ADVERTISEMENT

Lloyd Tubman Update...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which, again, isn't relevant to what UK determined.

One person here argues we do not know what UK actually determined. You argue that a GJ deciding the issue of sexual assault is not relevant to what UK determined, yet we evidently do not know what they determined.

I find it highly doubtful UK had more evidence a available to it determination than did the Grand Jury. And, I think to this discussion, it most certainly is relevant that the physical objective evidence alone was deemed insufficient to support the accusation.
 
UK absolutely had more evidence and the GJ ruling is irrelevant to UK's ruling regardless of either ruling. Regardless, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a different group of people can come to a different decision based upon the same or different evidence, no matter how different the evidence actually was.

I don't even know why we're still arguing this. Some are just upset about losing a football player and questioning everything about whatever system doesn't rule in favor of the football team. Hey, whatever it takes to win another football game, right?
 
The fact that Tubman testified in front of UK but not the GJ alone is more evidence. UK is bound by the same restrictions of what it can and can't do as a court of law. We've already been over this.
 
And, this comes to our attention because Tubman was a football player. But, don't tell me that is the reason I might have a problem with his ouster from UK. Stick with describing your own motivations, rather than speculating about mine.

If he raped the girl, I wanted him to go to jail. If he was the one mind who could solve the problems in the Middle East or Global Warming, I would want him in jail.

But, if he was falsely accused of wrongdoing, I do not want him punished for something he did not do.

I know about It because he is in the public eye. My desire for what is right is irrelevant to him being a football player.

I have no love for UL, but did not want to see Chris Jones punished for something he did not do.
 
Of course we don't know all the facts but it's fair to assume that exactly the same evidence was not presented to the GJ and to UK. Also, it's extremely likely that the accusor and the accused both testified at the UK hearing.
 
Of course we don't know all the facts but it's fair to assume that exactly the same evidence was not presented to the GJ and to UK. Also, it's extremely likely that the accusor and the accused both testified at the UK hearing.

You absolutely do not know what either side testified at the hearing. It is not "fair" to assume anything.

That board had no way of gathering more incriminating evidence than the Commonwealth Attorney's office.
 
Sure it does - it can force Tubman to testify. The Commonwealth Attorney cannot.

And this entire thread is based upon assumptions. There's been nothing official from UK, the UK football team, or Tubman that he's been expelled.
 
I'm saying that's additional evidence the GJ would not have.

Which could have exonerated him even more. Yet the board had their mind made up that Mr. Tubman was not coming back to UK no matter what. The media coverage and the political backlash made it easier to ban him from campus. A few football fans complaining is no comparison to CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN, etc.
 
What we actually know supports my version a whole lot more than yours.
 
Sure it does - it can force Tubman to testify. The Commonwealth Attorney cannot.

And this entire thread is based upon assumptions. There's been nothing official from UK, the UK football team, or Tubman that he's been expelled.

The state school cannot force Tubman to testify.
 
If he wants to be enrolled there, they can.

Now I know you do not know crap about what you claim here. You no longer have any credibility. The UK rules are clear that no student shall be compelled to give testimony and refusal to do so shall not be considered evidence of responsibility for an alleged violation. Time to stand down with regard to whatever your BS motivation is with these nutty claims.
 
So are you saying that Mr. Tubman would incriminate himself and not deny the allegations? I think not.
I just SMH reading people makeing stark assumptions yet are so dismissive to any possiblities suggested that don't favor their line of argument.

Ben, have you ever spoken to someone and they just didn't come off as believable to you? Or...someone tell you something and you were confident that they were being truthful? I doubt that when questioned by the SRB that their only question was, "Did you rape her?". There are litterally thousands of questions that could have been asked. What did the phone records show... what text messages were passed back and forth...was he ever threatening??? W.E. D.O. N.O.T. K.N.O.W. W.H.A.T. O.T.H.E.R. E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. M.I.G.H.T. H.A.V.E. E.X.I.S.T.E.D.!.!.!.

