My small theory on the situation

[Westy03]

5 minutes ago, HenryB said:

A lot of these cases have been tried and won....you really think the players won’t be suing?

They will be suing and I'm glad they will be

i just don't think they will win any kind of appeal or lawsuit because the woman that SLU put in charge of making the decision is an extereme liberal 

[HenryB]

If you read my initial reply carefully I said the evidence alone would be enough...the bias just made it appear even worse.  We don’t know all the details but if even if only some of it is accurate, especially as related to Goodwin, the University is in big trouble.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/14/several-students-win-recent-lawsuits-against-colleges-punished-them-sexual-assault

[Clock_Tower]

Explain again this bias which will make the difference for our players?  SLU's regular Title IX hearing officer is a woman, is liberal, supports women's causes?  She might even be a Democrat and likely hates Donald Trump too.  

[cheeseman]

3 hours ago, Clock_Tower said:

Explain again this bias which will make the difference for our players?  SLU's regular Title IX hearing officer is a woman, is liberal, supports women's causes?  She might even be a Democrat and likely hates Donald Trump too.  

Whether she supports Trump or not, is a Democrat, or is liberal does not make her bias.  That would be like saying there are no Republicans that can be unbias. 

[BIG BILL FAN]

3 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

Whether she supports Trump or not, is a Democrat, or is liberal does not make her bias.  That would be like saying there are no Republicans that can be unbias. 

The question is whether she is allowing her bias to influence her decision. Compared to other situations at other universities, her punishment seems extreme.

[brianstl]

The problem isn’t her political views or how she votes.  The problem is her track record at SLU and her history of activism on issues that legitimately bring into question her ability to perform her duties in an unbiased way.

[RiseAndGrind]

I’d wager a good chunk of change SLU won’t be sued. 

[SLU_Lax]

3 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

I’d wager a good chunk of change SLU won’t be sued. 

SLU has a history of losing lawsuits or settling.

Here in a premeditated and consensual activity, the school decided the white women were victims and the black men were the violators. They increased the damages to the black men by delaying the decision until the 2nd semester. They were moved in and out of their homes multiple times. A number of other problems will be found. During litigation the errors will be painted as malice against the boys and not the incompetence that it really is. SLU will be buried in their lawsuit.  

[brianstl]

21 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

I’d wager a good chunk of change SLU won’t be sued. 

They will get sued.  The question is how far it will go. 

That will will depend on some different things.  One thing will be what was behind moving the players back onto campus.  Weathers will be another.  She has history of complaints against her at SLU and has a long list of enemies inside SLU’s administration.  Do some of those enemies have the goods on her and do they see this as their chance to finally get rid of her by telling lawyers where to look. Discovery can be a b!tch for institutions like SLU in cases like this.

[Sheltiedave]

Many of you are missing the fact that by sharing the video/photo(s) on a public social media site, at least one player committed a felony in Missouri. 

If the University hearing officer determined the players sought group sex, created a pornographic video, and released it to public domain, then her decision has some solid grounding.

Most of us would say there is equal fault/consensus for the first two actions, and the third action was a mistake with no criminal intent whatsoever. Hopefully the appeal board can both review the scope of the charges, as well as the severity of the sanctions. 

I am somewhat skeptical of the independence and ability of the appeal panel to adequately review the case over a period of approximately two weeks, from when the decision is released, through the appeal, to the appeal decision, while school is back in session.

The appeal panel is selected, trained, and encharged by Ms. Kratky through the Title IX Department. Unless this panel was ghosting Ms. Kratky’s efforts in real time, with no other contacts, they now have less than two weeks to decide what took her office, a hired law firm, and Ms. Weathers over 115 days to bring a ruling, while maintaining a class schedule.

[cheeseman]

1 hour ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

The question is whether she is allowing her bias to influence her decision. Compared to other situations at other universities, her punishment seems extreme.

I don't argue that I think the punishment was over the top but you can not say she is being bias without any facts.  She may be but just pointing out her politics as proof is not fair either unless you have proof.

[willie]

15 minutes ago, Sheltiedave said:

Many of you are missing the fact that by sharing the video/photo(s) on a public social media site, at least one player committed a felony in Missouri. 

If the University hearing officer determined the players sought group sex, created a pornographic video, and released it to public domain, then her decision has some solid grounding.

Most of us would say there is equal fault/consensus for the first two actions, and the third action was a mistake with no criminal intent whatsoever. Hopefully the appeal board can both review the scope of the charges, as well as the severity of the sanctions. 

I am somewhat skeptical of the independence and ability of the appeal panel to adequately review the case over a period of approximately two weeks, from when the decision is released, through the appeal, to the appeal decision, while school is back in session.

The appeal panel is selected, trained, and encharged by Ms. Kratky through the Title IX Department. Unless this panel was ghosting Ms. Kratky’s efforts in real time, with no other contacts, they now have less than two weeks to decide what took her office, a hired law firm, and Ms. Weathers over 115 days to bring a ruling, while maintaining a class schedule.

Where you been Dave? Long time no see. 

[JohnnyJumpUp]

1 hour ago, Sheltiedave said:

Many of you are missing the fact that by sharing the video/photo(s) on a public social media site, at least one player committed a felony in Missouri. 

 

It doesn't meet all the criteria in the state statute for the crime. In order for it to be a felony in Missouri, the video/photo shared must have been obtained without the person's knowledge and consent AND obtained in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, before being shared. This current situation, involving these 7 individuals, does not meet all the elements of the crime. Its been four months with this situation, if someone committed an actual crime, there would have been an arrest.

[HenryB]

44 minutes ago, Sheltiedave said:

Many of you are missing the fact that by sharing the video/photo(s) on a public social media site, at least one player committed a felony in Missouri. 

