Lloyd Tubman Update...

[fuzz77]

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.

This is at least a well reasoned argument. One I wouldn't think is unreasonable. Employers fire people, team kick members off the team for conduct they may deem detrimental to their entity.
However one might also argue that Grand Jury could well be bias in favor of a UK athletes. Given Tubman's height, perhaps some of the jury members thought he was a basketball player.

One more consideration is that the Board determined that Tubman had violated the Student Code of Conduct in a manner that would not meet the standard of rape yet still violated the code. The code specifies under the "Prohibited Conduct" section as being prohibited..."Sexual assault, stalking, and relationship violence, including threats thereof, as defined by Administrative Regulation R6:2 (Policy on Sexual Assault, Stalking, and Relationship Violence). ". Was there any history of relationship violence between the two? Had Tubman been stalking his ex? Perhaps this came out in the SRB.

None of us know. If you don't know then you can't assign blame.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

I don't think we know for certain that he is banned from campus for five years or are certain there is any punishment to my knowledge - it's only be second hand reports.

Also, there are other facts based upon the warrant.

http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...ant-details-alleged-rape-uks-tubman/16911973/

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

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

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

I stand corrected but I am a bit confused. In several places the code refers to being judged by "peers". Those aren't peers.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

I really don't know. It wouldn't surprise me if students were somehow involved in some hearings, but not more serious ones like this.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

"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 do see, but some here have claimed they reviewed the bylaws and that it is not student driven. If that is accurate, then I believe the there are biases and pressures that go beyond the case. There is a reason why a GJ is supposedly randomly selected. For this process, being kicked from school, I would hope a respondent/accused would get strikes and a voir dire of the decisionmakers.

I actually think a jury of peers is better, assuming the process is fair.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

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?

I think the fact that the prosecutor wanted the GJ to decide the issue and the GJ came back with a no true bill are significant facts I would add to your list.

 

[fuzz77]

I think the fact that the prosecutor wanted the GJ to decide the issue and the GJ came back with a no true bill are significant facts I would add to your list.

Again, isn't it possible that the SRB decision is based upon other violations of the code of conduct that are not per se crimes but are in fact violations of that code?

BTW...from the Code of Conduct
"Disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a student charged with conduct that potentially violates both the criminal law and this Code (that is, if both possible violations result from the same factual situation) without regard to the pendency of civil or criminal litigation in court or criminal arrest and prosecution. Proceedings under this Code may be carried out prior to, simultaneously with, or following civil or criminal proceedings off campus at the discretion of Dean of Students. Determinations made or sanctions imposed under this Code shall not be subject to change because criminal charges arising out of the same facts giving rise to violations of University rules were dismissed, reduced, or resolved in favor or against the criminal law defendant."

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Again, isn't it possible that the SRB decision is based upon other violations of the code of conduct that are not per se crimes but are in fact violations of that code?

BTW...from the Code of Conduct
"Disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against a student charged with conduct that potentially violates both the criminal law and this Code (that is, if both possible violations result from the same factual situation) without regard to the pendency of civil or criminal litigation in court or criminal arrest and prosecution. Proceedings under this Code may be carried out prior to, simultaneously with, or following civil or criminal proceedings off campus at the discretion of Dean of Students. Determinations made or sanctions imposed under this Code shall not be subject to change because criminal charges arising out of the same facts giving rise to violations of University rules were dismissed, reduced, or resolved in favor or against the criminal law defendant."

If the elements of campus wrongdoing were different, your facts may be irrelevant.

Assuming the conduct involved sexual abuse, because the penalty was rather harsh, I will assume the foundation for the charges and elements were similar.

The bold portion you present suggests rulings made before criminal prosecution outcomes. It has been said here that the campus hearing was after the GJ finding. Also, I think that portion contemplates pleas that have no factual basis.

Regardless, I added those two facts. I believe them to undisputed and relevant.

 

[fuzz77]

If the elements of campus wrongdoing were different, your facts may be irrelevant.

Assuming the conduct involved sexual abuse, because the penalty was rather harsh, I will assume the foundation for the charges and elements were similar.

The bold portion you present suggests rulings made before criminal prosecution outcomes. It has been said here that the campus hearing was after the GJ finding. Also, I think that portion contemplates pleas that have no factual basis.

Regardless, I added those two facts. I believe them to undisputed and relevant.

