Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:19 am to PikeBishop
I'm glad coach rumlin can hold his liquor. 
This post was edited on 8/23/15 at 9:20 am
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:25 am to Felonious Punk
Ok all you no driving students who just showed up this weekend, pay attention dammit. Lord help me move in weekend sucks.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:29 am to Agforlife
It really is the worst time of the year.
Only good thing is that it means football is near.
Only good thing is that it means football is near.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:33 am to Felonious Punk
Posted on 8/23/15 at 11:30 am to PikeBishop
Too late for apologies. Baylor's only hope is she wants to move on more than she wants than a few hundred k (or more).
Posted on 8/23/15 at 12:31 pm to cardboardboxer
The problem for Baylor isn't her lawsuit so much. That's bad. But the decision to put an indicted rapist on scholarship put Baylor students at risk. That's a very serious thing and as someone pointed out earlier, the feds have been looking for a Title IX case to hammer a school for this sort of thing.
Just think about the ramifications of this for a moment. The Baylor administration was well aware that they had a possible rapist in their midst and made the decision to give him scholarship money to remain and even graduate him. They made no effort to uncover just how much of a risk this guy was at that point. They simply looked the other way for the sake of athletics. A university knowingly made the choice to put every single student at risk for the sake of athletics.
I don't think we can predict exactly what will happen because we don't really have any insight as to who knew what when and who made decisions. But it's going to be ugly. Title IX requires schools to look out for all students' safety. Sponsoring a rapist for a year after indictment is pretty much the very definition of failure.
Just think about the ramifications of this for a moment. The Baylor administration was well aware that they had a possible rapist in their midst and made the decision to give him scholarship money to remain and even graduate him. They made no effort to uncover just how much of a risk this guy was at that point. They simply looked the other way for the sake of athletics. A university knowingly made the choice to put every single student at risk for the sake of athletics.
I don't think we can predict exactly what will happen because we don't really have any insight as to who knew what when and who made decisions. But it's going to be ugly. Title IX requires schools to look out for all students' safety. Sponsoring a rapist for a year after indictment is pretty much the very definition of failure.
This post was edited on 8/23/15 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 8/23/15 at 2:44 pm to tmc94
quote:
he feds have been looking for a Title IX case to hammer a school for this sort of thing.
What's the timeline/ process involved?
They really f'd up on this one.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 2:59 pm to tmc94
quote:
A university knowingly made the choice to put every single student at risk for the sake of athletics.
It's gotta make you wonder what else has been (and is) going on in the land of Art. This story is utterly outrageous. These kinds of things can only happen when there is a particular culture in operation that makes them possible in the first place.
This post was edited on 8/23/15 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 8/23/15 at 4:41 pm to Nguyening
It's the feds. Who knows on timeline
It's a serious open question as to how a jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but Baylor couldn't even achieve a more likely than not finding in their Title IX investigation. At the end of the day they'll likely ask two questions -
1) Did the Title IX investigation make all reasonable effort to obtain pertinent facts?
2) Are processes in place to adequately protect students as required by Title IX?
The feds will examine emails, they'll interview a number of people, and they'll try to recreate what should have happened. Starr has already tried to get in front of this by creating an internal investigation. And he'll try to make systemic fixes prior to the feds mandating them (it at least looks like they are trying to be compliant).
But the fact that they did nothing post-indictment keeps coming back here. They put students at risk. And whether it happened or not, there should be consideration as to what Baylor could have done to keep the next girl from getting in his car.
Let's put Jane Doe II in the exact situation as Jane Doe except post-indictment. She has some of the same classes. She shares a tutor. She knows some of his friends. She has no reason to believe getting in the car with him puts her in any particular danger. But she should, shouldn't she?
What are the odds she gets in that car if he's not a student-athlete and therefore not getting tutoring with her?
What are the odds she gets in that car if he's not even a student and therefore not in any of her classes?
What if she's never met him before and no one at the party knows him?
Now what are the odds she gets in that car if she knows he's under indictment for rape?
It's really an incredibly ugly line of thought. Baylor didn't take even the smallest step to prevent this. He remained on scholarship and in good standing with the University and there is never even a hint to Jane Doe II that she should be on guard.
Title IX requires a more likely than not burden. That's the same burden as the Grand Jury (as well as civil court). Baylor seems to be leaning on a defense of ignorance. I'm not sure that's a very strong defense but even if you accept it, it requires the belief that they were unable to get all the pertinent information in their Title IX investigation. It's therefore logical to assume that they were well aware that the Grand Jury likely saw a lot more evidence than they did given the GJ has subpoena powers.
I would say that it is therefore unreasonable not to cede to the opinion of the unbiased and better informed GJ that he is more likely than not to have committed this crime. Therefore I'll be surprised if they aren't absolutely hammered by the feds. But I hold that opinion fully aware that I do not have all the pertinent facts.