The SRB didn't have to prove rape. The SCoC covers a whole lot of behaviors...perhaps you should read it.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the girl came off as more believeible or that maybe Tubman was just a poor witness for himself?
Why do criminal lawyers not put their clients on the stand?

You simply want to dismiss everything that might go poorly for Tubman and blame everything on the system, on UK, on the girl...yet you have no knowledge other that what you have read in the papers, read on this board or heard in gossip. Both the GJ hearing and the SRB hearings are held in privacy. You want to claim that "What we actually know supports my version a whole lot more than yours."... WHUT!?
You know what is in the police report and what few statements have been made by Tubman. How are you making any decsion as what to believe and what to dismiss? Emotion, plain and simple.
 
Sure it does - it can force Tubman to testify. The Commonwealth Attorney cannot.

And this entire thread is based upon assumptions. There's been nothing official from UK, the UK football team, or Tubman that he's been expelled.
Actually, even though Tubman may not have testified before the Grand Jury, there is a good chance that his account of the events were presented to the Grand Jury along with hers. Whether direct testimony would yield additional evidence is not known, but to assume his direct testimony would bring forth some additional evidence not already in his statement to police is an assumption that might not be valid. I would expect he told UK the same story he told the police when questioned by them, and the same story was presented to the Grand Jury along with her story and whatever additional facts that had.
 
I just SMH reading people makeing stark assumptions yet are so dismissive to any possiblities suggested that don't favor their line of argument.

Ben, have you ever spoken to someone and they just didn't come off as believable to you? Or...someone tell you something and you were confident that they were being truthful? I doubt that when questioned by the SRB that their only question was, "Did you rape her?". There are litterally thousands of questions that could have been asked. What did the phone records show... what text messages were passed back and forth...was he ever threatening??? W.E. D.O. N.O.T. K.N.O.W. W.H.A.T. O.T.H.E.R. E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. M.I.G.H.T. H.A.V.E. E.X.I.S.T.E.D.!.!.!.

The SRB didn't have to prove rape. The SCoC covers a whole lot of behaviors...perhaps you should read it.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the girl came off as more believeible or that maybe Tubman was just a poor witness for himself?
Why do criminal lawyers not put their clients on the stand?

You simply want to dismiss everything that might go poorly for Tubman and blame everything on the system, on UK, on the girl...yet you have no knowledge other that what you have read in the papers, read on this board or heard in gossip. Both the GJ hearing and the SRB hearings are held in privacy. You want to claim that "What we actually know supports my version a whole lot more than yours."... WHUT!?
You know what is in the police report and what few statements have been made by Tubman. How are you making any decsion as what to believe and what to dismiss? Emotion, plain and simple.

The SRB leveled the second harshest penalty under the rules (assuming reports of a suspension of a period of time rather than expulsion). So, we can assume the allegations were not a simple indiscretion.
 
prosecutors do that all the time to protect themselves. I can't cite it but someone did a study of federal prosecutors taking cases to the grand jury and in over 200,000 cases the grand jury only disagreed with the prosecutor twelve times. Frankly due to Ferguson and other issues I have long thought we should do away with grand juries. Half the states do not have them.

They really only serve the purpose of allowing the prosecutor to say he didn't dismiss a case that the grand jury did when it has no merit.

My main point in all of this is Larson't office is incredibly tough on criminals especially rapists. They obviously smelled a rat here and were smart enough to not pursue it .

I simply don't believe a combination of a group of college kids and a professor who perhaps attended a conference on the subject have any business at all second guessing the true professionals on a subject this serious . It won't be the first time a black man has been wrongly treated by an American judicial body ( in this instance the UK judge wannabe's on the SRB) . Hopefully it will be one of the last.

Years ago I was asked by the President to serve on the White House Council of Prosecutorial relations regarding Habeas reform. Although I am a very very conservative guy in my personal habits and my political philosophy I became totally convinced that a lot of men in this country both black and white have been wrongly convicted simply because they look like a criminal which was coupled with bad oral testimony. Thank God DNA is now exonerating many of those wrongly convicted.

