Lloyd Tubman Update...
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
- Status
According to UK's "Student Code of Conduct" "Giving false testimony or other evidence at any official hearing of the University or giving false information to any faculty or staff members acting in the performance of their duties." is a punishable offense. The range of punishment includes expulsion.
Filing a false police report is a crime that is punishable with fines and jail time.
You got any proof the report was false? If so, take it to Ray Lawson and ask him to pursue the charges.
^ So...
You need proof to kick someone out for false accusations.
You don't need proof to kick someone out who has been accused with no evidence.
You need proof to kick someone out for false accusations.
You don't need proof to kick someone out who has been accused with no evidence.
Great point.
I just read where a "kick ass prosecutor" who had convicted many rapists in Denver ,Craig Silverman, puts the number of false accusations of rape at 45%. He also cited a Purdue study from 1994 which put it at 40 per cent. I continue to be intrigued that the true professional's in Larson's office obviously thought something did not ring true in the Tubman case.
The nuts have guided the national debate on this one and it is time for reason and Fair Play to come back into the system. The accused needs to have as many rights as the accuser.
Professors who have participated in this farce in the name of political correctness really do need to be terminated from UK. They are very dangerous people and can do a lot of harm to a lot of good people.
That's the crux of the matter.
The double standard is what makes this whole situation sad.
You and others keep saying "no evidence". You don't know that.
How does anyone benefit from expelling a student for "no reason"?
Answer: they don't.
Unless you think the SRB derives pleasure in denying enrollment to any student then chances are that there is some evidence that drove them to their decision. I'm not that cynical as to believe that they take their position and duty that lightly. Perhaps you are.
The NFL couldn't prove that Tom Brady cheated but they were certian enough to levy punishment.
Others asked for the procedure... below is from the Student Code of Conduct. I'm linking the entire code if you're interested.
University Disciplinary Hearings
32. Prior to the start of a University Disciplinary Hearing, a Conduct Officer shall conduct separate meetings with the Respondent and Complainant to review the relevant policies and procedures that inform the disciplinary hearing process. The Respondent and Complainant may each be accompanied at these sessions by an advisor(s) whose role shall be limited as outlined in Article II, Sections 30 and 31 of this Code.
33. The purpose of a University Disciplinary Hearing is to provide a fair evaluation of the Respondent's responsibility for violating University regulations. Formal legal rules of evidence shall not be applied, nor shall minor deviations from prescribed procedures necessarily invalidate a decision, unless significant prejudice to Respondent, Complainant or the University may result.
34. The following procedural guidelines, along with the rights outlined in Article I, Section 7, shall be applicable in hearings conducted by a Panel :
a. The Dean of Students Office shall give the Respondent and Complainant written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing as well as the specific charge against the student. The Respondent and Complainant shall be given reasonable access to the case file, which will be retained in the Dean of Students Office.
b. A Respondent who fails to appear after proper notice shall be deemed to have denied responsibility for the alleged violation. A hearing may be conducted in the student's absence, if necessary.
c. The hearing will be closed to the public, other than the advisors, if any, designated by the Respondent and Complainant.
d. The Presider of the Panel shall exercise control over the proceedings to avoid needless consumption of time and to achieve orderly completion of the hearing. Any person, including the Respondent, who disrupts the hearing may be excluded by the Presider of the Panel after the Presider has consulted with the others members of the Panel.
e. A record of the hearing shall be made.
e. Both the Respondent and the Complainant shall have the right to call relevant and necessary witnesses. The Respondent and the Complainant (not the advisors) shall also be given an opportunity to ask relevant questions of those witnesses who testify at the hearing. Witnesses shall be excluded from all hearings, except for the period of their testimony. The Panel may accommodate concerns for the personal safety, well-being, and/or fears of confrontation of the Complainant, the Respondent, or other witnesses during the hearing by providing separate facilities, by using a visual screen, and/or by permitting participation by telephone, videophone, closed circuit television, video conferencing, videotape, audiotape, written statement, or other means, where and as determined in the sole judgment of the Panel to be reasonable and appropriate. Either party may submit the written report or statement from a witness in lieu of the witness' personal appearance at the hearing; however, in the event that a party chooses to submit written statements from witnesses, all reasonable attempts should be made to have those individuals available by telephone.
g. Witnesses shall be asked to affirm that their testimony is truthful and may be subject to charges of violating this Code by intentionally providing false information to the University.
h. All members of a Panel may ask questions of the parties and all witnesses.
i. Evidence of the sexual behavior of the Complainant of a sexual assault is inadmissible in the hearing unless such evidence clearly relates to the issue of consent between the Complainant and Respondent for the specific act(s) in question or the evidence relates to the likelihood that the act(s) in question were committed by the Respondent. Such evidence may not be proved by reputation or opinion.
j. The burden of proof shall rest on the Complainant, and the standard of proof shall be a "preponderance of the evidence" (i.e. more likely than not).