There was an initial ruling by the SRB to suspend Tubman as a student and that he remove himself from campus immediately following his arrest. The hearings after the GJ findings were to appeal the earlier rulings and seek reinstatement. The bolded text simply means that they are not bound by any findings of the court and that just because you receive a favorable ruling doesn't automatically mean that they will render a favorable ruling as well. "I think that portion contemplates pleas that have no factual basis"...the SRB would have no way of knowing if there was a factual basis for a plea or not.
If you read more about the board, it's makeup and it's duties it becomes pretty obvious that they do their own investigation and make their determination based on their findings. Not what may or may not be presented in a courtroom. Often rules of evidence may prevent facts from not being presented in court. Example...a polygraph test. Not admissible in court, the SRB maybe could consider the findings. The court can't force you to testify...the SRB holds the right to do so.

 

[jauk11]

"Again, isn't it possible that the SRB decision is based upon other violations of the code of conduct that are not per se crimes but are in fact violations of that code?"

Isn't it possible that the national record for the highest score in a football game is in jeopardy? GT beating Cumberland (TN) 222 to 0 (or was it 223?) could be in jeopardy. What if all of UK's players have other violations of the code of conduct so they are all declared ineligible, I would hate to play Auburn with intramural league players like poor Cumberland was forced to do after GT made them play the game even after dropping football.

Kind of like Fuzz saying this could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to Tubman. And actually it could be I guess, if he is a dangerous rapist and transfers to UL he probably won't have to worry about anything there.

You are right, Fuzz, everything is possible, even the Universe starting out as a minute particle and exploding instantanously into millions of universes..

 

[Caveman Catfan]

There was an initial ruling by the SRB to suspend Tubman as a student and that he remove himself from campus immediately following his arrest. The hearings after the GJ findings were to appeal the earlier rulings and seek reinstatement. The bolded text simply means that they are not bound by any findings of the court and that just because you receive a favorable ruling doesn't automatically mean that they will render a favorable ruling as well. "I think that portion contemplates pleas that have no factual basis"...the SRB would have no way of knowing if there was a factual basis for a plea or not.
If you read more about the board, it's makeup and it's duties it becomes pretty obvious that they do their own investigation and make their determination based on their findings. Not what may or may not be presented in a courtroom. Often rules of evidence may prevent facts from not being presented in court. Example...a polygraph test. Not admissible in court, the SRB maybe could consider the findings. The court can't force you to testify...the SRB holds the right to do so.

The point was not that the SRB would have no way of knowing if a plea lacks a factual basis, but that the language precludes someone from coming back after a plea and utilizing that as the foundation for a change. The SRB would often not have a foundation for understanding the change at the criminal level.

If your timeline is correct, it reinforces that Tubman did not contest the original hearing, as he and his attorney were focused on the criminal case. His willingness to voluntarily leave campus during the pendency of the investigation and criminal process should have stayed the SRB, IMO.

The fact that the GJ found the allegations unbelievable, especially if Tubman did not testify and give his side of the story, is relevant to me. And, I would think would be to most decision-makers. I doubt the school’s investigation compared to the investigation performed by state authorities and the GJ.

The GJ is capable of hearing matters that might be precluded in a trial, so the Rule of Evidence example you give, while relevant to the bolded portion of the bylaws as it relates to acquittals or cases being tossed, is not relevant to our interpretation of the GJ’s findings as it relates to Tubman. And, the fact that the prosecutor took this to the GJ is also telling. Prosecutors will often do that in high profile cases or where there is a significant victim, but the case cannot be made to support the allegation.

I reiterate that a fact-finding hearing prior to the GJ was simply not fair to Tubman. And, if the standard for appeal before the SRB is not de novo review, but rather must be premised upon some new evidence or some other hurdle, Tubman may have been screwed by the process and a school that does not respect people’s right against self-incrimination when facing criminal charges.

 

[fuzz77]

^^^ He didn't "voluntarily leave campus". He was given no choice.

 

[ukalum1988]

Guys, give it up . . . Tubman's not coming back. It sucks but there's nothing any of us can do about it.

 

[jauk11]

I don't think many on here have had any hope of Tubman coming back for quite a while now, but that doesn't mean they should just forget it if they think he has been wronged-----and it seems like most on here do feel that he didn't get a fair shake.

And as far as Fuzz worrying about how much it MIGHT cost UK if he were allowed to stay on campus (as I said, I think he is much less a risk for another rape charge than almost anyone on campus, do you think he has enjoyed this fiasco?) I think it is almost assured that they DID lose close to that much from unhappy fans, especially in academic contributions.

