Lloyd Tubman Update...

[fuzz77]

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.

There is quite a different standard between what one would send one to jail over and that where they would tell the person to simply go elsewhere for their education.
They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape happened to send some to jail.
They only need to think that some level of sexual harassment likely happened for expulsion.
See the difference?

 

[ukalum1988]

A lot of emotional energy is being expended on this thread. Regardless of the back and forth diatribes, Tubman's gone from UK. I think he got hosed big time by the university, but my opinion doesn't mean squat to the outcome.

I just hope Tubman doesn't end up at a university 75+ miles west of UK that is known for bringing in cast-offs from other programs with little regards to ethical or moral principles, and I certainly hope I don't see Tubman sacking Towles or Barker late in the 4th quarter on a crucial play in a future matchup.

 

[ukalum1988]

P.S. - I also wish the site would have an Ignore feature like it did under the old format - a number of posters who shall remain nameless would be on that list.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

There is quite a different standard between what one would send one to jail over and that where they would tell the person to simply go elsewhere for their education.
They have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape happened to send some to jail.
They only need to think that some level of sexual harassment likely happened for expulsion.
See the difference?

We are not talking about sending someone to jail. A Grand Jury doesn't do that. A Grand Jury uses essentially the same standard as UK and you know that. You are just being evasive because you know your attorney friend basically pointed out what we are pointing out.

 

[TBCat]

P.S. - I also wish the site would have an Ignore feature like it did under the old format - a number of posters who shall remain nameless would be on that list.

If only there was an ignore thread feature as well as an ignore poster. We've passed the irrational dialogue threshold months ago. This subject should be permanently retired.

 

[catben]

Like most of us have said from the start, Lloyd was hung out to dry by the administration at UK to avoid a media frenzy. The SRB took it upon themselves to give the accuser more credence than the player, even though a prosecutor and Grand Jury couldn't come up with enough evidence to even take it to trial.

Really sad.

 

[BBBLazing]

Every one that says there was no evidence that a crime was committed does not know the law of evidence. Testimony is the most common evidence that exists. Eye witness testimony. I saw him do it, he says I didn't. That guy is in prison. So to say he said/she said is not enough is not true. Plenty of people are in prison because she said he did it and he said he didn't. In this case, the prosecutor decided it wasn't likely to lead to a conviction, so he presented a case to the grand jury that lead to no true bill. That does not mean that "Ray" and all of his professionals doesn't think Tubman did it. Doesn't mean that they think he did. It means that the prosecutor didn't think he could get a conviction. He could have gotten an indictment based only on the accusation if he wanted to. The whole ham sandwich bs, remember. He did his job and decided it was a waste of tax payer money to pursue a charge. Doesn't mean he thinks Tubman is innocent. Doesn't mean he thinks he is guilty.

Everyone keeps saying that the UK board is wrong because they decided different than the grand jury with the same facts. Two things here. First, they didn't have the same facts. The victim and the accused testified at UK but not the grand jury. So they were not considering the same facts. Second, assume they did hear the same facts and make different decisions. Who are you to say which one was wrong. Is the grand jury correct because they decided first? If one of them is wrong, why does it have to be UK, and not the grand jury?

Everyone on here talking about burden of proof and evidence does not know what they are talking about. There have been a few lawyers pipe in but I question their experience in similar situations. Prisons have plenty of people that were convicted of rape just because someone said they did it. Colleges have plenty of people that raped people and no one believed their accuser.

I replied to someone the other night by saying "you know nothing about rape" and he responded by saying "you are right, I was never raped." I think my point was lost because I was responding to his comment that an athlete can have plenty of girls and Tubman is good looking, etc, and doesn't need to rape girls. My point was that just because you are good looking and can have plenty of sex doesn't mean you don't rape women. Rapists usually don't rape women because it is the only way they can have sex. Research the subject. Watch the documentary about Thomas Payne, our first black basketball player.

I'm sorry I was so long winded, and I hope this thread will eventually end. No one knows what happened. No one knows what the grand jury heard and no one knows what the UK board heard. I wish both sides would just quit assuming what happened and let life go on.

 

[jauk11]

In the hopes of salvaging some of the wasted time on here I would recommend that everyone read the book, "Adams vs Texas", in case you don't know how badly justice is sometimes handed out. Very educational AND gripping true story.

