re: Mizzou Admits They F*cked Up Sexual Assault Case of Student Athlete

quote:

---

I was getting ready to say if he acknowledges this finally, why is he on this like stink on shite?

---

Because I understand the distinction between being unable to draw an undisputed, definitive conclusion that cannot be controverted and a lack of proof?

quote:

---

Because I understand the distinction between being unable to draw an undisputed, definitive conclusion that cannot be controverted and a lack of proof?

---

But thats not how you entered this thread. You firmly implied that Anderson was told and lied about the contact between the two.

No matter how badly you want this to be on Mizzou and that they covered it up it isnt going to happen Grits. This song and dance is pathetic and now with the alter...come on.

quote:

---

But thats not how you entered this thread. You firmly implied that Anderson was told and lied about the contact between the two.

No matter how badly you want this to be on Mizzou and that they covered it up it isnt going to happen Grits. This song and dance is pathetic and now with the alter...come on.

---

I never said anything about a cover up by the University as a whole. I'm acknowledging the possibility that Anderson covered her own arse and the fact that her testimony contradicts the diary entry by a girl who committed suicide after being sexually assaulted.

On the one hand, you have two contemporaneous writings (Courey's diary entry and the therapist's notes) offering you proof that Courey reported the rape to Anderson.

On the other hand, you have Anderson's statement more than two years later, during an investigation concerning failure of one or more university employees to take proper action in response to a sexual assault report, that she does not recall being told about the rape.

If you were an unbiased, impartial observer asked to lend credence one way or the other (reported/not reported) which way would you lean? Which is the more probable scenario?

I get it, you are sensitive because there has been some bad news regarding Missouri in the last few days. This report isn't a vindication of Missouri. It is an indictment for failure to institute proper policies for handling/investigating a sexual assault at the very least, non-compliance with Title IX notwithstanding.

quote:

---

You're the one that said the report clearly stated that there was no proof that she reported the assault to Anderson.

---

Where did I say this?

quote:

---

Where are you going with that statement now that everyone acknowledges that it isn't true?

---

Not even sure what you're asking. To clarify my question, are you saying that there was a conspiracy to cover up a rape? If not, what exactly are you trying to say?

quote:

---

I'm acknowledging the possibility that Anderson covered her own arse and the fact that her testimony contradicts the diary entry by a girl who committed suicide after being sexually assaulted.

---

And Anderson's testimony contradicts what she wrote in her diary. So you believe one and not the other, that really the gist of what you have been getting at through multiple posts all the while pointing fingers at Mizzou fans for being "biased". Hilarious.

Do you realize this woman attempted suicide two other times in completely unrelated situations to here alleged rape? She has a history of mental illness that neither herself or her parents thought "important" to inform the University of Missouri about prior to attending.

quote:

---

If you were an unbiased, impartial observer asked to lend credence one way or the other (reported/not reported) which way would you lean? Which is the more probable scenario?

---

You mean like the independent investigator who found "no definitive conclusion".

quote:

---

I get it, you are sensitive because there has been some bad news regarding Missouri in the last few days. This report isn't a vindication of Missouri. It is an indictment for failure to institute proper policies for handling/investigating a sexual assault at the very least, non-compliance with Title IX notwithstanding.

---

The only one in this thread drawing conclusions outside the scope of the report is you Grits. Everyone else seems to be taking the report at face value and accepting that there are procedural issues that need to be improved at Mizzou concerning reporting after the fact.

quote:

---

The finding of the report was specifically that Missouri failed to institute effective policies for handling reports and investigations of sexual assaults.

---

Yes it does. Given the circumstances of this case, I would have a hard time imagining most schools would have procedures in place and staff trained to handle this kind of outlier situation, but you are correct.

quote:

---

The fact that the report could not, definitively, ascribe wrongdoing (or knowledge) to Anderson in particular does not absolve either Anderson or Missouri.

---

It does not absolve Anderson, but let's make it clear that per Sasha's diary, Anderson was not made aware that it was a football player, it was well over a year since the incident, and Sasha was being hospitalized at the time. It's easy to make Anderson a monster, but the reality of the situation is that for Anderson, who wasn't asked for help by Sasha, to notify the University thereby launching an investigation would have violated Sasha's trust and would have made things worse for a girl dealing with a very tough situation. Yes, maybe she was required to report it if she knew, but that wouldn't have been in the best interest of Sasha. I think MOST people would have put Sasha's interest before protocol in a situation like this.

To lump the University in there is a bit of a stretch - you can point to "policies and procedures" but beyond that you are reaching.

quote:

---

The tone and tenor of this thread was to consider this report an unequivocal rejection of the implication of a failure by Missouri. I took exception to that, based on what is contained within the report.

---

The University did not handle everything perfectly, but given the facts of this case, to be overly concerned with placing blame on the University misguided. How exactly do you think the University should have handled what?

quote:

---

You mean, conclusions outside of the scope of the report like:

---

That was covered and conceded earlier in the thread.


That statement was also made AFTER you popped in with your moments of clarity and unbiased opinions:

quote:

---

The girl who committed suicide claimed she told an academic adviser that she was raped/sexually assaulted.