Just how much has the UK academic community profited from all the money UK football has brought in over the years, not counting all the football money invested in other sports.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

If people are upset about the process, write Mitch Barnhart, the Dean of Students, and the school president.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Just how much has the UK academic community profited from all the money UK football has brought in over the years, not counting all the football money invested in other sports.

Not even remotely relevant. He shouldn't receive any special treatment simply because he's a football player

 

[jauk11]

Not even remotely relevant. He shouldn't receive any special treatment simply because he's a football player

I hope you contacted the professors and told them that before the hearing.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

Are you suggesting athletes deserve special treatment?

 

[jauk11]

Are you suggesting athletes deserve special treatment?

Of course not, what I am suggesting is that there is some bias among a lot of professors that think that athletics is emphasized way too much (which I agree with, by the way) and that it does cause resentment among a lot of those in the academic field. Reflected in them turning down the loan WITH INTEREST to the athletic department to redo the two years overdue scoreboards, essentially refusing to LOAN back a small portion of the funds that athletics had GIVEN them over the years.

Also reflected in Jerry Tarkanian being run off from UNLV even though it was proven that he wasn't involve in the "hot tub" scandal (the players broke no rules either, by the way) and wasn't involved in any other wrongdoing there, AND won his lawsuit against the NCAA. The UNLV President that pushed that didn't last very long there after that either, by the way, and yes, I do think this decision will cost UK quite a bit of money, whether it was the right decision or not..

 

[BillyBones]

Keith Farmer at WLEX-TV told me that he was having his investigative reporter look at this fiasco.Most posters on here are clueless.Tubman wants to go back to UK.His Mother spent a lot of $$$$$ on a lawyer to defend him..He was never a rapist.I Coached him at Seneca since he was 15..He is not a violent young man.He was raised by a single Mother Father died when he was 5 and he has 2 younger Sisters...This Board of Student Conduct is a kangaroo court.Lloyd was guilty of poor judgement.The girl was his ex girlfriend.She was jealous and set a trap for him.IMO she should go to jail.
Lloyd will probably go to Western since this fiasco is not looking to get cleared up.Hope this sheds some light on this saga..

 

[fuzz77]

Keith Farmer at WLEX-TV told me that he was having his investigative reporter look at this fiasco.Most posters on here are clueless.Tubman wants to go back to UK.His Mother spent a lot of $$$$$ on a lawyer to defend him..He was never a rapist.I Coached him at Seneca since he was 15..He is not a violent young man.He was raised by a single Mother Father died when he was 5 and he has 2 younger Sisters...This Board of Student Conduct is a kangaroo court.Lloyd was guilty of poor judgement.The girl was his ex girlfriend.She was jealous and set a trap for him.IMO she should go to jail.
Lloyd will probably go to Western since this fiasco is not looking to get cleared up.Hope this sheds some light on this saga..

It's tough to claim entrapment when you ask to come over and told "no", then show up at the dorm anyway. You're right, the girl was his ex...so why was he there? Was he just looking for a nooner or was he seduced?
Don't think anyone thinks that Lloyd is a monster and I think that everyone who has responded to this thread wishes/hopes he is allowed back. That said, poor judgement has been the downfall of many.
I've said countless times that it is entirely possible that both parties could pass a polygraph.
Timing is often the most important thing and Lloyd is if nothing else, a victim of bad timing.

BTW: Please feel free to add yourself to the list of the clueless when it comes to the facts of this case. We've all known people who have done things that we would have sworn that they would never do. Things that have shocked us. That doesn't make Lloyd guilty...I don't know what happened, but neither do you.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

It's tough to claim entrapment when you ask to come over and told "no", then show up at the dorm anyway. You're right, the girl was his ex...so why was he there? Was he just looking for a nooner or was he seduced?
Don't think anyone thinks that Lloyd is a monster and I think that everyone who has responded to this thread wishes/hopes he is allowed back. That said, poor judgement has been the downfall of many.
I've said countless times that it is entirely possible that both parties could pass a polygraph.
Timing is often the most important thing and Lloyd is if nothing else, a victim of bad timing.

BTW: Please feel free to add yourself to the list of the clueless when it comes to the facts of this case. We've all known people who have done things that we would have sworn that they would never do. Things that have shocked us. That doesn't make Lloyd guilty...I don't know what happened, but neither do you.