You have already proven you have plenty of time to read it.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Every one that says there was no evidence that a crime was committed does not know the law of evidence. Testimony is the most common evidence that exists. Eye witness testimony. I saw him do it, he says I didn't. That guy is in prison. So to say he said/she said is not enough is not true. Plenty of people are in prison because she said he did it and he said he didn't. In this case, the prosecutor decided it wasn't likely to lead to a conviction, so he presented a case to the grand jury that lead to no true bill. That does not mean that "Ray" and all of his professionals doesn't think Tubman did it. Doesn't mean that they think he did. It means that the prosecutor didn't think he could get a conviction. He could have gotten an indictment based only on the accusation if he wanted to. The whole ham sandwich bs, remember. He did his job and decided it was a waste of tax payer money to pursue a charge. Doesn't mean he thinks Tubman is innocent. Doesn't mean he thinks he is guilty.

Everyone keeps saying that the UK board is wrong because they decided different than the grand jury with the same facts. Two things here. First, they didn't have the same facts. The victim and the accused testified at UK but not the grand jury. So they were not considering the same facts. Second, assume they did hear the same facts and make different decisions. Who are you to say which one was wrong. Is the grand jury correct because they decided first? If one of them is wrong, why does it have to be UK, and not the grand jury?

Everyone on here talking about burden of proof and evidence does not know what they are talking about. There have been a few lawyers pipe in but I question their experience in similar situations. Prisons have plenty of people that were convicted of rape just because someone said they did it. Colleges have plenty of people that raped people and no one believed their accuser.

I replied to someone the other night by saying "you know nothing about rape" and he responded by saying "you are right, I was never raped." I think my point was lost because I was responding to his comment that an athlete can have plenty of girls and Tubman is good looking, etc, and doesn't need to rape girls. My point was that just because you are good looking and can have plenty of sex doesn't mean you don't rape women. Rapists usually don't rape women because it is the only way they can have sex. Research the subject. Watch the documentary about Thomas Payne, our first black basketball player.

I'm sorry I was so long winded, and I hope this thread will eventually end. No one knows what happened. No one knows what the grand jury heard and no one knows what the UK board heard. I wish both sides would just quit assuming what happened and let life go on.

I'm ready for this thread to die, but I can't just let this thought process pass without comment. The example you cited about testimony was an eye witness. Of course that is very strong evidence. However, there are no eye witnesses in the case. If a case boils down to he said/she said, with no physical evidence to support either person's claim, there is no way to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for conviction of a crime. I doubt very seriously that there are numerous people in jail today based solely on he said/she said testimony. There would have to be physical evidence or an eye witness to support the accusation before a jury would convict it they are doing there job.

That being said, this case didn't make it trial so the standard of proof used in both hearing was preponderance of the evidence. He said/she said testimony that contradicts each other provides no evidence on which to base a decision. Unless there is other witnesses or physical evidence to support one side or the other, the contradicting claims of the two people don't really provide you with much true evidence on which to make a decision.

 

[BBBLazing]

I'm ready for this thread to die, but I can't just let this thought process pass without comment. The example you cited about testimony was an eye witness. Of course that is very strong evidence. However, there are no eye witnesses in the case. If a case boils down to he said/she said, with no physical evidence to support either person's claim, there is no way to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for conviction of a crime. I doubt very seriously that there are numerous people in jail today based solely on he said/she said testimony. There would have to be physical evidence or an eye witness to support the accusation before a jury would convict it they are doing there job.

That being said, this case didn't make it trial so the standard of proof used in both hearing was preponderance of the evidence. He said/she said testimony that contradicts each other provides no evidence on which to base a decision. Unless there is other witnesses or physical evidence to support one side or the other, the contradicting claims of the two people don't really provide you with much true evidence on which to make a decision.

Sworn testimony of an accuser is evidence

 

[Beavis606]

Sworn testimony of an accuser is evidence

Often of the most unreliable kind. Physical evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eyewitnesses.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Sworn testimony of an accuser is evidence

So is the sworn testimony of the accused. If they contradict each other, where does that leave you?

