Lloyd Tubman Update...

[jauk11]

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.

Good lord, I hope that you aren't dumb enough to believe what you just wrote, and what a tragedy if it is true. Quote: "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."

If "that guy is in prison" then I would have to guess there was a lot more evidence than just her word.

I would hate to live in a world like that, bad enough as it is, has anyone else read "Adams vs Texas"?

 

[Caveman Catfan]

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?

(1) please tell me you are not a lawyer
(2) consider the cost ($ and freedom) of a criminal trial vs a school hearing.

No criminal lawyer would let him create a record prior to testifying at the grand jury. The fact that he evidently testified at the GJ is evidence that his attorney believed he had an excellent shot at getting a no true bill. Why would anyone risk that and run the risk of facing a criminal trial for something you did not do.

BTW, you have to be pretty darn confident to testify before the GJ.

 

[fuzz77]

(1) please tell me you are not a lawyer
(2) consider the cost ($ and freedom) of a criminal trial vs a school hearing.

No criminal lawyer would let him create a record prior to testifying at the grand jury. The fact that he evidently testified at the GJ is evidence that his attorney believed he had an excellent shot at getting a no true bill. Why would anyone risk that and run the risk of facing a criminal trial for something you did not do.

BTW, you have to be pretty darn confident to testify before the GJ.

(1) Tubman did not testify before the Grand Jury.
(2) The school hearing was AFTER the Grand Jury had returned it's no true bill. Tubman was required to testify to appeal the suspension that was enacted after he was arrested.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

(1) Tubman did not testify before the Grand Jury.
(2) The school hearing was AFTER the Grand Jury had returned it's no true bill. Tubman was required to testify to appeal the suspension that was enacted after he was arrested.

If you read back, you will see that I said early on that my comments were assumptions.

If he did not testify before the GJ and the return was no true bill, the case must have been very weak. Not sure how UK could have come to a different conclusion. The standards are not that different (assuming UK uses a preponderance standard).

 

[loucatfan]

If you read back, you will see that I said early on that my comments were assumptions.

If he did not testify before the GJ and the return was no true bill, the case must have been very weak. Not sure how UK could have come to a different conclusion. The standards are not that different (assuming UK uses a preponderance standard).

No a Political Correctness standard. totally devoid of anything approaching due process. Animal House revisited .

 

[fuzz77]

No a Political Correctness standard. totally devoid of anything approaching due process. Animal House revisited .

Your opinion Lou. You have no basis of fact to back that up.
There was as much due process as any civil proceeding.

If you read back, you will see that I said early on that my comments were assumptions.

If he did not testify before the GJ and the return was no true bill, the case must have been very weak. Not sure how UK could have come to a different conclusion. The standards are not that different (assuming UK uses a preponderance standard).

Caveman, the criminal case was weak. The SRB is not a criminal court. As stated earlier, the Grand Jury needed a 75% vote to return a true bill in the state of Ky. Since you are assuming let us assume that the Grand Jury returned an 8-4 vote to indict... What is the material difference between an 8-4 vote and a 9-3 vote? One gets you indicted, the other sets you free. The SRB only required a 50.1% likelyhood to have held its ground...the preponderance standard.
Fact, people see things differently. It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury and the SRB saw things in the exact same porportions. But again, the two proceedings were conducted completely different.

Just like in a ball game, if the same two teams played 100 times each team might win a fair share of the games. A different Grand Jury may have indicted Tubman based on the same evidence. Perhaps 1 or 2 different peope on the SRB and their verdict is different.

 

[loucatfan]

Your opinion Lou. You have no basis of fact to back that up.
There was as much due process as any civil proceeding.

Fuzz,

That is the problem. No do you. You know "innocent until proven guilty." Nor did the SRB which is about one one hundredth as competent as Larson's office.

Lou

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Your opinion Lou. You have no basis of fact to back that up.
There was as much due process as any civil proceeding.



