibbons' defense that are incorrect, please let me know in a reply.  I vet my own writing pretty carefully here, knowing that if I get anything wrong, I'll be called on it.

As for the "brunettes" comment after the Sugar Bowl; I think that at the time, Gibbons and Hoke (and perhaps everybody in Michigan football and probably every administrator at the University) all thought that the Gibbons/sexual assault story was a dead issue.  Gibbons had cooperated with police, and had not been charged.  The police investigation was effectively concluded.  The university was doing nothing about the case.  The "Washtenaw Watchdog" was a nobody.

All of which points up the fact that the University of Michigan responded to some rather pointed and explicit federal pressure when, after the 2012 "Dear Colleague" letter and a complaint and/or request for investigation filed by the Washtenaw Watchdog a/k/a Douglas Smith.

There's not much substantive factual meat here.  You don't like the "brunettes" quote.  I honestly don't know everything about how it came up, although I saw the postgame press conference.  What is pretty clear to me is that at the time of the "brunettes" quote, Gibbons and everyone around him thought that the case against him had died because it had been a false claim.

-1 HS
gobucks96's picture

That's defending the kid. Just admit it and move on..

I respect your opinion. I disagree with it, however I do hope you're right. For all parties...

+2 HS
jamesrbrown322's picture

I have a solution for this posting - BE VERY CAREFUL DEFENDING THOSE ACCUSED OF SEX CRIMES. I understand that your disagreement is with the process. However, using a specific incident and defending Gibbons is probably not the best approach.

As the father of two daughters, I can no longer devote time to this debate, as people are always so ignorant of victims of crimes. I personally know someone who was raped by a minor when she was a minor. In the eyes of the law, he's not a rapist, as it was juvenile, and she could not go through the trauma at thirteen years of age of looking him in the eye after he'd held a knife to her throat and raped her on an ongoing basis, she couldn't provide testimony. However, he is still a rapist. There is no exception, there is no rationalization. He raped her. Remember, all we have to go on are facts. And, coming to the defense of someone is a dangerous proposition, because they may be guilty, but the system doesn't necessarily bear it out. That is exactly why I will not be doing criminal defense work.

Can we talk about football now?

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

+4 HS
original buckeye's picture

M Man--if you're so interested in this topic and in shedding light on it, why not shed some light on why exactly it was that the University of Michigan determined on November 20, 2013 that a preponderance of evidence supports "a finding that Gibbons engaged in unwanted or unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, committed without valid consent, and that conduct was so severe as to create a hostile, offensive, or abusive environment," and yet Gibbons was still permitted to suit up for the Michigan football team and kick three extra points on November 23, 2013 (a full three days after said finding)?

That series of events makes your university look horrible, such that I would think you'd be more interested in having that question answered rather than the ridiculous fool's errand you're on in starting this thread.

+3 HS
M Man's picture

I answered the question about the timing of a letter and the Iowa game above.  I think it is a non-issue.  Read what I wrote, think it over and get back to me.

-3 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

You think Brady Hoke playing Gibbons after the University deemed him guilty of rape is a "non-issue"?  Well that says all you need to know about your bias in this case and paints a pretty good picture of your integrity as a man.  Pretty sick mindset man.

+3 HS
M Man's picture

If the university "deemed him guilty of rape" (that's a mischaracterization in any event), it was before Gibbons had a chance to be heard on the finding, and before any punishment was issued.

I keep answering these clownish questions with a straight face and with undue seriousness.  I've got a lot of patience and a thick skin.

-5 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Ok, Gibbons hearing was 12/20 so why was he sat vs Ohio State?

Or do you believe the injury story?

+2 HS
M Man's picture

I never understood or accepted the injury story.  I criticized Hoke about similar things before anybody knew about the Gibbons expulsion, and I have expanded that criticism since.  But Brady Hoke had no role -- in fact he was forbidden from having any role -- in the Student Conflict Resolution proceeding.

Bottom line is that I don't know and wouldn't hazard a guess on that one.

What you should understand is that it is quite possible that Brady Hoke knew nothing about the Gibbons administrative proceeding, or at least any finding from that proceeding until after the Iowa game.