It's a serious open question as to how a jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but Baylor couldn't even achieve a more likely than not finding in their Title IX investigation. At the end of the day they'll likely ask two questions -
1) Did the Title IX investigation make all reasonable effort to obtain pertinent facts?
2) Are processes in place to adequately protect students as required by Title IX?
The feds will examine emails, they'll interview a number of people, and they'll try to recreate what should have happened. Starr has already tried to get in front of this by creating an internal investigation. And he'll try to make systemic fixes prior to the feds mandating them (it at least looks like they are trying to be compliant).
But the fact that they did nothing post-indictment keeps coming back here. They put students at risk. And whether it happened or not, there should be consideration as to what Baylor could have done to keep the next girl from getting in his car.
Let's put Jane Doe II in the exact situation as Jane Doe except post-indictment. She has some of the same classes. She shares a tutor. She knows some of his friends. She has no reason to believe getting in the car with him puts her in any particular danger. But she should, shouldn't she?
What are the odds she gets in that car if he's not a student-athlete and therefore not getting tutoring with her?
What are the odds she gets in that car if he's not even a student and therefore not in any of her classes?
What if she's never met him before and no one at the party knows him?
Now what are the odds she gets in that car if she knows he's under indictment for rape?
It's really an incredibly ugly line of thought. Baylor didn't take even the smallest step to prevent this. He remained on scholarship and in good standing with the University and there is never even a hint to Jane Doe II that she should be on guard.
Title IX requires a more likely than not burden. That's the same burden as the Grand Jury (as well as civil court). Baylor seems to be leaning on a defense of ignorance. I'm not sure that's a very strong defense but even if you accept it, it requires the belief that they were unable to get all the pertinent information in their Title IX investigation. It's therefore logical to assume that they were well aware that the Grand Jury likely saw a lot more evidence than they did given the GJ has subpoena powers.
I would say that it is therefore unreasonable not to cede to the opinion of the unbiased and better informed GJ that he is more likely than not to have committed this crime. Therefore I'll be surprised if they aren't absolutely hammered by the feds. But I hold that opinion fully aware that I do not have all the pertinent facts.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 5:01 pm to tmc94
This is what happens when you elevate a win at all costs small town coach to the next level. He runs the same kind of program. I am not naive enough to believe that there is no relationship between any D1 athletic dept and the local law enforcement but this stinks of the typical let the players get away with anything bullshite that goes along with small town HS football in Texas. It needs to be erraticated from the source on up.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 5:39 pm to tmc94
Notably, it's a lot easier to sue a private university than a public university. That's one of the areas of law I practice now...
Posted on 8/23/15 at 6:15 pm to Warrior Poet
yeah but you would definitely want to have a lot more facts to really know the merits of her case. But the fact there was a BU attorney objecting from the gallery is pretty suggestive
Posted on 8/23/15 at 6:41 pm to tmc94
I don't think Baylor will do anything to Briles over this. They may or may not fire some low level administrator. They will just ride it out and write a big check to the victim to try to make this all go away as quietly as possible.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 6:55 pm to tmc94
quote:
yeah but you would definitely want to have a lot more facts to really know the merits of her case. But the fact there was a BU attorney objecting from the gallery is pretty suggestive
how was that even allowed?
why did the judge not clear the courtroom if that was going on?
Posted on 8/23/15 at 7:01 pm to Dr RC
quote:
why did the judge not clear the courtroom if that was going on?
Judge is a Baylor grad
Posted on 8/23/15 at 7:13 pm to Agforlife
Did texag7 have an Avi?
Posted on 8/23/15 at 8:41 pm to tmc94
There is enough info available publicly to file lawsuit right now I would say, but they will probably wait until after baylor's "inquiry" is over because they will get it during discovery.
There's really only 3-4 types of claims she could allege, and any numbnut plaintiffs attorney will allege them all.
Discovery will unveil all the information they will need.
There's really only 3-4 types of claims she could allege, and any numbnut plaintiffs attorney will allege them all.
Discovery will unveil all the information they will need.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:20 pm to Dr RC
quote:
how was that even allowed?
why did the judge not clear the courtroom if that was going on?
I just read the summary in the paper. Not really sure the exact chain of events but the defense called the Baylor chaplain as a character witness during sentencing. He spoke to counselling the defendant.
Then the prosecutor asked him if he'd ever counselled the victim and an objection to relevance (it's sentencing mind you) came from the BU attorney in the gallery. The judge brought them in chambers and overruled.
It didn't particularly help the defendant imo because think about it as a juror. Everyone realizes the answer to that is yes but then they went in chambers for 10 minutes so wtf are you thinking? It's probably not, gee that must have been swell conversations between the victim and the chaplain.
Baylor just didn't want anything on record that could be used against them in a civil trial and they dgaf about the defendant
Posted on 8/23/15 at 9:21 pm to Agforlife
quote:
Judge is a Baylor grad
it's an easy out and talking point but I haven't heard anything to suggest he favored the defendant or Baylor in any way
Page 191 of 689
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News