Caveman, the criminal case was weak. The SRB is not a criminal court. As stated earlier, the Grand Jury needed a 75% vote to return a true bill in the state of Ky. Since you are assuming let us assume that the Grand Jury returned an 8-4 vote to indict... What is the material difference between an 8-4 vote and a 9-3 vote? One gets you indicted, the other sets you free. The SRB only required a 50.1% likelyhood to have held its ground...the preponderance standard.
Fact, people see things differently. It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury and the SRB saw things in the exact same porportions. But again, the two proceedings were conducted completely different.

Just like in a ball game, if the same two teams played 100 times each team might win a fair share of the games. A different Grand Jury may have indicted Tubman based on the same evidence. Perhaps 1 or 2 different peope on the SRB and their verdict is different.

I haven't read the anything beyond what was posted on this site about the code of conduct hearing procedures, but does it say somewhere that the SRB vote only has to be a majority, in other words anything over 50%?

 

[jauk11]

"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." From Fuzz's post.

How can you assume the vote was 8-4, since I don't think either one of us was there or know the result of the GJ vote, why don't I assume the vote wasn't 8-4 but was 12-0, would that mean he was innocent?

I was looking for the post where someone said Fuzz was the official spokesman for UK, (and mitch, my input, always the party line), I wanted to retroactively award him the poster of the year, LOL. And, as Fuzz himself said, not kicking him out MIGHT cost UK some money someday, always the most important factor in his world.

 

[BBBLazing]

Lou, the problem is in the SRB hearing you are not innocent until proven guilty. That is a constitutional standard that applies in court, but not in the SRB hearing.

I've tried to leave this thread before, but am going to give it another go. My opinion on this is as follows:

No one knows what happened. Loucatfan, fuzz77, multiple people named caveman, none of you know. Anyone that has the opinion that Tubman was railroaded is saying that without enough information. Anyone that says he did it is saying that without enough information. None of us know what was presented to the two separate bodies that made decisions. They definitely didn't have the same evidence because Tubman testified at the SRB and not the grand jury. Further, how many times have we seen a case reversed on appeal and a second jury make a different decision? Two panels of totally different people that have different perspective can decide the exact same case differently. All of the overdramatic "if it were your son or daughter" crap does not impress me. Unfortunately, none of us were there, so we don't know. Even if we ever get to see what was presented, we still weren't there so it would be unfair to second guess what each deciding body decided.

Lou, as far as all of your constitutional arguments go, the constitution worked. Tubman was not indicted or convicted of a crime. What all of you homers need to understand is that neither fuzz or I have said he was guilty. We have both continuously supported him and hoped he would return. We have both just responded to the blatant misinformation and incorrect analysis of how the system worked. You do not know that the University banned him because of political correctness. You assume it did based upon the assumption that the SRB reviewed the exact same evidence as the grand jury, which is not correct. wish him well.

If you all would just admit you are wrong, I'd go to bed. LOL. This has really been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed everyone's input.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Your opinion Lou. You have no basis of fact to back that up.
There was as much due process as any civil proceeding.



Caveman, the criminal case was weak. The SRB is not a criminal court. As stated earlier, the Grand Jury needed a 75% vote to return a true bill in the state of Ky. Since you are assuming let us assume that the Grand Jury returned an 8-4 vote to indict... What is the material difference between an 8-4 vote and a 9-3 vote? One gets you indicted, the other sets you free. The SRB only required a 50.1% likelyhood to have held its ground...the preponderance standard.
Fact, people see things differently. It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury and the SRB saw things in the exact same porportions. But again, the two proceedings were conducted completely different.

Just like in a ball game, if the same two teams played 100 times each team might win a fair share of the games. A different Grand Jury may have indicted Tubman based on the same evidence. Perhaps 1 or 2 different peope on the SRB and their verdict is different.

But, the GJ is random draw of disinterested citizens who merely must decide probable cause. The SRB is likely comprised biased individuals influenced by issues beyond the facts. I doubt this is the same game at all.

 

[jauk11]

But, the GJ is random draw of disinterested citizens who merely must decide probable cause. The SRB is likely comprised biased individuals influenced by issues beyond the facts. I doubt this is the same game at all.

And, as I have stated before, being a prospective football star was probably a disadvantage before this group.

 

[BBBLazing]

But, the GJ is random draw of disinterested citizens who merely must decide probable cause. The SRB is likely comprised biased individuals influenced by issues beyond the facts. I doubt this is the same game at all.