In any event, Brady Hoke had no substantive role in this case.  It would be like blaming the White House Press Secretary for something stupid that the President or (more appropriately) a mid-level White House staffer did three years earlier.

-2 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Not surprising you failed here too.  No one said Hoke had a substantive role in this case.  If you think its plausible that Hoke didn't know the University deemed Gibbons guilty of Rape then thats your deal, but its a pretty hilarious stance to take.  If you're ok with Hoke allowing a player the his employer found guilty of Rape to play 3 days later, thats your deal as well.  Doesn't change any of the facts, and those facts make your Athletic Department look like a joke.

+2 HS
original buckeye's picture

If you think that's a non-issue, then you should take off the maize and blue glasses.  That finding the university made on Nov. 20th is one of the most damning things you can say about another person.  And yet the university (or the athletic department, or Hoke, who knows--but the point is that it was someone at your university) still allowed Gibbons to represent the university on the football field three days later.  Far from a non-issue, it's a huge issue.  And it's those types of things (along with, say, turning a blind eye to the fact that Hoke's been starting a convicted felon at linebacker for 1.5+ years now) that make everyone outside of Ann Arbor wonder how low things are going to get at Michigan.

But don't let any of those "non-issues" prevent you from putting your head back in the sand and whining about how you believe Gibbons was railroaded...

 

+2 HS
M Man's picture

Frank Clark is not legally a convicted felon.  Clark successfully completed a year under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act.

I didn't say Gibbons was "railroaded."  What I have been saying is that the new Title IX initiatives out of Washington DC are leading to some very serious questions that seem likely to occur everywhere they are imposed in higher education.

-2 HS
original buckeye's picture

That's cute about Clark--he's "not legally" a convicted felon.  So that's the level to which your program has sunk--that you're justifying Hoke continually playing Clark on that basis?  Technicalities aside, you're (of course) choosing to ignore the time before he completed his year under the Holmes Act and therefore was, you know, a convicted felon, and during which time he was still in Brady Hoke's starting lineup and a starter for your University of Michigan football team.

On the "railroaded" issue, the title of the thread (which you chose, of course) suggests you think he was.  Semantics aside, an OSU blog seems like an odd place to attempt to garner sympathy. 

Bigger picture, frankly I'd think Michigan fans would have more important things with which to concern themselves, namely the state of the program (playing Gibbons three days after the university finding and playing Clark being two of the more glaring issues).  This topic seems trivial in comparison, to say the very least.

+1 HS
M Man's picture

Okay, I'll be a lot less cute.

You are wrong.

And I am right.

Frank Clark is not a convicted felon.  There was no judgment of conviction entered in his case, as he completed the year of Holmes Act requirements.  There is no conviction.  Clark has no felony record.  That is the law.  Clark was NEVER "a convicted felon."  Not ever.  He was charged; entered a diversion program; completed the program successfully and as a result the charge was dismissed.  So I'll say again; what you wrote is wrong.  And I am right.

Now, as for preaching this case on Eleven Warriors...  I'd like to get the attention of college football fans, and university alumni everywhere, on this subject.  I want to cut through the rivalry/competitiveness angle that usually overrides everything in collegiate athletics, and focus attention on what is common to all institutions of higher education forced to deal with new Title IX mandates.

-3 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Nice to see your failed logic applies to all degenerates in Ann Arbor and not just Gibbons.

I'll be less cute too.  Frank Clark PLEAD GUILTY to a 2nd Degree Felony Home Invasion Charge and was sentenced under the Holmes Act allowing the CONVICTION to be expounged if he met certain criteria.  He did, good for him but he has absolutely been convicted of a felony in his lifetime.

If it being expounged makes you feel better about Hoke barely punishing him for pleading guilty to a felony then thats your perogative, it actually follows right in line with your views on Lewan and Gibbons so at least you're consistent.

 

M Man's picture

Look; I'm an attorney in Michigan.

Expungements under Michigan law are usually available only for misdemeanors.  MCL 780.621.  In general, you can only have a single, one-count misdemeanor set aside (made "non-public") via expungement .  If you've been in any more trouble than that, such as a non-violent felony plus an ordinary misdemeanor, your petition will be rejected by law.  You can file a petition only after five years with a clean record.  None of that came into play in Clark's case.  Clark has no felony conviction, and nothing to "expunge" at this point.