If the University hearing officer determined the players sought group sex, created a pornographic video, and released it to public domain, then her decision has some solid grounding.

Most of us would say there is equal fault/consensus for the first two actions, and the third action was a mistake with no criminal intent whatsoever. Hopefully the appeal board can both review the scope of the charges, as well as the severity of the sanctions. 

I am somewhat skeptical of the independence and ability of the appeal panel to adequately review the case over a period of approximately two weeks, from when the decision is released, through the appeal, to the appeal decision, while school is back in session.

The appeal panel is selected, trained, and encharged by Ms. Kratky through the Title IX Department. Unless this panel was ghosting Ms. Kratky’s efforts in real time, with no other contacts, they now have less than two weeks to decide what took her office, a hired law firm, and Ms. Weathers over 115 days to bring a ruling, while maintaining a class schedule.

I am not debating your argument but I would think if a felony had been committed someone would have been charged.  Apparently the police investigation did not find a felony.

[ARon]

This will end up much like situation 1.0.  We may never know if the absence of criminal charges is a result of the investigation finding no crime or merely not enough evidence to expect being able to prove a beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

2 minutes ago, ARon said:

This will end up much like situation 1.0.  We may never know if the absence of criminal charges is a result of the investigation finding no crime or merely not enough evidence to expect being able to prove a beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom.

No crime... police would not have immediately deemed it a "non criminal" matter, if there was a chance there was a crime committed.

[BIG BILL FAN]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

I don't argue that I think the punishment was over the top but you can not say she is being bias without any facts.  She may be but just pointing out her politics as proof is not fair either unless you have proof.

Any of her beliefs and actions could be considered in making a determination of whether her decision is tainted. This is something another arbiter or possible juror could consider. I think the most damning evidence is the severity of the punishment. From my admitted limited knowledge, this punishment seems far over the top, considering what others have received for a similar offense. Again, even if the facts are accepted by everyone, isn’t the punishment reviewable by a second party?

[cheeseman]

57 minutes ago, BIG BILL FAN said:

Any of her beliefs and actions could be considered in making a determination of whether her decision is tainted. This is something another arbiter or possible juror could consider. I think the most damning evidence is the severity of the punishment. From my admitted limited knowledge, this punishment seems far over the top, considering what others have received for a similar offense. Again, even if the facts are accepted by everyone, isn’t the punishment reviewable by a second party?

But of course - the review of the punishment is absolutely probably the biggest role of the 3 member appeal group.  I doubt they will go against the findings but they could very well decide changes to the punishment part.

[Spoon-Balls]

1 hour ago, JohnnyJumpUp said:

No crime... police would not have immediately deemed it a "non criminal" matter, if there was a chance there was a crime committed.

I don't know why people keep bringing this up. This is clearly NOT a criminal matter, this is a matter of SLU's Title IX process. People need to read the article from the Atlantic to understand what's really going on here in SLU's administration. It is a sickening violation of constitutional rights. 

 

After spending some time today reading about situations at other Universities across the country, there is excellent precedent for the players to win a civil lawsuit. In fact Universities right now are losing more cases than ever before:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/expelled-for-sex-assault-young-men-are-filing-more-lawsuits-to-clear-their-names/2017/04/27/c2cfb1d2-0d89-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.dfb11753b41e

[cheeseman]

23 hours ago, Old guy said:

So, no pot of gold, no lawsuit, at least not from the player's side. From the side of the  girls there is a possibility of legal action if the parent is still mad as hell and has the money to go for it. We still have the appeals process to go through. 

I would think the girl would have real problems with trying to win a lawsuit.  She got the findings in her favor and all she could do is object to the final punishment but since that is at the discretion of the institution she will be out of luck.  Now if the findings went against her - a whole another matter.

[slufanskip]

19 hours ago, willie said:

Where you been Dave? Long time no see. 

+1

[BillyCan]

Biondi was at LoRusso's last night for dinner and he was asked if he had any intention of cleaning up the current SLU mess.

 

His reply: "Not interested"

[brianstl]

34 minutes ago, BillyCan said:

Biondi was at LoRusso's last night for dinner and he was asked if he had any intention of cleaning up the current SLU mess.

 

His reply: "Not interested"

My guess is part of him is enjoying this, while the another part is sad to see what is happening.  

It was probably time for Biondi to go, but they really went to far in trying to hire someone so different than Biondi.  I thought Father Graham at Xavier was the obvious choice to replace Biondi.

[moytoy12]

20 hours ago, cheeseman said:

But of course - the review of the punishment is absolutely probably the biggest role of the 3 member appeal group.  I doubt they will go against the findings but they could very well decide changes to the punishment part.

Per the SLU policy that was posted, the reasonableness of the punishment cannot be reviewed on appeal.  Now, like with everything, there is gray area. If the process was tainted or unfair, can they roll back the punishment?  One would think "yes". However, I suspect the 3 stooges on the appeals panel will feel that they can't touch the punishment in anyway and will see their role as highlighting how (un)fair the process was. 

[cheeseman]

32 minutes ago, moytoy12 said:

Per the SLU policy that was posted, the reasonableness of the punishment cannot be reviewed on appeal.  Now, like with everything, there is gray area. If the process was tainted or unfair, can they roll back the punishment?  One would think "yes". However, I suspect the 3 stooges on the appeals panel will feel that they can't touch the punishment in anyway and will see their role as highlighting how (un)fair the process was. 

That is a much bigger issue - they will not want to probably weigh in on the bias or not bias part - I find it hard to believe that the handbook prohibits the review of all aspects of the matter.  I have not read the policy and apparently you have so all I can say is that is very odd.