I hate these posts where you make these random assumptions like "is likely comprised biased individuals." Why is that likely? What makes you say that? You are guessing to support your position. Let's deal with known facts.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

And, as I have stated before, being a prospective football star was probably a disadvantage before this group.

And, as I have stated before, being a prospective football star was probably a disadvantage before this group.

I agree.

 

[jauk11]

Lou, the problem is in the SRB hearing you are not innocent until proven guilty. That is a constitutional standard that applies in court, but not in the SRB hearing.

I've tried to leave this thread before, but am going to give it another go. My opinion on this is as follows:

No one knows what happened. Loucatfan, fuzz77, multiple people named caveman, none of you know. Anyone that has the opinion that Tubman was railroaded is saying that without enough information. Anyone that says he did it is saying that without enough information. None of us know what was presented to the two separate bodies that made decisions. They definitely didn't have the same evidence because Tubman testified at the SRB and not the grand jury. Further, how many times have we seen a case reversed on appeal and a second jury make a different decision? Two panels of totally different people that have different perspective can decide the exact same case differently. All of the overdramatic "if it were your son or daughter" crap does not impress me. Unfortunately, none of us were there, so we don't know. Even if we ever get to see what was presented, we still weren't there so it would be unfair to second guess what each deciding body decided.

Lou, as far as all of your constitutional arguments go, the constitution worked. Tubman was not indicted or convicted of a crime. What all of you homers need to understand is that neither fuzz or I have said he was guilty. We have both continuously supported him and hoped he would return. We have both just responded to the blatant misinformation and incorrect analysis of how the system worked. You do not know that the University banned him because of political correctness. You assume it did based upon the assumption that the SRB reviewed the exact same evidence as the grand jury, which is not correct. wish him well.

If you all would just admit you are wrong, I'd go to bed. LOL. This has really been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed everyone's input.

I think there is an old saying that about covers this quote from above: "We have both continuously supported him and hoped he would return", it goes something like this, "With friends like you who needs enemies".

 

[Caveman Catfan]

I hate these posts where you make these random assumptions like "is likely comprised biased individuals." Why is that likely? What makes you say that? You are guessing to support your position. Let's deal with known facts.

I can not respond to your emotional response, but if the SRB is comprised of individuals as has been described, I think it obvious that there are biases and issues at play that should be irrelevant to a fair hearing.

 

[BBBLazing]

I can not respond to your emotional response, but if the SRB is comprised of individuals as has been described, I think it obvious that there are biases and issues at play that should be irrelevant to a fair hearing.

"Individuals as has been described" with no factual basis. Tell me who was on the board and what their biases were? Oh, they were professors and professors hate football. But wait, others say they were 20 year old students, and we all know the students want the football team to suck. Do you see where I am coming from? Too many assumptions and speculation. No one knows.

 

[BBBLazing]

If this thread keeps going, I may get my post count to a respectable number.

 

[jauk11]

I hate these posts where you make these random assumptions like "is likely comprised biased individuals." Why is that likely? What makes you say that? You are guessing to support your position. Let's deal with known facts.

Was it a composed of a random group of people?

The problem a lot of us are having with your statements is that you and Fuzz seem to assume that you are the only source of known facts. Just where does your vast insight into this affair come from, I assume Fuzz is in direct communication with UK, but it just seems to me your facts are biased to suit your point of view.. LOL.

 

[loucatfan]

Lou, the problem is in the SRB hearing you are not innocent until proven guilty. That is a constitutional standard that applies in court, but not in the SRB hearing.

I've tried to leave this thread before, but am going to give it another go. My opinion on this is as follows:

No one knows what happened. Loucatfan, fuzz77, multiple people named caveman, none of you know.

If you all would just admit you are wrong, I'd go to bed. LOL. This has really been an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed everyone's input.

I am not admitting I am wrong but I am going to bed.

 

[BBBLazing]

Was it a composed of a random group of people?

The problem a lot of us are having with your statements is that you and Fuzz seem to assume that you are the only source of known facts. Just where does your vast insight into this affair come from, I assume Fuzz is in direct communication with UK, but it just seems to me your facts are biased to suit your point of view.. LOL.