If you have read stuff in the press (Kyle Meinke at MLive comes to mind); it is wrong and Meinke should have done more legal research on the subject before writing about convictions, probation or expungements.  I don't think that as a sportswriter, Meinke understood the Holmes Act.

I've already supplied you with the Holmes Act provisions, which state as clearly as anyone could hope, that no judgment of conviction is entered in a successful Holmes Act completion.  That's what happened in Clark's case.  Frank Clark is not a felon.

-2 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

However you want to rationalize what goes on up there is your deal man.  If you think Pleading Guilty to a Felony, then not getting it put on your record because of a technicality or whatever justifies how Hoke handled it more power to you.  We seem to have higher standards down here.  You don't ssee us rallying around our players convicted of Rape by the University, or players who directly or indirectly threaten to rape women, or players who plead guilty to felonies...etc.  We're above that.  You seem to not be, which again is your perogative.  Its just sad to see that this is what a once proud football program has been reduced to.

-1 HS
M Man's picture

...players convicted of Rape by the University...

I was going to quote this and reply, "LMFAO."

But what you wrote is actually the scariest and most real part of this entire issue.  I am sorry to say, that in the most legally-perverse way possible, you are right.  "Convicted of rape by the University."  Outrageous.

-1 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Deflect, deflect, deflect....... It truly is sad what you guys have been reduced to up there.  And yes, for the record, Gibbons was expelled because the University of Michigan found enough evidence that he was guilty of rape.  At least you can claim he's not a felon though since he was never convicted in court, so you've got that going for you.

jedkat's picture

The amount of time some your responses have taken aren't considered billable hours are they?

"I was tired of trying to work my way around the back, so I just ran him over"

~ Joey Bosa

+2 HS
villagebuckeye's picture

m man, as a  _ichgan attorney you are either a piss poor one and have no clients or you have wasted about a $grand$ of your time just on this thread.

 

-2 HS
M Man's picture

Martindale-Hubbell thinks I am "AV."

-3 HS
gobucks96's picture

How do we have a private message?

 

original buckeye's picture

Here you go, fella--Clark pleaded guilty to felony home invasion. 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8366859/michigan-wolverin...

Now, you can carry on with your weak attempts to rationalize Hoke's continuing to keep Clark in the starting lineup both while felony charges were pending and after Clark pleaded guilty to them, but if I were you, I'd consider it a better use of my time to look into why Hoke and/or the athletic department are permitted to do things like this, allowing Gibbons to suit up for the football team three days after the Nov. 20 finding, etc.  Your insistence on defending/rationalizing these types of things is, quite frankly, surprising to say the least.  The funny part is that Michigan fans love to claim that OSU is a win at all costs program, all while these shenanigans are going on in Ann Arbor.

 

+2 HS
M Man's picture

I already destroyed your point in my post just above regarding expungements and Michigan law.  And elsewhere in the 11W forums, I have repeatedly said that I don't have a single word of criticism of Urban Meyer's disciplinary record at OSU.  It is surely as solid, and probably more easily defended, than Brady Hoke's record of discipline at Michigan.  Personally, it's hard to find a whisker of philosophical/institutional difference between official discipline at Michigan or Ohio State.  Similar offenses seem to get similar discipline.  In any case, I am not one of those Michigan fanz whom you wish to deride.

-2 HS
CTBuckeyeFan's picture

Yeah, no you didn't but you thinking you did follows the same logic of the rest of your points in this thread.  You're consistent, I'll give you that.

+3 HS
original buckeye's picture

You "already destroyed" my point?  Congrats for declaring yourself the victor, playground style. 

Your playground antics aside, you've clearly missed the bigger point which is that Hoke (or the athletic department at Michigan) have done some really questionable things for which they have not answered.  Playing Gibbons three days after the university finding is one of them.  Another is keeping Clark in the starting lineup while he was charged with a felony and after he pleaded guilty to it.  It's telling that you don't dispute that Hoke was starting a guy who was charged with a felony and continued to start the guy after he pleaded guilty to a felony (and before the record was expunged).  There's a reason that job applications routinely not only ask about criminal convictions but also ask about expunged records.  But you know that--you're just selectively choosing your facts in an attempt to paint Hoke in as good a light as possible.  I'm sure you realize how bad all of this makes Michigan look.