 

[8XCHAMP]

Chris Jones accuser gave a sworn testimony also , only later to be seen on video leaving the apt with Jones the next morning laughing and playing with him......sounds to me like these girls are fine until these high profile athletes dont want anything to do with the girls anymore , then all of a sudden they were raped....where is the justice for the falsely accused?

 

[BBBLazing]

Chris Jones accuser gave a sworn testimony also , only later to be seen on video leaving the apt with Jones the next morning laughing and playing with him......sounds to me like these girls are fine until these high profile athletes dont want anything to do with the girls anymore , then all of a sudden they were raped....where is the justice for the falsely accused?

The justice is they were not convicted of a crime. That is the way the system works. Who are you to say they were falsely accused? You are overstating the video evidence in the Jones case. It was not the next morning, and there was a confrontation between Jones and one of the girls outside of the apartment shortly after their escapade. Quit getting your news on here.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Sworn testimony of an accuser is evidence

True, but did Tubman actually defend himself at the original UK "hearing"? I highly doubt it since the DA investigation was ongoing at that time. So, unless I am incorrect, UK forced Tubman into a subordinate position by allowing the accuser full reign over the proceedings. In effect, the accused would stand no chance. I have called the proceeding a kangaroo court and will continue to do so.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

A "kangaroo court" that you don't have one bit of factual evidence of what was presented.

 

[WeepNoMore]

So do you approve of the way that FSU handled the situation?

Absolutely not! Should have been sent packing after the crab leg theft.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

A "kangaroo court" that you don't have one bit of factual evidence of what was presented.

If Tubman was forced to take the 5th, it was a kangaroo court that knowingly proceeded without the accused's story. One that evidently was compelling.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

He wasn't forced to take the 5th and UK didn't force him to do anything. You have no idea if he took the 5th or testified. Also, the hearing had to be timely given they are students.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

He wasn't forced to take the 5th and UK didn't force him to do anything. You have no idea if he took the 5th or testified. Also, the hearing had to be timely given they are students.

So, you think it is right that a student at UK, who has been accused of rape and arrested, should have to defend himself in front of some other 20 year olds, when everything he says can come back and bite him in the butt with the real investigation. No one should be put in that position and only a fool would testify while a DA is trying to mount a class A felony prosecution against them. I know you love your own opinion, but you are being absurd. Clearly there was no real evidence, the Grand Jury decision proved that. You need to go back on the banned list.

 

[SanAntonioCat]

At the end of the day, Mr. Tubman should never have found himself in a situation that would lead to this debate over the decision to ban him from UK. We can argue all day about the implications of this issue. The point is no university can cover up personal player issues in this day of instant social media.

You must remember in 2001, UK was one step away from the "death penalty" for the actions of Claude Bassett. Hal Mumme's career was finished despite coaching jobs in the backwater of college football schools. In the ensuing years of crippling probation and no coach in college football would take the job at UK, Rich Brooks gave us hope only to be destroyed once again with the Joker fiasco.

As a collective fan base, we stand very divided regarding the future of UK football. Despite a hard nosed, successful football coach who is the baby of the family tree of Stoops, our university has gone all in on the hopes and prayers of us fans and his ability to make us competitive and as a state have pride in being a Kentucky Wildcat.

This staff and university now has a no tolerance policy. As most of you realize, nearly every SEC football program recruits on the edge of eligibility and social acceptance to win at any cost. That is because their football success directly funds their athletic programs. They have to fill those 90,000 to 105,000 stadiums every Saturday.

Lloyd Tubman would discover despite a personal issue, every SEC school and UofL would do everything possible to find a way to get him on the field. Ladies and gentlemen I present Jameis Winston.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

So, you think it is right that a student at UK, who has been accused of rape and arrested, should have to defend himself in front of some other 20 year olds, when everything he says can come back and bite him in the butt with the real investigation. No one should be put in that position and only a fool would testify while a DA is trying to mount a class A felony prosecution against them. I know you love your own opinion, but you are being absurd. Clearly there was no real evidence, the Grand Jury decision proved that. You need to go back on the banned list.

He doesn't have to defend himself in front of 20 year olds. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stop being an idiot.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

He wasn't forced to take the 5th and UK didn't force him to do anything. You have no idea if he took the 5th or testified. Also, the hearing had to be timely given they are students.