Tubman is a huge man and I suspect that played into the decision of some wannabe jurists taken in by his looks and her statements. The fact Larson's professional would not touch it told me all I need to know in this instance.

Lou

Any stat regarding federal indictments is irrelevant when discussing state grand juries.
 
The SRB leveled the second harshest penalty under the rules (assuming reports of a suspension of a period of time rather than expulsion). So, we can assume the allegations were not a simple indiscretion.
Then why can you automatically "assume" that they were?...We are not dealing with a court of law here...This is a bunch of bleeding heart, progressive liberals
 
So, if and when he applies for admission to WKU or UL (assuming he still wants to play football, doubt if they would touch him otherwise) would you be in favor of admitting him? And remember all the other players kicked out of other schools with proven crimes that jurich and BP have welcomed with open arms to Transfer U.

Willie that jurich personally vouched for wasn't just a criminal, he is serving a life prison term as a HABITUAL criminal.

Well; there are no "proven charges" against Tubman. So yes, I think he should be accepted at another school, regardless of football. The allegations about him (and the student who made them) are at UK, not WKU or UofL or anywhere else. Since he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing (and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings) a new school seeming does not take on a Title IX risk. In fact, a clever attorney might make that if a different school denies him admission (based on the "unproven" accusations at UK) that school might be in violation of Title IX by denying admission on such grounds. I have made several posts trying to emphasize the impact of Title IX in this case (and the complexity it brings) but most want to see it from strictly a legal proceedings perspective. In today's climate ANY guy on a campus who allegedly commits "sexual discrimination" against a female student is likely going to have a tough time staying on campus.

I know you greatly enjoy casting UofL football as a modern day Purple Gang but it's just not true. Have they brought in transfers? Sure, and why not? Plenty of kids transfer each year that have absolutely no issues other than things are not working out the way they expected. And, IMO, most of those kicked off a team for the ubiquitous "violation of team rules" indeed deserve a "second chance" provided they accept the fact they will be on a very short leash.

Yeah, Willie Williams was a BIG risk and proved to be a BIG mistake. There was a DB recruit dropped by VPI over a school computer theft that subsequently signed with UofL and had 2 or 3 trouble free years before going criminal over the summer back in his home state. That's really about the only ones I can think of offhand but I'm sure you keep a detailed list.

Devonte Fields situation is not completely unlike Tubman's. He was arrested on misdemeanor assault charges, turned himself in and was immediately released on bail. His accuser would not go to the hospital (police report noted a bruise under her eye) and she would not press charges. She later recanted her original "he had a gun" allegation. That was the state of things in February, 2014 and there has been no news since. Fields was suspended then dismissed from TCU in late summer 2014 after a ruling he violated the school's student code of conduct. I have read nothing about the legal outcome of the misdemeanor assault charge but I think if charges are not pressed, there is no case. Regardless, Devonte is finished at TCU.

Peace
 
Well; there are no "proven charges" against Tubman. So yes, I think he should be accepted at another school, regardless of football. The allegations about him (and the student who made them) are at UK, not WKU or UofL or anywhere else. Since he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing (and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings) a new school seeming does not take on a Title IX risk. In fact, a clever attorney might make that if a different school denies him admission (based on the "unproven" accusations at UK) that school might be in violation of Title IX by denying admission on such grounds. I have made several posts trying to emphasize the impact of Title IX in this case (and the complexity it brings) but most want to see it from strictly a legal proceedings perspective. In today's climate ANY guy on a campus who allegedly commits "sexual discrimination" against a female student is likely going to have a tough time staying on campus.

I know you greatly enjoy casting UofL football as a modern day Purple Gang but it's just not true. Have they brought in transfers? Sure, and why not? Plenty of kids transfer each year that have absolutely no issues other than things are not working out the way they expected. And, IMO, most of those kicked off a team for the ubiquitous "violation of team rules" indeed deserve a "second chance" provided they accept the fact they will be on a very short leash.