But she made the call from a restaurant and the academic adviser claimed she couldn't hear clearly because those damn restaurants are just so loud and modern cell phone technology is basically a string and two tin cans.

Plus, the academic adviser denied hearing about the rape/sexual assault and there's no way that she made that denial to protect her own arse or the University's collective arse after the girl committed suicide.

Luckily, the academic adviser never followed up or asked any further questions about her student.

Case closed guys.

---

and this gem

quote:

---

'm on your side, man. If a rape isn't reported the right way, it was never a rape at all. If you tell the wrong person about a rape, it's like it never happened.

Same thing with reporting it later. You wait too long to report it, no rape actually happened.

---

But by all means, feel free to lecture me Grits.

You have an agenda here. Its fairly clear and its tiring from you and your fricking alter.

quote:

---

Anderson was not made aware that it was a football player, it was well over a year since the incident, and Sasha was being hospitalized at the time.

---

I'm not concerned with whether Anderson was told it was a football player. I don't know why the athletic ability of the alleged perpetrator would have any bearing on investigatory requirements.

quote:

---

[T]he reality of the situation is that for Anderson, who wasn't asked for help by Sasha, to notify the University thereby launching an investigation would have violated Sasha's trust and would have made things worse for a girl dealing with a very tough situation. Yes, maybe she was required to report it if she knew, but that wouldn't have been in the best interest of Sasha. I think MOST people would have put Sasha's interest before protocol in a situation like this.

---

I think we disagree fundamentally. Reporting a rape should always result in an investigation.

Whether Anderson knew of the assault or not is disputed, but the correct reaction to being told of a sexual assault is always to report it.

There are basically two failures at work here:

1. The university's failure to author and implement policies on how to handle allegations of sexual assault when they become aware of one as well as policies on how to investigate those allegations. In the words of the university's General Counsel "[Missouri] probably dropped the ball."

2. Anderson's (potential/possible) failure to take appropriate steps in reaction to being told of a sexual assault of a student athlete.

The first failure is undisputed. To the extent that the thread title is accurate, this is what it refers to. General Counsel said that Missouri dropped the ball. HR said that Missouri had no policies in place "addressing the questions of how University employees should handle information of a possible sexual assault upon a University student of which they become aware, and what procedures should be followed by the University to investigate."

This isn't a lack of a policy to handle "an outlier situation." This is a complete lack of policy regarding the reaction to and investigation of sexual assaults on University students.

Even assuming Anderson knew of the rape, no policy existed to guide her in a proper response or subsequent investigation.

This is a failure of the University.

The second failure is disputed. Evidence exists that Courey reported the rape to Anderson. Anderson disputes that she heard the word rape. If Anderson was told about the rape, she failed to report it when she had a duty and responsibility to do so. Going back to failure #1, the University would be partially at fault for not authoring or implementing policy to guide Anderson.

Even assuming that the word "rape" was not used, Anderson was aware that Courey had a suicide attempt and Courey called her at 9:00 p.m. at night, on her cell phone, to discuss her status at the school and (using Anderson's version) Courey told Anderson that she hesitated to come back to school because "bad things happened" at Missouri.

You ask what I think the University should have done?

Launch an investigation into the alleged assault after Courey's death, when the University became aware of the alleged assault.

Implement the policies discussed in the 2011 Dear Colleagues letter that would have guided Anderson in her decision when Courey (according to Courey's diary) reported the assault to her.

My criticism would be no different if the school were Kentucky or any other college.

Pretending that this is all just a conspiracy against Missouri is silly. There was a real problem that should have been addressed prior to this happening. I hope it's already been addressed at Kentucky. If it hasn't and a similar story arises, you can bet your life I won't be responding to this type of thread with the garbage I've seen from some Missouri fans.

quote:

---

Directly from the report:

"Though the therapist did not have a recollection of Sasha Menu Courey telling her that she told the college counselor she was raped"

---

Continuing that statement:

"[the therapist] believed that [Courey told Anderson of the rape] was the conclusion to be drawn from a review of her notes and knowing that the only hesitation for Sasha was related to the rape incident."

"[the therapist] believed Sasha's May 12 diary entry accurately reflected Sasha's recollection of the conversation between the college counselor and Sasha Menu Courey."

Again, Courey recorded that she told Anderson of the rape. The therapist drew the same conclusion from her notes. The therapist (and the investigators) did not believe that Courey's diary entry was fabricated.

We can disagree on whether or not Anderson accurately recited the extent of her knowledge of the incident to investigators. She may have been told expressly about the rape, she may have misheard due to noise in the restaurant (as discussed in the report), or she may have just been told that something bad happened that made Courey not want to come back to school.

quote:

---

Continuing that statement:

---

Irrelevant to the point I was making. The therapist saying that she believes Sasha is completely different from

quote:

---

you have two contemporaneous writings (Courey's diary entry and the therapist's notes) offering you proof that Courey reported the rape

---

I hope that you aren't this sloppy in your future endevours into the actual practice of law