My point is that there are no known facts. That is why we can't criticize any decision making body. I know none of the facts and neither do you, but you keep assuming facts.

 

[BBBLazing]

I am not admitting I am wrong but I am going to bed.

Fair enough lou, we can agree to disagree. You've been reasonable at least. I've enjoyed the discussion.

 

[BBBLazing]

Known facts as I understand them, feel free to correct me if I am wrong (like I need to say that):
1. Tubman came to her dorm.
2. She signed him in, and there didn't appear to be an issue.
3. They had sex while in her room.
4. She signed him out, and there didn't appear to be an issue.
5. She accused him of rape shortly after he left.

Are there any other known facts? Have any of you seen either party's texts or emails? Do any of you know who they called or texted while he was in the room, before he got there or after he left? We don't know enough to judge the situation. Two panels got to and most of you disagree with the second panel.

Are we done yet?

 

[jauk11]

My point is that there are no known facts. That is why we can't criticize any decision making body. I know none of the facts and neither do you, but you keep assuming facts.

And you don't? LOL

Not sure I have posted anything about "knowing" anything that isn't common knowledge. I give opinions, and mine is that this wasn't a fair deal. It happens, has anyone read "Adams vs Texas" yet, an amazing story AND well worth reading, if anyone has read it I would like to give you my insight on it that I think most of the readers miss.

Come on, BBB, you have proven you have plenty of time to waste, read a book.

 

[BBBLazing]

And you don't? LOL

Not sure I have posted anything about "knowing" anything that isn't common knowledge. I give opinions, and mine is that this wasn't a fair deal. It happens, has anyone read "Adams vs Texas" yet, an amazing story AND well worth reading, if anyone has read it I would like to give you my insight on it that I think most of the readers miss.

Come on, BBB, you have proven you have plenty of time to waste, read a book.

I read Adams vs. Texas well before this thread started. Again, you refer to "common knowledge" and you are referring to assumed facts that you have received from this board. What "common knowledge" exists other than the "known facts" I posted? Educate me.

 

[BBBLazing]

Did you even read the post you replied to? I openly admitted that I know no facts, and you replied by saying that I assume facts. Really?

 

[catben]

Some of us believe that the decision made by UK was one of political correctness. Their is NO PROOF that it wasn't. Their is proof that there was not enough evidence to even take this case to trial.

So, how can anyone say that this SRB trial went any other way than to get rid of this situation with the least amount of publicity?

 

[BBBLazing]

Some of us believe that the decision made by UK was one of political correctness. Their is NO PROOF that it wasn't. Their is proof that there was not enough evidence to even take this case to trial.

So, how can anyone say that this SRB trial went any other way than to get rid of this situation with the least amount of publicity?

We are making progress. You say that there was proof that there was not enough evidence to take the case to trial. You say that because you trust that the grand jury made the correct decision based upon what was presented. But, then you screw up by saying there is no proof that the SRB didn't base its decision on political correctness. You say that because you do not trust that its decision was correct based upon the evidence presented to it. You do not know what evidence was presented to either body. YOU DON'T KNOW. I'm not saying the SRB was correct, but you can't say that the grand jury was correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Do you understand yet?

 

[BBBLazing]

I'm going to bed in 9 minutes. There are fish to be caught tomorrow, and Tubman still isn't going to be at UK. It has been fun.

 

[KopiKat]

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

 

[catben]

The prosecutor in this case has a reputation for being hard on crime, yet he couldn't even find enough evidence to take this case to trial. FACT

The SRB then made a decision totally contrary to the decision made by this same hard nosed prosecutor. FACT

Hence the conclusion reached by the majority here.

 

[BBBLazing]

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

I get Kipling, but do not understand your point here.

 

[BBBLazing]

I get Kipling, but do not understand your point here.

btw, that poem could be posted on boards relating to a lot of things other than UK football and teach some people a thing or two, if they could understand it.

 

[KopiKat]

I get Kipling, but do not understand your point here.