Yeah, Willie Williams was a BIG risk and proved to be a BIG mistake. There was a DB recruit dropped by VPI over a school computer theft that subsequently signed with UofL and had 2 or 3 trouble free years before going criminal over the summer back in his home state. That's really about the only ones I can think of offhand but I'm sure you keep a detailed list.

Devonte Fields situation is not completely unlike Tubman's. He was arrested on misdemeanor assault charges, turned himself in and was immediately released on bail. His accuser would not go to the hospital (police report noted a bruise under her eye) and she would not press charges. She later recanted her original "he had a gun" allegation. That was the state of things in February, 2014 and there has been no news since. Fields was suspended then dismissed from TCU in late summer 2014 after a ruling he violated the school's student code of conduct. I have read nothing about the legal outcome of the misdemeanor assault charge but I think if charges are not pressed, there is no case. Regardless, Devonte is finished at TCU.

Peace


Many UL fans bashed Tubman when he was picking his school. I hope he does not go to UL.
 
UK absolutely had more evidence and the GJ ruling is irrelevant to UK's ruling regardless of either ruling. Regardless, it shouldn't surprise anyone that a different group of people can come to a different decision based upon the same or different evidence, no matter how different the evidence actually was.

I don't even know why we're still arguing this. Some are just upset about losing a football player and questioning everything about whatever system doesn't rule in favor of the football team. Hey, whatever it takes to win another football game, right?

From reading your last paragraph you must have gotten confused and forgot what board you are on, how many transfers does UK have that were kicked out of other schools, this is the UK board, not the UL one. Although with all the trolls on her you do have to wonder if they have one.
 
(and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings)

I took this from WildCard's post. This is a horrible assumption. UK kicked him out. There was some "credible evidence". I don't know what it was, but it was something.
 
I just SMH reading people makeing stark assumptions yet are so dismissive to any possiblities suggested that don't favor their line of argument.

Ben, have you ever spoken to someone and they just didn't come off as believable to you? Or...someone tell you something and you were confident that they were being truthful? I doubt that when questioned by the SRB that their only question was, "Did you rape her?". There are litterally thousands of questions that could have been asked. What did the phone records show... what text messages were passed back and forth...was he ever threatening??? W.E. D.O. N.O.T. K.N.O.W. W.H.A.T. O.T.H.E.R. E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. M.I.G.H.T. H.A.V.E. E.X.I.S.T.E.D.!.!.!.

The SRB didn't have to prove rape. The SCoC covers a whole lot of behaviors...perhaps you should read it.

Did you ever stop to think that perhaps the girl came off as more believeible or that maybe Tubman was just a poor witness for himself?
Why do criminal lawyers not put their clients on the stand?

You simply want to dismiss everything that might go poorly for Tubman and blame everything on the system, on UK, on the girl...yet you have no knowledge other that what you have read in the papers, read on this board or heard in gossip. Both the GJ hearing and the SRB hearings are held in privacy. You want to claim that "What we actually know supports my version a whole lot more than yours."... WHUT!?
You know what is in the police report and what few statements have been made by Tubman. How are you making any decsion as what to believe and what to dismiss? Emotion, plain and simple.

Fuzz, you have made more "assumptions" in this thread than me, or anyone else, that believes Mr. Tubman.

You have "dismissed" the F.A.C.T. that a GJ did not even have enough evidence to take this case to trial. Yet you want us all to believe that the SRB had better access to phone records, testimony, etc. than one of the hardest prosecutors in the state of Kentucky.

You KNOW no more than me about what went on in that SRB hearing either. I could be 100% correct yet YOU won't accept that possibility. You are the one that has expressed "emotion, plain and simple" for the administration's decision.
 
Devonte Fields situation is not completely unlike Tubman's. He was arrested on misdemeanor assault charges, turned himself in and was immediately released on bail. His accuser would not go to the hospital (police report noted a bruise under her eye) and she would not press charges. She later recanted her original "he had a gun" allegation. That was the state of things in February, 2014 and there has been no news since.