If the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence" then how did they arrive at the decision they reached when the grand jury standard is basically the same and they could not conclude a crime was committed? That is a legitimate question that needs to be asked by the media.
I'd like to know the standard for determining a "false accusation"?
How about this from fact-checker...
“Falsely accused”
These two figures stand out at the bottom right corner of the graphic. It is portrayed as two of the total 1,000 figure. But Beaulieu explains it actually portrays a 2 percent figure from the total reported rapes. So the two figures, while visually striking, should be included among the reported figures.
False reporting is a difficult number to measure. The Enliven Project uses 2 percent of “falsely accused” cases, out of the 100 reported cases of rape. There is an important distinction that must be made here, between accusations and reports. “Accusations” may refer to claims that were not made in official police reports, whereas “reports” generally refer to cases that were filed with law enforcement.
That, again, seems to be the lower end of the estimate range. The “Making a Difference” Project, which used data collected by law enforcement agencies over 18 to 24 months, found 7 percent of cases that were classified as false. That study is the “only research conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the percentage of false reports made to law enforcement,” according to the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women. Other studies also estimate somewhere between 2 and 10 percent.
Did the girl speak to the grand jury? Did Tubman himself testify before the grand jury? Both had to appear before the SRB so in no way were the two hearing the same.
As I've said what seems like 100 times if the DA had wanted an indictment he could have easily had one.
I have always had a real problem with "advocacy research" where groups with an agenda simply lie to make their point. I had a female editor of a major newspaper tell me one time when I called her hand on an inaccurate statistic touted by the American Association Of University Women " What difference does it make if we lie a little bit . Our cause(domestic violence in that instance) is just ." I told her the problem was the info was wrong and it called into question the credibility of those making it on other matters as well.
That one was really interesting . In the 90's various women's groups touted a "study" which showed that on Super Bowl Sunday the instances of domestic violence went up dramatically. The thought being that all of these evil caveman guys just could not control their aggressive tendencies and had to play them out by beating up their women on Super Bowl Sunday. It went on for months with scores of well meaning prosecutors using it as great theater to argue for new domestic violence legislation. Again it was a great story and great theater. I used it in speeches to very dramatic effect.
There was only one problem. It wasn't true. When pressed by a reporter to show the methodology of the study no one knew who even did the study. Ultimately , it was found that someone in an ER room in Miami had remarked on Super Bowl Sunday that "it seems we have an increase in domestic violence every year at this time." That was it. There was no statistical increase in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday nationwide. The "study" was a fraud. A well meaning fraud by well meaning people but nonetheless a fraud.
I have been around enough to know to NEVER take at face value the rantings of former girl friends, spouses, employees , or advocacy groups doing tainted research. Anyone who doesn't realize this simply hasn't been in the pit (tried cases) or lived long enough.
You will find that advocates in this area are so biased they really don't care about the facts or the United States Constitution.
Again if it is true Tubman goes it was a bad day for justice ,UK and the US constitution.
And as others have said 100 times, he is a professional who works with these cases every single day. And he didn't proceed. How many of these claims does the kangaroo court student council see? A couple a year maybe?
No way you can do that...you would have to fire them all ..90% of all professors in the country are liberal progressives...
Lou, pretty sure that the US Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to attend UK.
I've lived pretty long and what I know is that there are advocy groups on all sides of every issue and that anyone can find data to support just about any postion they wish to take. My judgment tells me to look at the high numbers, look at the low numbers and figure that the truth is probably somewhere there in the middle.
Dingy Harry Reid on his admittance that he lied about Mitt Romney not paying taxes during the elections in 2012...His response..."He didn't win did he"...Now look what the hell we are stuck with
You are right, the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to attend UK. However, UK is bound by its written policies. It cannot violate its own policies and treat one person different than another. Given that we know the Grand Jury failed to indict, a reasonable conclusion is that the evidence didn't meat the very low legal standard to send it to trial. I fail to see how either party testifying would bring additional factual evidence to the proceeding that was not presented to the Grand Jury. Since the standard UK uses is essentially the same as the Grand Jury standard, then on the surface it looks like UK may have violated its written policies because the evidence may not be sufficient to meet the "more likely than not" standard. That is especially true if it is a he said/she said situation. If they have violated their polcies, that is an actionable offense as I understand it. Just from the perspective of a taxpayer whose money funds UK, I hope he wants to be there enough, or is pissed off enough, to at least threaten action over UK potentially violating its own policies.
Cat, of course you don't know how their testimony could bring additional factual evidence because you don't know what facts were presented to either. Perhaps you should speak to a lawyer or two and they could explain the differences to you...or are you scared they might tell you something that you don't want to know?