You claim you don't know what happened, and you don't, but you quote the girls story as if it is fact. If the girls story is not fact, then everything you said is meaningless. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you keep saying that we don't know the facts and yet you try and use one side of the story to refute what someone is saying as if those were undisputed facts.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

No one knows the facts, yet people have been on here complaining about the decision, which we're not even certain is true.

 

[BillyBones]

It's tough to claim entrapment when you ask to come over and told "no", then show up at the dorm anyway. You're right, the girl was his ex...so why was he there? Was he just looking for a nooner or was he seduced?
Don't think anyone thinks that Lloyd is a monster and I think that everyone who has responded to this thread wishes/hopes he is allowed back. That said, poor judgement has been the downfall of many.
I've said countless times that it is entirely possible that both parties could pass a polygraph.
Timing is often the most important thing and Lloyd is if nothing else, a victim of bad timing.

BTW: Please feel free to add yourself to the list of the clueless when it comes to the facts of this case. We've all known people who have done things that we would have sworn that they would never do. Things that have shocked us. That doesn't make Lloyd guilty...I don't know what happened, but neither do you.

Lloyd told me face to face,..she wanted to see him one last time..And it was consensual.Since I know him and don't know you.That settles it..and if I am Clueless..what does that make you..you don't know squat.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

Lloyd told me face to face,..she wanted to see him one last time..And it was consensual.Since I know him and don't know you.That settles it..and if I am Clueless..what does that make you..you don't know squat.

Again, with this information, I point to the GJ and the fact, as has been reported here, that Lloyd did not testify. The objective evidence and/or her very own story did not support her claim. That leads me to believe Lloyd is telling Bones the truth.

The sad thing is that a false accusation still carries the sting of truth for so many. The harm is great and endless, just is the awful act of which he was accused. Both are despicable.

 

[Vandalayindustries]

The fact that the GJ didn't indict doesn't mean it's a false accusation or that the Conduct Board can't come up with a different decision.

 

[loucatfan]

Billy,
I believe you and I believe Lloyd.
Thanks for sharing the info.
Hope there are much better days ahead for this young man and he is highly successful whatever happens.

Lou

The fact that the GJ didn't indict doesn't mean it's a false accusation or that the Conduct Board can't come up with a different decision.

Vandalayindustries, .
Don't mean to hijack this thread but how in the heck and why does someone have 24,994 posts?

Are you paid to cover the board and protect UK's interest. A mod? If so that's OK . Just wondered.

I am on the board far too much and only have about ten % of your post. I don't get it. How do you do that and have any other time ?

Of course my posts are brilliant and thoughtful and I am always right which takes more time.

Are you one person or several? 24,994 that is a lot of posts. What is that all about.?

 

[BBBLazing]

Billy,
I believe you and I believe Lloyd.
Thanks for sharing the info.
Hope there are much better days ahead for this young man and he is highly successful whatever happens.

Lou

Vandalayindustries, .
Don't mean to hijack this thread but how in the heck and why does someone have 24,994 posts?

Are you paid to cover the board and protect UK's interest. A mod? If so that's OK . Just wondered.

I am on the board far too much and only have about ten % of your post. I don't get it. How do you do that and have any other time ?

Of course my posts are brilliant and thoughtful and I am always right which takes more time.

Are you one person or several? 24,994 that is a lot of posts. What is that all about.?

Lou, you and I disagree on this subject, but your posts at least have been a fair depiction of your thoughts on the subject. A couple of comments on your last post:

First, I question someone that claims to be a coach getting on a board like this and revealing private conversations. I don't know Billy or Tubman, but really do question people that say that they are a coach or a personal friend and start revealing information. You can say that he is just defending a friend, but I say why defend them here. In real life, this board does not matter. Nothing said on here affects Tubman, it is just a bunch of people that care too much about kids playing a game we like to watch.

Second, I wish they would not display the number of posts that people have made. You either don't have enough or you have too many. You can't win when it comes to post counts evidently.

The fact of the matter is that none of us, Billy included, know what happened. Lou can believe whichever story he wants, and I can believe whichever story I want, but we don't know. BTW, I don't disbelieve either story, because I don't know. Billy can tell us the Tubman is telling the truth, but he does not know. If Tubman raped her, he wouldn't admit it. He would say he didn't rape her. If he didn't rape her, he would say he didn't rape her. So just because he knows him does not put him in a better position to offer facts. As I've said before, there are limited facts known, so in my opinion none of us can criticize the UK review board or the grand jury.