+2 HS
SonOfBuckeye's picture

I will bet dollars to doughnuts, that one of the cases Sokolow reviewed, was the Gibbons case.

Do you mean it was one of the"five cases all involving drunken hook-ups"?  As I understand it, the alleged victim claimed Gibbons used actual force, and she repeatedly said "no".  Sokolow is criticizing cases where universities determine that an assault occurred merely because the girl was drunk, but that doesn't seem to be what happened (or what was alleged) in this instance.

+5 HS
Seattle Linga's picture

Bout time this was said!!!!!!!!!!!

+3 HS
original buckeye's picture

Bingo.  This is typical of that fanbase--whining about something like this and failing to address/ignoring the huge issues and problems surrounding the program. 

+3 HS
rock flag and eagle's picture

This thread reminds me of a documentary about the philosopher Herbert Marcuse, Herbert's Hippopotamus.  In the documentary, a reporter is interviewing Marcuse and wants the philosopher to admit that he advocates violence as a viable form of political resistance.  Time after time, the reporter reminds Marcuse of things Marcuse has said in the past or positions he had previously argued that seem to hint that certain kinds of violence are justified.  But, each time the reporter comes back to the primary question, Marcuse always denies that he advocates violence.  After a while Marcuse finally says something like (paraphrasing) "It doesn't matter how many times you ask me, you're never going to get me to admit that I advocate violence because I don't."  

It seems like a lot of people on this thread just want M Man to come out and admit that he is defending Gibbons.  But, no matter how close he comes to that admission, when staring the question straight in the face, he pulls a Marcuse and says "you're never going to get me to admit that.  I couldn't possibly know because I wasn't there.  Nobody knows because there was no trial."  

To all players in this little dramatic thread called "Was Gibbons Wrongfully Expelled by Michigan" I say "Bravo!"  It takes just the right balance of stubbornness and restraint on both sides to fuel a thread for 90+ comments about a mediocre Michigan kicker on an Ohio State board.  Someone should make a documentary about this thread.

+4 HS
Johnny-Shane_Utah-Falco's picture

MMan is making a great case. I'm with him on this. You can tell he's a very smart guy and talented writer, too. Gotta admit this.

-3 HS
M Man's picture

Thanks, Johnny.  Stick with me.  I'll lose all of our combined helmet stickers.

This comment from above interested me:

You've got to remember that as a Michigan fan, fair or not, you come off as an apologist, rather than an impartial observer. If you were coming to the defense of Jim Tressel, Bruce Pearl, or Joe Paterno, it would be different. However, the way the REAL world works is that your argument carries little weight due to your fan allegiance. I am not saying it is fair, I am just saying that it is true.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the guy who wrote that, although I have almost nothing nice to write about Pearl or Paterno.  But I've written about my admiration for Coach Tressel here and here and here and here.  And too many other places to search.  Along with the three copies of The Winners Manual I have purchased over the years.

-2 HS
buckeyestu's picture

M Man may have a good case, but lewan and gibbons are still undesirable as human beings. How many Buckeye fans would want either dating their daughter? Thugs is what they are.

+1 HS
villagebuckeye's picture

I have a problem with m man coming to 11w and discussing legal issues regarding that team up north.  He is an attorney, there are no gray area. Criminal defense  attorneys dont care about guilt or innocents,  just what can be proven in a court of law. There is no corruption.  The police don't make mistakes or botch investigations.  Defendants and witnesses don't lie.  You are right and everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.  Our legal system is far from being without flaws and money hungry attorneys are some of the biggest problems.  Where is Jack Reacher when you need him?

 

+3 HS
DJ Byrnes's picture

lol

Californian by birth, Marionaire by the Grace of President Warren G. Harding.