He doesn't have to defend himself in front of 20 year olds. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stop being an idiot.

You do not know of what you write. No attorney worth a cent would permit the kid to testify at a student hearing. Shame on UK if it held the hearing before his case was dismissed. If you cannot understand that elementary issue, you should probably stop posting on this matter.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

At the end of the day, Mr. Tubman should never have found himself in a situation that would lead to this debate over the decision to ban him from UK. We can argue all day about the implications of this issue. The point is no university can cover up personal player issues in this day of instant social media.

You must remember in 2001, UK was one step away from the "death penalty" for the actions of Claude Bassett. Hal Mumme's career was finished despite coaching jobs in the backwater of college football schools. In the ensuing years of crippling probation and no coach in college football would take the job at UK, Rich Brooks gave us hope only to be destroyed once again with the Joker fiasco.

As a collective fan base, we stand very divided regarding the future of UK football. Despite a hard nosed, successful football coach who is the baby of the family tree of Stoops, our university has gone all in on the hopes and prayers of us fans and his ability to make us competitive and as a state have pride in being a Kentucky Wildcat.

This staff and university now has a no tolerance policy. As most of you realize, nearly every SEC football program recruits on the edge of eligibility and social acceptance to win at any cost. That is because their football success directly funds their athletic programs. They have to fill those 90,000 to 105,000 stadiums every Saturday.

Lloyd Tubman would discover despite a personal issue, every SEC school and UofL would do everything possible to find a way to get him on the field. Ladies and gentlemen I present Jameis Winston.

What?!?!?

SMH

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

He doesn't have to defend himself in front of 20 year olds. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Stop being an idiot.

tell me all about the group to whom this case was first presented. I'll wait. As for the university, they should feel nothing but shame at forcing a defendant to either not defend himself or risk digging himself a deeper hole when a criminal investigation is ongoing. Vandalay, if your arrogant ass can't understand that, there isn't much hope for you. Not that I ever thought there was. Just read the bylaws, it is absurd. Just a note for our resident know-it-all, student conduct boards, while not totally made up of students, do include students. If you bother to read the bylaws, you will notice that defendants will be judged by peers.

 

[UK34]

At the end of the day, Mr. Tubman should never have found himself in a situation that would lead to this debate over the decision to ban him from UK. We can argue all day about the implications of this issue. The point is no university can cover up personal player issues in this day of instant social media.

You must remember in 2001, UK was one step away from the "death penalty" for the actions of Claude Bassett. Hal Mumme's career was finished despite coaching jobs in the backwater of college football schools. In the ensuing years of crippling probation and no coach in college football would take the job at UK, Rich Brooks gave us hope only to be destroyed once again with the Joker fiasco.

As a collective fan base, we stand very divided regarding the future of UK football. Despite a hard nosed, successful football coach who is the baby of the family tree of Stoops, our university has gone all in on the hopes and prayers of us fans and his ability to make us competitive and as a state have pride in being a Kentucky Wildcat.

This staff and university now has a no tolerance policy. As most of you realize, nearly every SEC football program recruits on the edge of eligibility and social acceptance to win at any cost. That is because their football success directly funds their athletic programs. They have to fill those 90,000 to 105,000 stadiums every Saturday.

Lloyd Tubman would discover despite a personal issue, every SEC school and UofL would do everything possible to find a way to get him on the field. Ladies and gentlemen I present Jameis Winston.

 

[BBBLazing]

I know the horse is probably dead, but for the guys that are just now saying that UK should not expect him to testify at the UK hearing because he may incriminate himself I say: You said the other day he was innocent. Not "not guilty", but innocent. No evidence against him. If all that is true, what could he have said at the UK hearing to hurt himself?

 

[catben]

No one knows what was said in those hearings except those that were present for them. Speculation is just that. The problem lies in the fact that the evidence against Mr. Tubman was so weak that the case didn't even go to trial, yet he was banned from returning to UK.

It is a sad day when the burden of proof is placed upon the accused.

 

[Rhavicc]

Sworn testimony of an accuser is evidence

I bet you didn't know that eyewitness testimony is actually the least reliable form of evidence, yes? Usually when it comes to damaging the life and reputation of an individual like what has happened to Tubman, you should be basing your case off of physical evidence, not he-said-she-said nonsense.
The court system did a good job of that, UK did not.
As far as I'm concerned, there was an ex girlfriend who had a hard on for Tubman because of relationship issues, and then there was "Witness B", who wasn't even there for the "rape". That's the evidence that I see.
What a gigantic crock of shit.