Peace

what a complete JOKE. From a UofL football program perspective maybe you are correct, but from an overall UofL athletic program perspective you may want to be reminded of the most shocking series of rape allegations to emerge from the college athletics landscape since integration. I'm not sure UofL is willing to bypass the lingering agony of the Chris Jones rape and sodomy saga just because nothing has been proven against somebody else, regardless of who that might be, what sport they play or where they played it. SMH at the people in this thread who think Lloyd is a given in a UofL jersey.

Walking down the edge of a knife is a dangerous business. You know you need to hop off the blade but you're bound to get cut to pieces, not matter which side you choose, so you just keep that slow pace safely toward the tip of the blade, walking away from where all the moral choices were, but hopefully without a nick or scratch.
 
Last edited:
(and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings)

I took this from WildCard's post. This is a horrible assumption. UK kicked him out. There was some "credible evidence". I don't know what it was, but it was something.
A sound bite...at least have the courtesy to quote my entire sentence for some context...

Since he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing (and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings) a new school seeming does not take on a Title IX risk.

My use of the word "evidence" is clearly in reference to specific proof that a crime (e.g., rape or sexual assault) actually took place. There was apparently not enough evidence to warrant charges against him within the criminal justice system. However, a student's protection from sexual discrimination under Title IX provisions is far more expansive than the criminal justice standards of rape or sexual assault. Whatever "evidence" UK used to deny his readmission was obviously insufficient to support any criminal charges. In weighing his admission to another institution I am confident his failure to be indicted with criminal charges far outweighs whatever criteria UK used to deny him readmission.

I have no idea whether this young man got a raw deal or not. Like everyone else participating in this thread I was not privy to what was presented to the GJ or what was presented at his re-instatement hearings. The only point I am trying to make is that criminal sexual assault and sexual discrimination under Title IX provision can be two entirely different things. As I have said several times, failure to take "appropriate action" in a campus sexual discrimination claim places UK at risk of a Title IX violation.

Heretofore Title IX was thought of almost exclusively as gender equity in sports. It goes well beyond that and is similar in some respects to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act which prohibits discrimination (including sexual discrimination and sexual harassment) in the workplace.

Peace
 
A sound bite...at least have the courtesy to quote my entire sentence for some context...

Since he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing (and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings) a new school seeming does not take on a Title IX risk.

My use of the word "evidence" is clearly in reference to specific proof that a crime (e.g., rape or sexual assault) actually took place. There was apparently not enough evidence to warrant charges against him within the criminal justice system. However, a student's protection from sexual discrimination under Title IX provisions is far more expansive than the criminal justice standards of rape or sexual assault. Whatever "evidence" UK used to deny his readmission was obviously insufficient to support any criminal charges. In weighing his admission to another institution I am confident his failure to be indicted with criminal charges far outweighs whatever criteria UK used to deny him readmission.

I have no idea whether this young man got a raw deal or not. Like everyone else participating in this thread I was not privy to what was presented to the GJ or what was presented at his re-instatement hearings. The only point I am trying to make is that criminal sexual assault and sexual discrimination under Title IX provision can be two entirely different things. As I have said several times, failure to take "appropriate action" in a campus sexual discrimination claim places UK at risk of a Title IX violation.

Heretofore Title IX was thought of almost exclusively as gender equity in sports. It goes well beyond that and is similar in some respects to the Equal Employment Opportunity Act which prohibits discrimination (including sexual discrimination and sexual harassment) in the workplace.

Peace
This is hilarious coming from an Otis fan...like it would matter about him being admitted to ul...hell he probably will be the cleanest transfer you have ever admitted if he goes there...actually it is a joke for you or any of your ilk to even post on this thread with your history and with some of the clowns you have admitted. ..hell, you need to look no further than the coach you hired
 
This is hilarious coming from an Otis fan...like it would matter about him being admitted to ul...hell he probably will be the cleanest transfer you have ever admitted if he goes there...actually it is a joke for you or any of your ilk to even post on this thread with your history and with some of the clowns you have admitted. ..hell, you need to look no further than the coach you hired

While BP didn't add abortion (at least that we know of) to hisexcapedes (missed the space there but an appropriate word I invented) to his resume he should have been put in jail for misuse of public funds, but then money talks, right Rick?