I work with attorneys all the time. I think I have a decent understanding of how the law works. Why do you think the legal proceeding that took place with the Grand Jury hearing would be less rigorous than what took place at UK. To think that UK has evidence that the Grand Jury didn't have presumes that a school hearing would be more rigorous than a legal proceeding. I find that hard to believe. I also find it interesting that without having any evidence to support Tubman was likely to have committed the act in which he is accused, you refuse to entertain the possibility that UK may have no reason to deny him enrollment other than being politically correct on the issue. At least what many of us are discussing are the known facts of the situation. You argue the point based on supposing that there is additional information that leads UK to believe he is guilty, even though that evidence was not presented to the Grand Jury. I'm not sure why you are choosing to take such a position, but it is far less tenable than mine.
^^^^ The difference in the two proceedings as I understand it is that Tubman had to testify in the UK hearing. No lawyer will let their client testify before a grand jury when they are accused. My reading of the rules posted above require him to testify at UK. If he didn't, I think that in and of itself would cause him to lose because he didn't tell his side of the story. Another myth is that the Commonwealth's attorney decided not to proceed. A grand jury made that decision based upon what the Commonwealth's Attorney presented to him. Just as a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, a prosecutor can present evidence that would cause a grand jury to return no true bill against Hitler. Everyone is comparing apples and oranges. Unless the grand jury testimony record is revealed (it won't be) we have no idea why it didn't indict. Unless the record of the UK hearing is revealed, we have no idea why it reached its decision.
I really wish that he was reinstated. Someone other than you homers saw something different. Even you talking about the constitution and your knowledge of the prosecutor are spouting off without the information needed to make the comments you are making.
I really wish that he was reinstated. Someone other than you homers saw something different. Even you talking about the constitution and your knowledge of the prosecutor are spouting off without the information needed to make the comments you are making.
You call those of us that see a double standard as "homers", yet you are defending the decision of the university without knowing what was said by either side at this hearing. The "homers" could be totally right. You are the one that has a history of calling out UK fans for your perception that we exhibit a "double standard", which is exactly what you are doing with your rant.
That "something different" could very well be a politically correct decision that makes this situation go away with the least amount of friction, no matter how it affects the player.
I am not defending UK's decision. I'm saying none of us know what they based their decision on. The "homer" comment is because you are all mad that a football player that you all think can help the team has been kicked out. How many kids that don't play football have you supported when in trouble?
How many forums do you post on?
This country is going to crap over the PC junk that is beginning to influence more and more of society as a whole. Innocent until proven guilty should pertain to ALL, UK football player or not.
You just labelled a whole group of UK fans. I thought that was the reason you didn't like most of our fan base? Oh the irony.
I agree with your overall point about biased research. The methods section is the most important part of any scientific paper. I would humbly submit that a lot of the opinions voiced on this board seem to be driven by a similar bias to that which you reference. It's as if some forget there are actually TWO people involved here.
I can't speak for others, but your assumption about me is way off base. I couldn't care less that he is a football player. That has nothing to do with it. My concern is that he is treated based on the known facts, and not presumptions, or based on what is politically correct. I can't say for sure he is being treated unfairly, but it's difficult to explain how the legal system, using basically the same standard as UK, concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest a crime was even committed, and yet UK apparently banned him for life before he appealed that decision and had it reduced to 5 years. Those are dramatically different conclusions with presumably the same factual evidence. Having Tubman speak at the UK hearing did not introduce additional facts unless he implicated himself, which I very much doubt. So both entities were working with the same set of facts and yet came to dramatically different conclusions. If that doesn't concern you, then I'm not sure what else to say to you. That very fact should raise a red flag to most reasonable people.
I think we all understand that there is another person that is also involved in the situation and is impacted by whatever decision is reached. However, that doesn't change how the decision should be reached. Fairness necessitates that the issue be settled based on facts and not hearsay. If the known facts indicate there is a fair chance he committed an assault against her, then he should be gone. If the facts can't establish that an assault took place, he should be able to go back to school, play football, etc., like nothing ever happened. It may make her uncomfortable if he comes back to school, but it is never appropriate to punish a person just in case he/she actually did something wrong. There has to be facts to support the conclusion and not just one person's word against another's. I'm not saying this boils down to her word against his because I don't know. I'm saying it's hard for me to see how UK could use essentially the same standard of proof that the Grand Jury used and come to a dramatically different conclusion with the same set of facts. It's logical to wonder if subjectivity and political correctness entered into the decision. I hope not, but it is not unreasonable to have suspicions.
cat, you keep saying they were working with the same set of facts which simply isn't so. The GJ didn't hear testimony from Tubman or the girl, they heard what was presented by the DA. The SRB hears from both sides and was able to question both. That is a pretty stark difference.