At the end of the day, Mr. Tubman should never have found himself in a situation that would lead to this debate over the decision to ban him from UK. We can argue all day about the implications of this issue. The point is no university can cover up personal player issues in this day of instant social media.

You must remember in 2001, UK was one step away from the "death penalty" for the actions of Claude Bassett. Hal Mumme's career was finished despite coaching jobs in the backwater of college football schools. In the ensuing years of crippling probation and no coach in college football would take the job at UK, Rich Brooks gave us hope only to be destroyed once again with the Joker fiasco.

As a collective fan base, we stand very divided regarding the future of UK football. Despite a hard nosed, successful football coach who is the baby of the family tree of Stoops, our university has gone all in on the hopes and prayers of us fans and his ability to make us competitive and as a state have pride in being a Kentucky Wildcat.

This staff and university now has a no tolerance policy. As most of you realize, nearly every SEC football program recruits on the edge of eligibility and social acceptance to win at any cost. That is because their football success directly funds their athletic programs. They have to fill those 90,000 to 105,000 stadiums every Saturday.

Lloyd Tubman would discover despite a personal issue, every SEC school and UofL would do everything possible to find a way to get him on the field. Ladies and gentlemen I present Jameis Winston.

What an idiot. What a complete imbecile.

 

[BBBLazing]

I bet you didn't know that eyewitness testimony is actually the least reliable form of evidence, yes? Usually when it comes to damaging the life and reputation of an individual like what has happened to Tubman, you should be basing your case off of physical evidence, not he-said-she-said nonsense.
The court system did a good job of that, UK did not.
As far as I'm concerned, there was an ex girlfriend who had a hard on for Tubman because of relationship issues, and then there was "Witness B", who wasn't even there for the "rape". That's the evidence that I see.
What a gigantic crock of shit.



What an idiot. What a complete imbecile.

I guess I'll reply one more time. In any trial, even if it is solely he said/she said, a jury is free to to decide that she is right. In this thread, I've never advocated Tubman losing his scholarship or being kicked out of school. I've only disagreed with the people that refuse to recognize how the system, both the state criminal and the Uk board, work. Lloyd Tubman may or may not have raped his ex. None of us know. The grand jury did their best, based upon what was presented to them. The UK board did their best, based upon what was presented to them. None of know what was presented to either, so let's all wish him the best and start arguing about who should start at quarterback.

 

[Beavis606]

I've only disagreed with the people that refuse to recognize how the system, both the state criminal and the Uk board, work. Lloyd Tubman may or may not have raped his ex. None of us know. The grand jury did their best, based upon what was presented to them. The UK board did their best, based upon what was presented to them. None of know what was presented to either, so let's all wish him the best and start arguing about who should start at quarterback.

You mean the 2 systems did what they were designed to do.

--The court system examined the evidence and made a decision.
--UK's board made the decision that was least likely to cause it a PR hit or a judgment against it in a possible future litigation.

UK wasn't looking out for the best interests of Tubman or even his accuser. You can be sure it was protecting itself first and foremost.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I know the horse is probably dead, but for the guys that are just now saying that UK should not expect him to testify at the UK hearing because he may incriminate himself I say: You said the other day he was innocent. Not "not guilty", but innocent. No evidence against him. If all that is true, what could he have said at the UK hearing to hurt himself?

Are you really that daft? He could say a multitude of things that could be viewed differently by different people. He could say one innocent word that forces the DA to go after him hard. There is a reason innocent people don't testify at trial. The other side can twist information out of them that, even though the person is innocent, can create a shadow of doubt. Surely you aren't that stupid.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I guess I'll reply one more time. In any trial, even if it is solely he said/she said, a jury is free to to decide that she is right. In this thread, I've never advocated Tubman losing his scholarship or being kicked out of school. I've only disagreed with the people that refuse to recognize how the system, both the state criminal and the Uk board, work. Lloyd Tubman may or may not have raped his ex. None of us know. The grand jury did their best, based upon what was presented to them. The UK board did their best, based upon what was presented to them. None of know what was presented to either, so let's all wish him the best and start arguing about who should start at quarterback.