Slick Rick really showed how slick he is in his escapade, committing adultery on a table in a public restaurant with his friends standing guard-----maybe even sneaking a peek once in a while. I am a little surprised that he didn't charge her with rape though, he had more witnesses than her, and certainly more of that important commodity, money.

Then he sweet talked her into an abortion, probably, set up and paid for by him, when if she had really wanted money all she had to do was have the child and collect child support from a MULTIMILLIONAIRE (Over a $50,000,000 contract with Boston, not to mention jurich throwing money at him) until he was 21, how much would that have been? Then he foisted her off on an assistant coach until he had a chance to get rid of her permanently, true love gone wrong.

jurich, BP, hurtt, Pitino, and I still have a hard time believing that Strong knew nothing about hurtt at the U, recruiting the same players in the same state, the most disgraceful episode in recruiting in history (well, the NCAA was too embarrassed to investigate him at UL) and it still seems awfully odd that he couldn't take a job he was much better suited for at Thug U (they cheat too) AND that they couldn't get rid of hurtt when the NCAA did judge him guilty..

jurich and his motley crew, taking all the criminals and rejects just continues the story, JUST WIN BABY.
 
While BP didn't add abortion (at least that we know of) to hisexcapedes (missed the space there but an appropriate word I invented) to his resume he should have been put in jail for misuse of public funds, but then money talks, right Rick?

Slick Rick really showed how slick he is in his escapade, committing adultery on a table in a public restaurant with his friends standing guard-----maybe even sneaking a peek once in a while. I am a little surprised that he didn't charge her with rape though, he had more witnesses than her, and certainly more of that important commodity, money.

Then he sweet talked her into an abortion, probably, set up and paid for by him, when if she had really wanted money all she had to do was have the child and collect child support from a MULTIMILLIONAIRE (Over a $50,000,000 contract with Boston, not to mention jurich throwing money at him) until he was 21, how much would that have been? Then he foisted her off on an assistant coach until he had a chance to get rid of her permanently, true love gone wrong.

jurich, BP, hurtt, Pitino, and I still have a hard time believing that Strong knew nothing about hurtt at the U, recruiting the same players in the same state, the most disgraceful episode in recruiting in history (well, the NCAA was too embarrassed to investigate him at UL) and it still seems awfully odd that he couldn't take a job he was much better suited for at Thug U (they cheat too) AND that they couldn't get rid of hurtt when the NCAA did judge him guilty..

jurich and his motley crew, taking all the criminals and rejects just continues the story, JUST WIN BABY.

you truly are one-of-a-kind :joy:
 
(and assuming there was no credible "evidence" brought forth in the UK proceedings)

I took this from WildCard's post. This is a horrible assumption. UK kicked him out. There was some "credible evidence". I don't know what it was, but it was something.

How do you know? I thought you were the guy claiming none of know anything.
 
you truly are one-of-a-kind :joy:

Thank you.

I have always felt strongly about speaking out about the injustices in the world and not just forgetting about them.

And oh, by the way, BBB, since you claim to have read "Adams vs Texas" how about answering my question about what the greatest injustice was in the book? Surely you didn't miss my question, and I would really like to discuss my opinion of what it was, how about some of the others that claim to have read the book, what was it?
 
Last edited:
Thank you.

I have always felt strongly about speaking out about the injustices in the world and not just forgetting about them.

And oh, by the way, BBB, since you claim to have read "Adams vs Texas" how about answering my question about what the greatest injustice was in the book? Surely you didn't miss my question, and I would really like to discuss my opinion of what it was, how about some of the others that claim to have read the book, what was it?
I did miss it, but I'll answer. In my view, the worst injustice is that a man went to prison due to perjured testimony. Thank God the actual killer was eventually put to death. Its a shame someone else had to die first. There were plenty of injustices in the entire story, you point out most of them in your previous post, which it took me a few minutes to locate after seeing this one. If I remember correctly, either from the book or the movie, the cop's wife had bought him a bullet proof vest that may have saved him, but was waiting until Christmas to give it to him. I don't know if you'd call that an injustice, but it sucks.