Regardless, if everything that you assume was true the facts are that it is beyond deniability to think that two groups couldn't hear the same information and yet draw different conclusions. Why do you think lawyers argue over jurors? Why do we have red states and blue states?
This was in essesence a civil trial with only a 50.1% degree of certianty needed to "convict". What if you knew that the grand jury was at 49.9% certanty? Is that a "dramatically different conclusion"?
Unfortunately there is no halfway to do it.
We don't know any of the above thus your opinion is based totally on presumptions, not known facts.
You keep saying they were not working with the same facts even though you admit you have no idea what either the Grand Jury or the SRB heard or saw. Why do you contend that with no supporting evidence? My problem with what you are saying is that the testimony would not introduce factual evidence. Testimony is just one person's word versus another person's word. You may believe one person over the other, but it introduces no factual evidence. The known provable facts would not be different between the two proceedings. On top of that the UK proceedings happened after the precedent of the Grand Jury hearing. So the SRB had a precedent based on basically the same standard of proof. The SRB decision basically says that in their opinion he should have stood trial for the crime.
Your percentages are a nice straw-man, but the actual decision making doesn't take place on the basis of percentages.
^^^ No intent to build straw men but the decision making very much depends upon percentages be they real or perceived. There is nothing that says all jury members or SRB members agree with any conclusion. Grand jurys vote on their decision and that decision does not have to be unanamous. I don't know of the SRB's final decision making process but I would be very suprised in the board members aren't polled in some form or fashion.
Why do I think of Animal House every time the SRB comes up?
Once again folks the only true professionals in handling rape allegations in this instance were Larson's office. It handles thousands of these cases and has the power to indict a ham sandwich. Much lower burden of proof standard than the SRB 50.1%. And with their knowledge chose not to pursue this matter. Nuff said.
Once again folks the only true professionals in handling rape allegations in this instance were Larson's office. It handles thousands of these cases and has the power to indict a ham sandwich. Much lower burden of proof standard than the SRB 50.1%. And with their knowledge chose not to pursue this matter. Nuff said.
Last edited:
The only one who could file the complaint (at the County Attorney's office) would be Tubman himself.
No, no, and no. The SRB rules have already been posted and state that both parties "testify" and can be asked questions. Quite the opposite as in a court of law, where Tubman has the right to say nothing at all. Not to mention that to convict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt where UK has no such standard.
One can imagine any of several lines of questioning being asked of Tubman that would have forced UK's hand, without his admitting any intentional wrongdoing.
To be clear, I have no idea what either of them said to the SRB. But please stop saying that they reached "totally different conclusions with the exact same information" because that is patently untrue.
Not quite Lou, in Kentucky 9 of 12 jurors must agree in order to indict. That's 75%. We simply don't know where their decision fell other than at least 4 voted against indictment.
Also, while Larson may be a professional, the grand jurors are not and they are the ones who make the decision, not Larson.
Again I ask you...do you really think that if they could truly "indict a ham sandwich" that the DA's office TRIES to get a True Bill in every case? As I have told you, I am personal friends with an lawyer who has been a DA for over 25 years. He has prosecuted 100's if not thousands of crimes including several very high profile crimes, some that have made national news. He knows a bit about it. His words to me about cases like Tubman's where the only evidence in dispute is one person's word against another..."There's just nothing there to get a conviction. If there is nothing there to get a conviction then there is no reason to push for an indictment." .
The Grand Jury standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it basically a preponderance of the evidence standard. The grand jury determines if there is enough evidence to suggest a crime was committed. It is a very low standard. It is essentially the same standard of proof used by the SRB. So you don't know what you are talking about.
On top of that, the Grand Jury is getting all of there evidence from the victim. Why would she tell less to the prosecutor than she would the SRB? She wouldn't.
The SRB hears the player's side as well as the alleged victim's side of the complaint. Why would the player give answers that would incriminate himself? He wouldn't.
That's why this whole situation wreaks of political correctness.
How about a list of students accused of rape but that faced a grand jury which declined to prosecute that were then kicked out of school? And, in this case I think being a high profile football player was a big disadvantage for him, not an advantage.
The girl did not testify before the grand jury. The girl wasn't presented for questioning before the grand jury.
And why would any witness ever incriminate themselves??? Guess what? They do. That is why lawyers rarely allow their clients to testify.
Read what you wrote. "The only evidence in dispute is one person's word against another". In other words, there is no factual evidence to go to trial over. They don't push for a indictment because they can't win a case where there is no evidence. I doubt they could get a Grand Jury to indict under those circumstances even if they wanted one. So based on what you just wrote, where it is one person's word against another, how does UK "indict" under the preponderance of the evidence standard? Your own attorney friend's comment calls into question the very issue I have.
- Status
Similar threads