No, how about we argue about the fairness of a system that forces a defendant in a student conduct hearing to defend himself all while a criminal case is being built in the background. The system itself is unamerican. It goes against our most cherished protections. Read UK's bylaws for this. They pretty much say, "sucks to be you". It is disgusting. It is the very definition of a kangaroo court and it really should be actionable by the defendant. One side was heard, a decision was made and the ball-less UK administration was more than happy to allow this to happen. They didn't even have to get dirty hands. BBB, you may like how this worked out, but if Lloyd was your son, I doubt we'd be hearing the same garbage from you.

 

[johnnyrockets]

What if the accuser were your daughter? Would you be singing the same song? I mean, while we're throwing around pointless hypotheticals?

 

[Beavis606]

What if the accuser were your daughter? Would you be singing the same song? I mean, while we're throwing around pointless hypotheticals?

If there were no evidence, then yes.

 

[BBBLazing]

Are you really that daft? He could say a multitude of things that could be viewed differently by different people. He could say one innocent word that forces the DA to go after him hard. There is a reason innocent people don't testify at trial. The other side can twist information out of them that, even though the person is innocent, can create a shadow of doubt. Surely you aren't that stupid.

Thank you. You have proven the point of why the grand jury could return no true bill and UK could decide there was a rule violation. "a multitude of things that could be viewed differently by different people." That was my main point. And I am not happy the way it turned out. I really don't have a side because I don't know what happened and I don't know what either the grand jury or the UK board heard or saw.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

The system is as American as it gets. UK sets its own rules and criteria and should be able decide who is a student. All of the evidence is 100% private to protect everyone.

 

[cac123]

The system is as American as it gets. UK sets its own rules and criteria and should be able decide who is a student. All of the evidence is 100% private to protect everyone.

Enough! cease and desist. No more!! End this!!!!!!

 

[fuzz77]

If there were no evidence, then yes.

BS. If your daughter told you that she was raped and you trusted your daughter becasue she had always been truthful to you...you would believe her. All the "evidence" was in a closed room. The only evidence that means ANYTHING was if she told him "No" or "Stop". What happened prior to, or after that point does not matter.

You do not know, I do not know, nor does anyone except for those two people know what was said in that closed room.

I have also said that it may be very likely that both parties believe that they are telling the truth...that both could pass a polygraph with flying colors...so where would that leave us?

Everyone wants to assume that the grand jury made the right call because that is the outcome that they wanted. The SRB must be cowering from media attention, must hate UK football players, must be... because they came to a conclusion that you don't like. Why is that so hard for most of you to admit?

You don't know what was presented to the grand jury...you don't know what questions were asked, what responses were given to the SRB. You damn well don't know what decision you would have made based upon what evidence was given if Tubman was some random person accused.

What if you knew that the grand jury voted 8-4 to indict LT? That would mean that 2 out of 3 jurors thought that he should at least stand trial. It takes a minimum of a 9-3 vote in the state of Kentucky...in some states only a 2/3's vote is needed. A 2/3's vote of the SRB would allow them to take action.

There is no perfect system of justice. Innocent people go to prision, some are executed for crimes they didn't commit. I am confident that many guilty people are never prosecuted, many are found innocent. Likewise I'm sure that the SRB sometimes gets it wrong. Unless we decide to forego all of our privacy and insure that cameras are recording every second of everyone's life, it will always be that way.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

tell me all about the group to whom this case was first presented. I'll wait. As for the university, they should feel nothing but shame at forcing a defendant to either not defend himself or risk digging himself a deeper hole when a criminal investigation is ongoing. Vandalay, if your arrogant ass can't understand that, there isn't much hope for you. Not that I ever thought there was. Just read the bylaws, it is absurd. Just a note for our resident know-it-all, student conduct boards, while not totally made up of students, do include students. If you bother to read the bylaws, you will notice that defendants will be judged by peers.

You realize that the board isn't comprised of students, correct? The Code of Student Conduct board is comprised of the Dean of Students, faculty, staff, and retirees of the university. So, no 20 year old determined his fate unless they were on the grand jury.

Perhaps you should read the bylaws.