Mercurius's picture

If Gibbon was innocent, why hasn't he sued the university and gotten rich? I have a feeling (and I read the police report) that he doesn't want any more publicity coming to it because he knows he is guilty is and getting off easy.
 

+1 HS
M Man's picture

My guess (which is less reliable than "my information," or even "my supposition") is that Brett Sokolow (see the OP) was asked to review the matter with an eye toward being a possible expert witness in litigation.  Or maybe just a non-testifying consultant.  Under normal circumstances, an expert retained by counsel in preparation for litigation would never be writing newsletters about his review.  But this is such a high-profile, high-publicity case where so much has already been said in the press and where a highly political White House has very much taken sides; there might be a deliberate counter-publicity campaign going on.

It's also very soon -- way too soon -- to have prepared a thorough 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (or whatever cause of action might be elected) case on behalf of Gibbons against Michigan.  My guess is that they didn't get a full transcript until a couple of months ago if in fact they ordered one.  (And here I am presuming that there even was a transcript!)

If you read the police report, what do you make of three things:

  1. Gibbons agreeing to be interviewed without a lawyer;
  2. Gibbons agreeing to take a polygraph to substantiate his version of what happened, and;
  3. The part where the police asked the victim how it was that she was being forced into sex, but was involved in an oral sex act.
-4 HS
Colerain 2004 G.O.A.T.'s picture

1.) Would say the majority of young adults that haven't been subjected to the legal system repeatedly would most likely do the same.

2.) Where are the results from this lie detector..The test results themselves are not admissible, did he even take one? Surely we are not going to use his "supposed" willingness to not openly deny a lie detector as evidence of his innocence are we? Some of the guiltiest criminals in the World will say they are "willing" and then show up to the test with a lawyer telling them not to take it.Was it taken and if not WHY?

3.)Some rapes even start out with actual intercourse and the woman still has a right to change her mind mid stroke and say NO or STOP and after that it becomes non consensual sexual assault. Because the young woman was more then likely embarrassed to admit she had given the guy oral sex that returned the favor by pinning her down and forcing penetration on her. That is very common in sexual assault victims and should not be used as a factor in determining the truth.

Nobody will ever know what actually happened that night. We know she had a rape kit done and had injuries to match her account of the events including bruises from being held down. Honestly M Man if the best you can come up with are the 3 items you numbered above to try to discredit the victim in a very public forum I would suggest not debating this any further. They are very very weak arguments and no matter who is right or wrong it looks like the police completely botched this investigation.

I speak the truth but I guess that's a foreign language to yall.~~Lil Wayne

+3 HS
Knarcisi's picture

M Man, you're either a) his attorney or b) his brother or c) all the above. 

+6 HS
buckskin's picture

Let's stop responding to MMan regarding this topic.  It seems he feels the need to defend Gibbons to the end.

+3 HS
Mercurius's picture

I don't know? The more views this thread gets, Google will have a higher boolean between "gibbons" and "rape".

 

+2 HS
e135800's picture

Derp de derp.... Gibbons... Derp derp.  Dilligaf about anything ttun or anything a derpy ttun fan has to say here?

 

 

+2 HS
M Man's picture

There's one thing that the readers of Eleven Warriors can expect from me.  One thing, that my record of writing here bears out.

No, it's not that I always defend my team and its coaches.  You know I don't do that.

And no, it's not that I will attack your team or its coaches.  Again, my record proves the opposite.

The one thing that you can expect from me is that I will offer stories, information, views and opinions that you won't get from the mainstream Buckeye crowd.  And that in writing what I know will run counter to convention, I will source and substantiate everything I write, to the maximum extent possible.  

Again I thank the 11W moderators for their careful restraint in moderating their forums.  To the best of my knowledge, I have never once had a post of mine pulled or censored.

 

-4 HS
OSU_1992_UFM's picture

I thought we were supposed to keep things about sports, not politics?

Cuz this whole damn thing has nothing to do with athletic news, ya its about athletes, but not about what they did on the field

UFM_Renewal

+4 HS
villagebuckeye's picture

To the best of my knowledge, m man is trying to impress us with stories, information, views and opinions that we wont get from the mainstream Buckeye crowd.  He sure as hell cant impress us by writing about the ttun football team.

+4 HS