Most of y'all were making all the points just fine without my help. For those of you claiming to be familiar with the book / case Adams v Texas then you would also be familiar with the prosecutor's closing argument that the police were the "thin blue line." (title for the late 80s movie). The prosecutor had chosen those words as a police to military (if you will) comparison from Rudyard Kipling's poem "Tommy" which includes the verse "but it's the thin red line of e'roes when the drums begin to roll" so if you claim to "get Kipling" but didn't get that then I really doubt if you actually read Adams v. Texas and that was my point. Thanks for playing.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

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.

I have. Got a link to your information? The more we know the better we are. I have no problem being wrong, but you'll have to prove it first. You, on the other hand, will never admit to being wrong.

 

[jauk11]

I read Adams vs. Texas well before this thread started. Again, you refer to "common knowledge" and you are referring to assumed facts that you have received from this board. What "common knowledge" exists other than the "known facts" I posted? Educate me.

I bow to your omnipotence, O mighty one, but you didn't understand, I assure you that the only facts that I know of are the facts you presented, which clearly show that he is guilty, read them again, proof positive that he is guilty, and who knows what other vile crimes he has committed. Do you have a record of his prior rape convictions available, I am sure you can come up with it in short order.

Wait, I am talking to a proven liar, you said earlier that in nine minutes you were going to bed and there you are posting again 16 minutes later. Now now, don't quibble over the facts, but then maybe you couldn't sleep, maybe your conscience was bothering you, maybe you were even sleepwalking-----in fact, looking at some of your posts I think that is exactly what happened, you really should get some help with that, from your posts it seems to have been going on for a while now.

Since you read the book, perhaps you can tell me what you think the worst crime listed in the book, the original murder, the DA preserving his perfect record by framing an innocent man, the original murderer murdering another man when he tried to stop him from raping his woman, what do you think was the worst crime that was committed in the book?

Take your time, the fish might be biting, but I eagerly await your enlightenment, but I wouldn't mind anyone else that really read the book chiming in with an opinion.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

I have. Got a link to your information? The more we know the better we are. I have no problem being wrong, but you'll have to prove it first. You, on the other hand, will never admit to being wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll absolutely admit it.

http://www.uky.edu/studentconduct/disciplinary-hearing-officers-and-members-university-appeals-board

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

"Individuals as has been described" with no factual basis. Tell me who was on the board and what their biases were? Oh, they were professors and professors hate football. But wait, others say they were 20 year old students, and we all know the students want the football team to suck. Do you see where I am coming from? Too many assumptions and speculation. No one knows.

I think the point is that a Grand Jury is composed of people with no relationship with whatsoever to any interested party in the case, therefore, the assumption, right or wrong, is that they are unbiased with respect to the case they are hearing. Employees of UK obviously have bias coming into the proceeding because UK is an interested party. They have a bias to protect UK's interest and not necessarily to protect the interests of either the accuser or the accused. The fact that they have a financial relationship with UK makes them a biased party to begin with.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Known facts as I understand them, feel free to correct me if I am wrong (like I need to say that):
1. Tubman came to her dorm.
2. She signed him in, and there didn't appear to be an issue.
3. They had sex while in her room.
4. She signed him out, and there didn't appear to be an issue.
5. She accused him of rape shortly after he left.

Are there any other known facts? Have any of you seen either party's texts or emails? Do any of you know who they called or texted while he was in the room, before he got there or after he left? We don't know enough to judge the situation. Two panels got to and most of you disagree with the second panel.

Are we done yet?

You said in a prior post lets discuss this based on the known facts. That is what I have been trying to do. You listed the known facts, but you also left out two important ones. Fist, the Grand Jury took the known facts plus some that are not known and failed to indict using essentially the same standard that UK uses. Second, the UK board is made up of people with relationships to UK. That introduces a bias in the process where the decision makers have a vested interest in protecting UK's interest instead of the interests of the accuser or the accused. Given the known facts, and not bringing anything else into the discussion, it seems reasonable that there would be doubt as to the validity of the UK decision. The known facts certainly do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. Bringing in the idea that something was presented to UK that was not presented to the Grand Jury, and that made the UK board vote the way it did, is assuming facts not known.

 

[ModernThirst_Bill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the SRB ever actually say he was expelled due to rape, or could they have found some other violation of the code of conduct that lead to the situation and punished him on that?