I did read the arrest warrant for the first time when it was linked here the other day, and did not realize that it was as detailed as it was. Her story wasn't just "he raped me." She was pretty specific.

As I said, I don't mind disagreeing with people. I do however dislike when people can't disagree without being a butthole.

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

The very simple fact of the matter is that UK is a public institution under the law and the law in the United States clearly states that you are innocent until proven guilty. Lloyd Tubman was not proven guilty so for all intents and purpoes he is innocent. Why is an innocent man being punished? Why is Mark Stoops not standing up against the administration for his player. This does not reflect well on him, imo

 

[CakeEater]

Blame it on the coach. He was there, or at least near the campus.

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

Blame it on the coach. He was there, or at least near the campus.

Might as well, according to the law he is just as guilty as Tubman in all of this. I wonder if the student advisory board would vote to kcik him out if they had the chance, wouldnt surprise me. The types of dweebs that sit on those boards have it out for athletics and athletes.

 

[Kooky Kats]

I think by the time this thread dies, LTs 5-year campus ban will be lifted.

 

[BBBLazing]

The very simple fact of the matter is that UK is a public institution under the law and the law in the United States clearly states that you are innocent until proven guilty. Lloyd Tubman was not proven guilty so for all intents and purpoes he is innocent. Why is an innocent man being punished? Why is Mark Stoops not standing up against the administration for his player. This does not reflect well on him, imo

Where is this said "clearly?"

 

[Bigbluediddy63]

Where is this said "clearly?"

It's called due process and the fact that there is a presumption of innocense unless the defendent is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Im no lawyer but Id say its clear as day. Of course, there are alot of fools running around out there these days.

 

[BBBLazing]

It's called due process and the fact that there is a presumption of innocense unless the defendent is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Im no lawyer but Id say its clear as day. Of course, there are alot of fools running around out there these days.

does the UK board have to follow that?

 

[PRPcoach]

Billy,
I believe you and I believe Lloyd.
Thanks for sharing the info.
Hope there are much better days ahead for this young man and he is highly successful whatever happens.

Lou

Vandalayindustries, .
Don't mean to hijack this thread but how in the heck and why does someone have 24,994 posts?

Are you paid to cover the board and protect UK's interest. A mod? If so that's OK . Just wondered.

I am on the board far too much and only have about ten % of your post. I don't get it. How do you do that and have any other time ?

Of course my posts are brilliant and thoughtful and I am always right which takes more time.

Are you one person or several? 24,994 that is a lot of posts. What is that all about.?

Well, since Vandalay Industries didn't really exist; George just used it to sound important, maybe the poster just sits around and post all day instead of actually working.

 

[loucatfan]

I was wrong. Kinda. Not on the main issue in this thread but upon the origin of "innocent until proven guilty". It is not in the US Constitution. It is in Common Law and is so ancient and well rooted and prevalent that most countries including China have in in their body of law.

Shame the PC crowd is smarter than the rest of the world and we no longer have it at UK.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I have one primary issue with the case. I've shared it from the onset. It is wrong for a student conduct board to hold a "hearing" while the DA is building a criminal case against the accused. In fact, with an issue this serious, I really don't think the student conduct board should be involved at all. Let the criminal justice system handle it. I do think it is proper to suspend a student arrested for a violent crime, at least until his case has been adjudicated. The process seems un-American to me. They are effectively forcing a criminal defendant to testify or willingly lose the conduct board "hearing". Only an idiot would testify under those circumstances which means the outcome of the student conduct "hearing" is really carved in stone before it ever starts. That is why I have repeatedly called it a kangaroo court and will continue to do so. The University could easily wait until the criminal case is adjudicated and then hold their hearing. I don't know if the process bothers many of you guys, but I think it should.

 

[Caveman Catfan]

PR is a huge motivation. College police are told not to arrest students breaking the law so that the school can report a better on campus record to prospective students' families. There are many examples of universities making decisions mainly from the perspective of public perception.

 

[fuzz77]

The very simple fact of the matter is that UK is a public institution under the law and the law in the United States clearly states that you are innocent until proven guilty. Lloyd Tubman was not proven guilty so for all intents and purpoes he is innocent. Why is an innocent man being punished? Why is Mark Stoops not standing up against the administration for his player. This does not reflect well on him, imo

You have no constitutional right to attend UK or any college/university, public or private. They are free to admit and for that matter, dismiss whomever they please as long as they do so within the framework of their published policies and within all laws, state and federal.