Not Enough Evidence on Tubman

[jauk11]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:

Originally posted by Mills_for_Three:
If he was no billed by the grand jury then it should be up to CMS.

the President of the University, where both parties of this incident attended and where the incident took place kinda has a little bit of vested interest in the outcome

Yes, and that could be a problem in doing the right thing. And if they are satisfied that he is innocent (and I think Stoops and the coaches should know him better than the President) then he should be back. And if Stoops dismisses him WITHOUT PRESSURE from above, then I will be glad that he is gone. As I said above, I doubt very much if Joker was all in favor of suspending Hartline for the bowl game, I think that might have been the start of losing his team, and NO ONE should have objected if Hartline had played, although who ever heard of a college student of legal age drinking. Taking a cab home instead of driving while intoxicated, happens a lot, read the obituaries, paying for a cab, not so often.

At UL it wouldn't have even made the paper, and would have been laughed about if it had.

 

[RuppRevenge2]

So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

According to the Herald Leader, a code of conduct hearing is automatically initiated and typically held within 60 days of a sexual assault accusation. Since Tubman's mom said she was going to talk to coach Stoops either Friday or Monday about his possible return to the team, I would assume nothing happened at the code of conduct hearing that would preclude him from enrolling at the university. I would think if the hearing had determined he violated the code of conduct in such a way as to prevent him from returning to school, his mother would certainly already know it and would not be planning to talk to coach Stoops. In fact, I would guess that the University has kept her informed of her son's status based on the possible outcome of his legal issues, and she is talking with coach Stoops because she has been led to believe he can return to the team. If they have not kept her informed, then UK has totally mismanaged the situation and done a disservice to the Tubman family.

 

[sluggercatfan]

Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:
According to the Herald Leader, a code of conduct hearing is automatically initiated and typically held within 60 days of a sexual assault accusation. Since Tubman's mom said she was going to talk to coach Stoops either Friday or Monday about his possible return to the team, I would assume nothing happened at the code of conduct hearing that would preclude him from enrolling at the university. I would think if the hearing had determined he violated the code of conduct in such a way as to prevent him from returning to school, his mother would certainly already know it and would not be planning to talk to coach Stoops. In fact, I would guess that the University has kept her informed of her son's status based on the possible outcome of his legal issues, and she is talking with coach Stoops because she has been led to believe he can return to the team. If they have not kept her informed, then UK has totally mismanaged the situation and done a disservice to the Tubman family.

This I totally agree with and stated so earlier...If MB and MS have not had contingency plans in place for quite some time then neither of them are doing their jobs..

 

[Mashburned]

This stuff makes my head spin. There's no logic or reasoning behind it. Just all CYA tactics brought to you by the wussified society we've molded.

What is clear: He ain't in school, and doesn't appear that he will be back in school.

Either someone at UK needs to take that evidence to the grand jury so he can be properly prosecuted for the crime he committed, or the university needs to grow some balls and do the right thing because they have no evidence...PC/CYA tactics be damned. It's either right or wrong. No in between with this something this serious.

 

[Cats78]

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

Look who's back. From RuppsRevenge to RuppsRevenge1 to RuppsRevenge2. Our UofL fan who poses as a UK fan is back acting like a fool.

 

[bigbluegrog]

Originally posted by Mashburned:
This stuff makes my head spin. There's no logic or reasoning behind it. Just all CYA tactics brought to you by the wussified society we've molded.

What is clear: He ain't in school, and doesn't appear that he will be back in school.

Either someone at UK needs to take that evidence to the grand jury so he can be properly prosecuted for the crime he committed, or the university needs to grow some balls and do the right thing because they have no evidence...PC/CYA tactics be damned. It's either right or wrong. No in between with this something this serious.

If allowed back on the team, he will be enrolled this summer for summer school. If not, he will likely go somewhere else. He wants to play football and if UK won't give him the opportunity, UL or WKU or someplace will. This whole thing was questionable from Day 1 and I'll be very surprised if he isnt playing for UK in the fall.

 

[Crankdatmustard]

Originally posted by Cats78:

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

Look who's back. From RuppsRevenge to RuppsRevenge1 to RuppsRevenge2. Our UofL fan who poses as a UK fan is back acting like a fool.

Can the mods please take out the trash on this guy in the means of a IP ban. How many times can this loser come back?

And by the way the guy from TCU isn't going to have charges dropped because he admitted to the charges.

This post was edited on 2/12 1:34 PM by Crankdatmustard

 

[CatsFanGG24]

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

He punched a girl in the face...that really isn't up for debate...the debate on the issue is whether he held a gun to her.


"My (stock) is probably down since the Ray Rice situation," Fields said. "It probably dropped me a little bit."

And we will see if he becomes anything:

"On Saturday, Fields hardly looked like a potential first-rounder, let alone a college star," the story said. "He jogged on many plays, stood and watched passes downfield, and even got pancaked by an undersized left tackle. Fields spent most of halftime standing outside the locker room, briefly killing ants climbing on his cleats. He stood a few feet away from a tented concession stand in the stadium's south end zone where conies, sausage-on-a-stick and Frito pies were in high demand.

 

[robo222]

Originally posted by sluggercatfan:

Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:
According to the Herald Leader, a code of conduct hearing is automatically initiated and typically held within 60 days of a sexual assault accusation. Since Tubman's mom said she was going to talk to coach Stoops either Friday or Monday about his possible return to the team, I would assume nothing happened at the code of conduct hearing that would preclude him from enrolling at the university. I would think if the hearing had determined he violated the code of conduct in such a way as to prevent him from returning to school, his mother would certainly already know it and would not be planning to talk to coach Stoops. In fact, I would guess that the University has kept her informed of her son's status based on the possible outcome of his legal issues, and she is talking with coach Stoops because she has been led to believe he can return to the team. If they have not kept her informed, then UK has totally mismanaged the situation and done a disservice to the Tubman family.

This I totally agree with and stated so earlier...If MB and MS have not had contingency plans in place for quite some time then neither of them are doing their jobs..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this point it's up to the Tubman family and UK as to what happens and whatever I might think doesn't mean diddly....
If he plays ball here, I'm okay with it... If he plays somewhere else, either by his own or UK's decision, then I'm fine with that.... I'm just easy to get along with.

 

[Mashburned]

Originally posted by bigbluegrog:

Originally posted by Mashburned:
This stuff makes my head spin. There's no logic or reasoning behind it. Just all CYA tactics brought to you by the wussified society we've molded.

What is clear: He ain't in school, and doesn't appear that he will be back in school.

Either someone at UK needs to take that evidence to the grand jury so he can be properly prosecuted for the crime he committed, or the university needs to grow some balls and do the right thing because they have no evidence...PC/CYA tactics be damned. It's either right or wrong. No in between with this something this serious.

If allowed back on the team, he will be enrolled this summer for summer school. If not, he will likely go somewhere else. He wants to play football and if UK won't give him the opportunity, UL or WKU or someplace will. This whole thing was questionable from Day 1 and I'll be very surprised if he isnt playing for UK in the fall.

Not according to that article in the HL today. University has 60 days to conduct their little student affairs investigation. They've (UK) has made their decision.

 

[Rhavicc]

Originally posted by CatsFanGG24:

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

He punched a girl in the face...that really isn't up for debate...the debate on the issue is whether he held a gun to her.


"My (stock) is probably down since the Ray Rice situation," Fields said. "It probably dropped me a little bit."

And we will see if he becomes anything:

"On Saturday, Fields hardly looked like a potential first-rounder, let alone a college star," the story said. "He jogged on many plays, stood and watched passes downfield, and even got pancaked by an undersized left tackle. Fields spent most of halftime standing outside the locker room, briefly killing ants climbing on his cleats. He stood a few feet away from a tented concession stand in the stadium's south end zone where conies, sausage-on-a-stick and Frito pies were in high demand.

Didn't she magically fall out of a window as well?
I mean, I'm so sure Fields had nothing to do with that

This post was edited on 2/12 1:47 PM by Rhavicc

 

[zcats]

Having sex with another student in a dorm room is hardly a violation of the student code of conduct or at least one worthy of dismissal. The question has always been was it consensual or not. Apparently all the evidence grand jury had to work with was the testimony of each party and their behavior before and after the event. We can assume that the testimony was equally contradictory and the parties behavior in public did not provide enough evidence that a crime was committed. The University won't have any different evidence so I don't see how they can deny readmission. There was no public display of unethical conduct (unlike the JW case) or assault and battery (unlike the UL transfer). Tubman evidently doesn't have any known history of misbehavior at UK.

 

[JHB4UK]

Originally posted by Mashburned:

Not according to that article in the HL today. University has 60 days to conduct their little student affairs investigation. They've (UK) has made their decision.

False

Why praytell would the University have to conduct a student affairs investigation when the accused was not a student of the University of Kentucky any longer? Tubman voluntarily withdrew from UK classes and moved back home Oct 8th.

UK hasn't made any decision on Tubman, or investigation, or hearing. And I don't think they will until they have to, in May - when he can enroll in Summer school & move back to campus.

 

[domino79]

First things first. Tubman will need to get back into that weight room and start working on his conditioning and strength.

That's what's most important right now.

 

[Mashburned]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:

Originally posted by Mashburned:

Not according to that article in the HL today. University has 60 days to conduct their little student affairs investigation. They've (UK) has made their decision.

False

Why praytell would the University have to conduct a student affairs investigation when the accused was not a student of the University of Kentucky any longer? Tubman voluntarily withdrew from UK classes and moved back home Oct 8th.

UK hasn't made any decision on Tubman, or investigation, or hearing. And I don't think they will until they have to, in May - when he can enroll in Summer school & move back to campus.
Idk man, it's not my code of conduct. They have 60 to conduct their little student affairs ordeal. Either they did, or they didn't. If they did, then they found him guilty enough. If they didnt', well, like you said, he withdrew from school, and it's over as far as they're concerned, I guess.

The article wasn't clear and was very vague because of privacy laws (lol..aint that a hoot). But the message was clear - He ain't in school. Reading between the lines - He likely won't be back.

Your last paragraph can't happen according to their code of conduct...unless they want to make an exception which, again, reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like they want anything to do with this.

 

[jauk11]

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

Since there is no doubt that he did at least strike a woman and cause damage and he was a major conference MVP that was dismissed from the squad I would say that was not very likely a he said she said case at all.

 

[LordEgg]

Originally posted by RuppRevenge2:
So would we agree that the UL transfer from TCU is ok if his case is dropped?

if that case is dropped, they'll probably go looking for another kid whose case won't be. its the mojo over there.

 

[Mills_for_Three]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:

Originally posted by Mills_for_Three:
If he was no billed by the grand jury then it should be up to CMS.

the President of the University, where both parties of this incident attended and where the incident took place kinda has a little bit of vested interest in the outcomeIf nothing has changed in the four years, since I graduated the VP of Student Affairs would be in charge of any disciplinary action imposed by the university.

The main question will be consent. Everyone is ready to assume the worst needs to remember in 'Murica we are innocent until proven guilty, and the code of conduct works the same way. Throwing the kids opportunity away would be pretty sorry, if it happened to be someone crying wolf after the fact, for whatever reason. Whose to say there was a lack of evidence because someone's parents found out about the escapade and in order not to disappoint them, there was no consent. Like the criminal proceeding, UKs COC, is going to put the burden of proof on the complainant, again questioning consent, which criminal proceedings said lacked evidence. Unless the VPSA or higher ups have access to, or interpret evidence differently and Tubman faces expulsion, then I stand with my previous comments. Returning to the team should be ultimately up to Stoops and Barney, granted he's reenrolled in courses.

 

[docholiday51]

I wonder if the standard of proof in a Code of Conduct hearing would exactly match those of a criminal court proceeding?

In fact the standards vary in criminal proceedings,reasonable doubt,probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt are all levels of proof that come into play Maybe the level is specified in the rules of the hearing proceedure.

 

[jauk11]

It seems like a lot of speculation on here so far.

When did the 60 days start, when the accusation was made, when he was charged, or when the Grand Jury rendered their decision, so they knew if it was even necessary or not. As far as him withdrawing from school, maybe he didn't enjoy the prospect of walking around campus with half the students thinking he was a rapist. He also may have had a lot of problems commuting from his mother's place in Louisville, having a class early in the morning and another late in the day, and probably expensive to start with.

A lot of unknowns yet, mostly speculation. I hope he is back personally, because if he is I think that means Stoops thinks he isn't guilty. And if Stoops thinks he isn't guilty and he OR anyone else kicks him out, then shame on them. And if Stoops is the one that kicks him out then I will think that is because he did think he is a bad actor, worthy of a 2nd or 3rd or 4th chance at UL, but not at a legitimate University of higher learning.

 

[kyisinmyblood]

I've had 2-3 posts deleted because I took up for people like Tubman, who had been accused of a crime and faced extreme ridicule despite conviction. I guess being innocent until proven guilty doesn't matter in this country anymore, at least in most of the publics eyes.

Hope we can get this young man back on the team.
This post was edited on 2/12 4:59 PM by kyisinmyblood

 

[Beavis606]

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:
I've had 2-3 posts deleted because I took up for people like Tubman, who had not been convicted of a crime yet faced extreme ridicule. I guess being innocent until proven guilty doesn't matter in this country anymore, at least in most of the publics eyes.

Hope we can get this young man back on the team.

Mods, please delete this post.

 

[kyisinmyblood]

^ What is wrong with my post? If you disagree that is fine, but I would like to know why it should be deleted

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Originally posted by docholiday51:

I wonder if the standard of proof in a Code of Conduct hearing would exactly match those of a criminal court proceeding?

In fact the standards vary in criminal proceedings,reasonable doubt,probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt are all levels of proof that come into play Maybe the level is specified in the rules of the hearing proceedure.

This is a civil matter and they use similar rules to civil court. It is determined by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning over 50%.

I said when this started that if it went to trial, the outcome wouldn't matter so far as Lloyd ever playing for UK. I thought then that his only chance was for the case to never go to trial. Now that it has ended this way with the grand jury stating there was insufficient evidence, I'm not sure that is going to be enough to pave the way for Lloyd to come back. I hope he does and it isn't fair to him if UK doesn't want him back, but life isn't always fair. Neither the school nor the program will want any sort of bad feeling in the community over his return. I hope we see him play but my gut is telling me he is gone permanently.

 

[loucatfan]

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:
^ What is wrong with my post? If you disagree that is fine, but I would like to know why it should be deleted

I'm with you. Tubman went through the legal process and won. He was not indicted. He is innocent until proven guilty. therefore he is innocent. People feeling otherwise need to brush up on why they are American citizens and what it means to be one.

Shame he lost a year but that was part of the process. It is OVER so now move on.

BTW I don't see any reason whatsoever any student body committee should in any way touch this matter. He has been exonerated after a thorough review by an extremely professional office with seasoned prosecutors .If there was anything there they would have found it.

The charge is much too serious to put in the hands of inexperienced college kids who have no legal experience. They need to be handling frats drinking too much and things like that.

 

[C1180]

Originally posted by loucatfan:

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:
^ What is wrong with my post? If you disagree that is fine, but I would like to know why it should be deleted

I'm with you. Tubman went through the legal process and won. He was not indicted. He is innocent until proven guilty. therefore he is innocent. People feeling otherwise need to brush up on why they are American citizens and what it means to be one.

Shame he lost a year but that was part of the process. It is OVER so now move on.

BTW I don't see any reason whatsoever any student body committee should in any way touch this matter. He has been exonerated after a thorough review by an extremely professional office with seasoned prosecutors .If there was anything there they would have found it.

The charge is much too serious to put in the hands of inexperienced college kids who have no legal experience. They need to be handling frats drinking too much and things like that.

I have one last thing to say on this matter. If I was Tubman and was innocent I would take this to civil court and sue to clear my name. He probably will not do this under advise from his council because he will not have much evidence to prove his innocence . It is just going to be he said she said and it could be bad if you got the wrong jury.

 

[catben]

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:
^ What is wrong with my post? If you disagree that is fine, but I would like to know why it should be deleted

Read his avatar and you'll see why. IMHO, he was just razzing you. I LOL'd when I read it.

I also agree wholeheartedly with your post and want Mr. Tubman to return to the team. I also think it is unfair for him to be further punished for something that apparently never occurred. This kid has basically lost 1 year of his life on a false accusation. Sad.

 

[jauk11]

Originally posted by catben:

Originally posted by kyisinmyblood:
^ What is wrong with my post? If you disagree that is fine, but I would like to know why it should be deleted

Read his avatar and you'll see why. IMHO, he was just razzing you. I LOL'd when I read it.

I also agree wholeheartedly with your post and want Mr. Tubman to return to the team. I also think it is unfair for him to be further punished for something that apparently never occurred. This kid has basically lost 1 year of his life on a false accusation. Sad.

I agree with all of this, and was about to post the same thing, I don't think he was serious. But then you read his signature and maybe he was.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Anyone whos followed my comments on this issue knows I predicted a softball presentation, leading to a No True Bill. Im at least half right, with the other half unknown at this time.

At any rate, even though theres nothing preventing a prosecutor from presenting the Tubman case again (including no statute of limitations); its VERY unlikely to happen unless new information comes to light.

Now its solely a PR issue. The problem is - violence against women in any form right now is a toxic PR issue. Media assumes guilt immediately. This is why he had to suspended indefinitely, before the legal case ran its course (compare that to the case of Barker, Baker, and Dubose). Although its not an outright declaration of innocence, I think its close enough that UK will allow Tubman back on the team if there are no other barriers.

Violence against women (anyone really) is a terrible thing. But its equally awful that currently, it results in the immediate (and often times permanent) damnation of the accused; well before the process is concluded.

 

[docholiday51]

Originally posted by BigBlueFanGA:

Originally posted by docholiday51:

I wonder if the standard of proof in a Code of Conduct hearing would exactly match those of a criminal court proceeding?

In fact the standards vary in criminal proceedings,reasonable doubt,probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt are all levels of proof that come into play Maybe the level is specified in the rules of the hearing proceedure.

This is a civil matter and they use similar rules to civil court. It is determined by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning over 50%.

I said when this started that if it went to trial, the outcome wouldn't matter so far as Lloyd ever playing for UK. I thought then that his only chance was for the case to never go to trial. Now that it has ended this way with the grand jury stating there was insufficient evidence, I'm not sure that is going to be enough to pave the way for Lloyd to come back. I hope he does and it isn't fair to him if UK doesn't want him back, but life isn't always fair. Neither the school nor the program will want any sort of bad feeling in the community over his return. I hope we see him play but my gut is telling me he is gone permanently.

delete
This post was edited on 2/13 12:11 AM by docholiday51

 

[2bunnies]

Bump, need all Tubman threads at top.

 

[aikenite4uk]

Originally posted by BigBlueFanGA:

Originally posted by docholiday51:

I wonder if the standard of proof in a Code of Conduct hearing would exactly match those of a criminal court proceeding?

In fact the standards vary in criminal proceedings,reasonable doubt,probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt are all levels of proof that come into play Maybe the level is specified in the rules of the hearing proceedure.

This is a civil matter and they use similar rules to civil court. It is determined by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning over 50%.

I said when this started that if it went to trial, the outcome wouldn't matter so far as Lloyd ever playing for UK. I thought then that his only chance was for the case to never go to trial. Now that it has ended this way with the grand jury stating there was insufficient evidence, I'm not sure that is going to be enough to pave the way for Lloyd to come back. I hope he does and it isn't fair to him if UK doesn't want him back, but life isn't always fair. Neither the school nor the program will want any sort of bad feeling in the community over his return. I hope we see him play but my gut is telling me he is gone permanently.

I hope you would be comfortable with this standard of proof (51%) if you ever had your future at stake. Yes Mr. Tubman, we realize there is a 49% chance this entire case is bullshit, but we're going to kick you off the team and possibly ruin your chances at an NFL career.
This post was edited on 2/15 8:01 PM by aikenite4uk

 

[C1180]

I think this is a warning to all young college guys to beware where you dip your wick. You are only one pissed off female from being in a heap of trouble and since there is seldom any repercussions for the female it is going to continue and likely to get worse considering the rhetoric coming out of Washington. The way I am interpreting it is if two drunks college students have sex the male could get charged with rape.