I still don't get the point of this book and Tubman. The criminal justice system worked. They decided they didn't think they could get a conviction, so they didn't indict him. Adams was not only indicted, but convicted on perjured testimony. Nothing similar. To compare a university's board that is hearing claims of school policy violations to this is misinformed.
 
I did miss it, but I'll answer. In my view, the worst injustice is that a man went to prison due to perjured testimony. Thank God the actual killer was eventually put to death. Its a shame someone else had to die first. There were plenty of injustices in the entire story, you point out most of them in your previous post, which it took me a few minutes to locate after seeing this one. If I remember correctly, either from the book or the movie, the cop's wife had bought him a bullet proof vest that may have saved him, but was waiting until Christmas to give it to him. I don't know if you'd call that an injustice, but it sucks.

I still don't get the point of this book and Tubman. The criminal justice system worked. They decided they didn't think they could get a conviction, so they didn't indict him. Adams was not only indicted, but convicted on perjured testimony. Nothing similar. To compare a university's board that is hearing claims of school policy violations to this is misinformed.

Convicted on perjured testimony by the DA who bought the testimony by letting another criminal off free and clear.

No, you missed the biggest crime in the book, on the last page. It was that, like thieves sticking together, when the truth came out about framing an innocent man which caused another innocent man his life (the real murderer's "semi" confession the last bit needed to free him, after over a dozen years on death row and the chain gang) the Texas Bar Association had a hearing on his actions and came up with the decision that HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. This, by some of the most respected lawyers in the state.

THAT was the biggest crime in the book, IMO, and most people missed the whole fiasco. The lawyers at UK were a very tight knit group and had their on living quarters IIRC, and that has steadily gotten worse, they now control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial systems in our government, AND therefore control the country.

The biggest similarity is, as Fuzz, UK's representative on this board in everything here ironically pointed out, money is the most important thing.
 
Convicted on perjured testimony by the DA who bought the testimony by letting another criminal off free and clear.

No, you missed the biggest crime in the book, on the last page. It was that, like thieves sticking together, when the truth came out about framing an innocent man which caused another innocent man his life (the real murderer's "semi" confession the last bit needed to free him, after over a dozen years on death row and the chain gang) the Texas Bar Association had a hearing on his actions and came up with the decision that HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. This, by some of the most respected lawyers in the state.

THAT was the biggest crime in the book, IMO, and most people missed the whole fiasco. The lawyers at UK were a very tight knit group and had their on living quarters IIRC, and that has steadily gotten worse, they now control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial systems in our government, AND therefore control the country.

The biggest similarity is, as Fuzz, UK's representative on this board in everything here ironically pointed out, money is the most important thing.
Spanglish?
 
Convicted on perjured testimony by the DA who bought the testimony by letting another criminal off free and clear.

No, you missed the biggest crime in the book, on the last page. It was that, like thieves sticking together, when the truth came out about framing an innocent man which caused another innocent man his life (the real murderer's "semi" confession the last bit needed to free him, after over a dozen years on death row and the chain gang) the Texas Bar Association had a hearing on his actions and came up with the decision that HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. This, by some of the most respected lawyers in the state.

THAT was the biggest crime in the book, IMO, and most people missed the whole fiasco. The lawyers at UK were a very tight knit group and had their on living quarters IIRC, and that has steadily gotten worse, they now control the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial systems in our government, AND therefore control the country.

The biggest similarity is, as Fuzz, UK's representative on this board in everything here ironically pointed out, money is the most important thing.
You know, it wasn't like Adams was a great guy. He'd been drinking and smoking for a while in a car that he knew was stolen. I know he got screwed, but I'm not willing to canonize him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT