That's not the standard of proof. That is what percentage of jurors have to vote that the evidence met the standard of proof. It's two different things. The standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence.
Lloyd Tubman Update...
- Thread starter sluggercatfan
- Start date
- Status
Are a mother's comments not presumed bias? It seems that much stock is put into his mothers comments yet you question if any bias exist with the SRB.
If we're talking probabilities here which would you consider more likely to be bias?
Each person is supposed to judge whether the evidence meets the standard of proof, which is the preponderance of the evidence. In order to get a conviction, a 75% of the jurors have to agree that the evidence met the standard of proof. They both contribute to a conviction or acquittal, but the percentage of jurors voting guilty requirement is not the same thing as the standard of proof.
I didn't say the mothers comments are not biased, and I'm not relying on her comments for anything. My comment about the mother was in response TheThack about his thoughts that if Tubman's camp was saying they got mistreated by the SRB, he would be more likely to think something wrong had happened. I simply pointed out that she had indeed made a statement about the SRB and then deleted it. I also pointed out that there could be some fear on his part about what to say because it could effect how other schools see him.
I simply do not make the leap that you do that the standard of proof for the two entities matters. As noted, different people can review the same evidence (as we have here) and come to very different conclusions. I would go so far as to suggest that the same group of people hearing the same evidence presented by perhaps different people in a different way even a different order could result in a different ruling. Further, because the GJ requires 75% for a true bill whereas the panel is only 2 of the 3, it could be the exact same ratios as Fuzz has noted several times but just a different rule on what it takes to tip the scale one way or the other.
To me the purpose does matter. The purpose of one is a standard of law that has the potential of imprisonment at the other end if the accused must go to court and then loses a trial, whereas the other is ultimately an eligibility determination to participate in something that is a privilege not a right.
As to the independent review, to me that is just adding another layer of bureaucracy to the process. Why would that 'independent' body be considered any more or less biased? And suppose that body agreed with one body's decision or the other? Best 2 out of 3 wins? Who appoints and pays that body to exercise their review? Where does it ultimately stop? If this were a matter of a right or a matter of going to jail or even a death penalty case, I would be more inclined to agree. A decision about whether or not a student may attend a particular college, unless something egregious is revealed makes me reluctant to follow you down this rabbit hole.
As to the response from the family, I agree it ultimately has no real impact on whether or not he was mistreated but you asked me what might move the needle for me. As the saying goes though, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. To be honest if this happened to me I do not know how squeaky I would be for the very reasons you noted. And I wonder if the level of my innocence in my own mind might impact my squeakiness.
Exactly. So everyone doesnt see the same evidence in the same light. Obviously what constitutes preponderance to one doesn't always constitute preponderance to another. You seem to be coming around.
Knowing the above to be true then it is completely reasonable and conceivable that two groups of people could look at the same data and come to different conclusions. Right?
13 pages to get to this point.
We might be talking about purpose in a different way. I don't know for sure. What I am saying is that a juror on both the SRB and the Grand Jury has to make exactly the same judgement. They have to determine in their mind if the evidence meets the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. The decision making process should not change because in one case the defendant goes to jail and in the other case he only gets expelled from school. The purpose of the hearing should not influence that decision making process. The standard of proof doesn't get more lacks because the SRB can only expel a student from school. It's still the same standard in either case. I'm not sure if you are saying it should influence it, or if you are making another point.
I'm not coming around, that has always been true. Of course people see evidence differently. That's why they want a large majority to see it the same way in order to convict. That doesn't really change anything for me because I've always known that. Some of the scenarios that have been painted could end up being true. I have never said that I know for a fact that UK did something wrong. For me, there is enough here to ask questions and want answers. I still think if there were physical evidence to go along with her story, the Grand Jury would have indicted. It's hard to imagine they would not. Without any physical evidence, it's hard to see how anyone could get to preponderance of the evidence. The specifics would clear it up one way or the other, but those are private. I would like to see someone audit that process and review several cases to make sure the standard is being applied correctly and consistently to every case.
A) How do you know they are weighing the same charge?
B) 2/3 on SRB = 66.7% = expulsion. 8/12 on GJ = 66.7% = failure to indict.
Again, where's the beef?
That has nothing to do with the discussion TheThack and I are having. Both of those issues have been discussed in great detail and length, so I'm not going to bother addressing them again.
You don't want to address either point because you don't have a good response. You're calling for an investigation into a system based on nothing but speculation. You're still just upset because a decision was reached that you don't like and/or don't agree with. It happens. You're not entitled to anything just because you're unhappy.
Also, every issue possible has been discussed in this thread already. You seem like one of those last-word guys in an argument. As long as you have the last say, you're right in your mind. Must be fun. G'luck.
No, my friend, I'm afraid you're unable to comprehend abstract ideas. I understand your point. You simply don't understand mine. The questions you and BBB asked were mostly irrelevant to my concerns. Unfortunately there isn't a button on here that allows me to type slower so some can keep up. While I do think the SRB got it wrong, that isn't my issue. My issue, to state it again is what I consider lack of due process for the respondent when the respondent is under investigation criminally. I doubt you'd like the situation much if you were in it. Some girl gets made says you raped her in her dorm. There is limited evidence, pretty much a he said she said problem. However, the DA wants to be thorough so he starts an investigation to take to a grand jury. Now, during that investigation your school holds a hearing for the same allegation. So, choose, do you aggressively defend yourself at the SRB, knowing anything you say can be given to the DA? Of course not, you aren't a fool. So the SRB effectively hears one side of a story, not to mention the fact that the SRB is employed by the school and knows full well they don't anyone to think they have a rapist on campus. Deck stacked a bit? Of course it is. In fact, I don't see how a respondent in this situation would ever win an SRB hearing unless the girl simply fell apart which is unlikely since the people officiating the hearing aren't trained for a courtroom personnel. I don't think the claimant is cross examined by a skilled attorney who may well turn her story upside down. UK only allows attorneys at an SRB to be an advisor, they can't speak.
This article on the subject sheds much light on the exposure someone like Lloyd faces in an SRB hearing. Actually read it and take in what they are saying. They are changing peoples lives and acting like they are a parent giving tough love or something. The article clearly makes the process even worse than I thought it was.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news...guarantee-students-option-lawyer-disciplinary
And that folks is not due process. So, whether the SRB got it right or wrong isn't really the issue. The issue is due process and I'm obviously not alone in seeing the problem. You guys can go on thinking "if it ain't broke don't fix it", but it is clearly broken - at least when it comes to serious issues.
Here is another interesting article that gets to the heart of my issues with this.
http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Is-a-Poor-Court-for/134770/
http://chronicle.com/article/Campus-Is-a-Poor-Court-for/134770/
You got me. It has nothing to do with the fact that we were discussing whether or not the purpose of the hearing should have any impact on the decision making process and you interject with points unrelated to that topic and that have been addressed many times in previous threads. In fact, I had just written a long thread where I said we don't know what they ruled on or what evidence they heard. So the fact that you obviously didn't read any of that had nothing to do with my comments. It's just because I have to have the last word. You got me good.
My point was the difference in the standard of evidence between the two does not really matter because it is individuals in each circumstance who apply the standard as they understand it whether they set on a GJ or SRB panel. Further, the difference, if there is any, does not matter as much to me because different groups can hear the same information with the same standard of evidence and come up with a different decision. People are not emotionless computers. I suspect even the same group of people if they heard the same evidence presented in a different way by different people in a different order might come to a different decision. This is because people are involved and bring their experiences, logic and reasoning to their considerations. As a result, I am not concerned that different decisions by different groups necessarily means they are suspect. In fact it would probably surprise me more if the outcomes were the same unless it was an open and shut situation.
The purpose of the hearing is of greater importance to me with respect to the ultimate outcome. That is not to say that I want either outcome to be wrong but I am more concerned with the process related to a jury decision than I am one related to an SRB. Protecting a person's rights are more important to me than protecting a privilege so if I had to rate the two, the purpose of the hearing is greater because the steaks are higher. Do not confuse that statement to mean I do not care about the SRB process, I do very much, but in the grand scheme of things I place a higher level of importance on a jury decision than I do on the outcome of an SRB Hearing.
Your comments continue to imply an apples to apples decision and assume the evidence each group heard was identical. It wasn't unless both watched the same recorded presentations. Further, it seems you tend to think the responsibilities of the GJ and the SRB are the same. They are not. I do not believe it is an apples to apples decision because the GJ only decides on specific charges brought to them by the prosecutor. The SRB could be deciding based on a broader array of possible ethics code violations. The evidence needed to convince the SRB that harassment for instance occurred could have been admitted during testimony by both, via text messaging or some other process. This could warrant the SRB decision but have no impact on the GJ decision not to indict on a rape charge. And because we do not know what they ruled on why assume it was identical charges. And if it were identical charges, why assume that the evidence both reviewed was the same or that one may not have had more compelling information? And why do you automatically question the SRB and not the GJ. It could just as easily have been the GJ who erred.
Finally, the SRB has a responsibility to more than just the accused and the accuser, it has a larger responsibility to the campus community and to the institution itself. I think this is the reason for the lower threshold of 2 out of 3 for the SRB as opposed to 9 out of 12 requirement of the GJ. With the judicial system we think in terms of presumed innocent and beyond a reasonable doubt, however I am not sure if either of these standards apply in an SRB Hearing. Not saying they don't, just that i do not know. But if that is the case because attending a specific university is a privilege, not a right. Though that distinction has been dismissed by some on here, the reality is that it makes a substantial difference with respect to how the case can and will be determined because a privilege is not an entitlement, where as to me a right is.
Last edited:
Clearly you haven't read the articles. It won't hurt, I promise. As for your summation, yes, it is a privilege to attend a university, but once you are there certain rights should apply. Who says a university gets to dictate what rights you have?
This one makes some very good points about the process and how flawed it is.
When you enter my house, I set rules. When you take a job, your employer sets rules. When you buy a home in a subdivision, the HOA sets rules. When you register for classes at a school you agree to play by their rules...or did you not read the papers you had to sign for admission?
Every school puts freshman through orientation, they give you the code of conduct and they require that you attest that you will follow that code. It is clearly stated the consequences for failing to do so. Before your admission was fully accepted you agreed to that contract.
I can't stay out. You are wrong on this. The testimony of one witness is absolutely sufficient to convict someone of any crime using the the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. If you don't agree that it should, contact your congressman. Just google "is testimony enough to convict" and you will see many articles and cases where that is what sent someone to prison. Sworn testimony sends people to prison daily in this country. Until CSI hit the airwaves, this was not an issue. Now everyone needs a piece of scientific evidence, that doesn't exist in most cases. Say someone gets shot in a park. The gun is never found. Fuzz says I saw Cat in the hat shoot BBBLazing. I can't talk, I'm dead. No footprints, it was dry that day. The only evidence is that I am dead and Fuzz says he saw you shoot me. You are going to jail. It happens everyday.
BTW, it takes 75% to indict, but 100% to convict. A couple of you have said 75% to convict, which is wrong. That is why grand juries don't always indict close cases, because they know that it takes 100% to convict.
It's pretty obvious that the writer of that story knows about as much about the process as do some of you.
FYI, Jim Lowry accompanied Tubman during his SRB hearings.
Simply amazing. Newsflash, disagreement with your opinion does not represent failure to understand on my part. However, If you go back and read one of my previous posts, I said I understand your due process concern IF the timing was as you suggested. However I was not sure the timeline was as you described because another poster indicated the hearing was after the GF. You have not provided anything that confirms your timeline other than speculation.
I also acknowledged that due process was the only area that you had attempted to address previously. So I pretty much gave you a pass on that issue and asked more about the other concerns you expressed but appear to have dropped now. However as I noted before, UK's responsibility for due process is specific to its processes. UK is not responsible for due process in a criminal case where it is not a party to the charges or the adjudication of the charges in the court system. The question is did UK provide due process to the student relevant to the code of ethics violations that UK is a party to. The fact that it might conflict with the courts is unfortunate and I would support some change to the process to avoid such cases.
Great links by the way... One actually notes that OCR mandates the 'preponderance of evidence standard' be used in sexual assault cases by colleges and universities. However the overall gist of that article seems to be an extreme interpretation in my opinion that endorses protecting the accused at the expense of the possible victim. In my opinion it also muddies the water of what they label as student's rights with what are actual rights of someone in the judicial process.
In this post due process is the only argument you are making. Earlier posts you pointed out a number of issues and concerns that precipitated the questions I asked. Those prior positions you posted where in large part the reasons for my questions which were on point to those concerns that evidently now you have dropped.
Thanks again for playing.
Last edited:
I disagree with plenty of what you have said. But, I do see your concern about a UK board hearing while a person stands accused of a crime. His 5th amendment right is at stake. But, what would you have UK do? Let's wait until the wheels of justice, which turn slowly, finish spinning and subject everyone on campus to a "potential" rapist? This dichotomy is unfortunately slanted against the accused. Offer a better idea. I get it that being accused sucks and offers few options. But, if "innocent" or "lynching" as I have read on here, why not testify? He had a lawyer the entire time. He was afforded the opportunity to cross examine all witnesses against him. That is due process. Accused in a criminal trial are given due process without having to testify. If you have notice of the charges, are allowed to question the witnesses against you, and are allowed to call witnesses on your behalf, that is due process. Did UK deny him any of these things?
From your thousands of posts on here (not just on this subject) it is pretty obvious that no one could possibly be more biased than you, LOL.
As an adviser only, he could not speak and certainly could not cross examine. Just like the articles explain.
Well, I'm glad you at least admit seeing some of the problem. I didn't think you would stay out of the discussion regardless of your promise. Defendants rarely speak in court, that is what their attorney is for. UK does not allow an attorney to speak. Forcing the defendant to represent himself (if you notice, serious court proceedings where a defendant chooses to represent himself usually have an attorney acting as an adviser for the defendant) simply is not due process. And that is what happens. Have you not read UK's rules during all of this? As for the first question, I already answered it many posts ago. If the respondent is arrested and charged for a crime that puts others at risk then he or she should remain suspended until the case has been adjudicated through our court system.
If you can read those articles and not see a problem, perhaps you're part of the problem.
News flash, we all have biases.
I am most biased against people who rant about issues for which they display much ignorance.
First off, your example has nothing to do with my point. You are talking about an eye witness to the crime. No such person exists in this case. I have always been talking about cases where there are no eye witnesses and it all comes down to one person's word against another person's word. If there is no physical evidence to support either person's story, there is no way to get to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof. Of course an eye witness to a crime can convict you, but that is not what is going on in this case and is not what I have been talking about.
Second, I have set on a Grand Jury, maybe you have also, and we never acted based on whether we thought the prosecutor would get a conviction or not. In fact, we were instructed to ignore whether we thought it was a strong or weak case and whether we thought the accused would be convicted if it went to trial. We were instructed to make our judgement based on the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof and to not look beyond that. I can't speak to what other Grand Juries are instructed to do, but I would think it is fairly consistent. I also think it is not the Grand Jury's job to judge the likelihood of a conviction. It is there job to judge whether the evidence indicates a crime might have been committed.
I haven't dropped them at all. Many of those issues were addressed in the articles. But in some form or another, they lead back to due process so I stopped talking about them individually.
Dude, you have no constitutional right to attend any university.
You are free to do within the law whatever you wish to do. However, when you elect to join a club, take a job, buy a home in a subdivision with a HOA or enroll in a school you accept a contract to live within the rules they set forth. You can do what you want but you can't do what you want within those parameters if you wish to be a part of those groups.
Again, this is basic Civics 101. The Constitution and the rights it sets forth are between you and government. And no, a state school is not government. You have the right to free speech, which means that you can tell your boss to "shove it" and nobody is going to put you in jail. It doesn't mean you won't be fired from your job.
You have the right against search and seizure...but not if you want to get onto an airplane. You have the right to bear arms...but you can't take a firearm on campus. You have the right to buy a house in Beaumont Reserve subdivision in Lexington...but you can't paint that house pink.
Dude, we've been over this, once you're there certain rights are afforded to a student. One of those should be, and eventually will be, a balanced system with safeguards to protect every student and not put them in a position that strips them of their full right to due process. If you bother to read Bakke or Grutter SCOTUS decisions, public universities are clearly state actors. Dude.
I am most biased against people who display no self-awareness.
Cat, every rape has at least 2 eye witnesses. The person being raped and the person who is committing the rape. Please read below from a criminal defense lawyer website... also I challenge you to google "he said, she said convictions"...read what you find and come back and let's review what you have been saying.
You can only speak to what level of proof it would take to convince you that a crime had committed. There are others who would agree with you. However are also many people who will set a much lower bar.
You continue to want to argue that preponderance is some scientific standard that we can measure like feet and inches or weight. It isn't. Sometimes it may be clear, other times more murky.
Testimony at trial
At trial, the victim’s testimony and credibility will be extremely important, especially if other evidence is limited. Credibility refers to whether the witness is believable and seems to be telling the truth. If the defendant chooses to testify, his credibility also will be very important.
If both the victim and the defendant testify, each person will describe the events and likely will be permitted to testify as to what the other person said during the incident. The two descriptions of the event might be very different. The victim might testify that she said “no” and told the defendant to stop repeatedly and even tried to get away but was held down. The defendant might testify that the other person never said “no” and did not object at any point. In another case, the two descriptions of the incident might be very similar and it might be much less clear whether the victim said “no” or objected.
Trying to reach a verdict in this type of case can be particularly difficult for a jury because both parties might seem credible. The jury may have to decide whether the defendant actually knew that the victim was not consenting based on a fuzzy situation where the two people were not communicating clearly with each other, perhaps using body language subject to interpretation rather than words. Ultimately, the jury must decide whether all the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the sexual act even though he actually knew the victim was not consenting.
Here is another website where lawyers comment on "he said/she said" cases...the question was asked..."I have heard Juries are very reluctant to convict in a "he said/she said" case and prosecutors are reluctant to bring such cases before a jury for this reason and the cost of a jury trial. So prosecutors always try to add lot of charges & scare you so that you are tempted to take their plea agreement."
Here is what the lawyers had to say...
William Peter Daily Criminal Defense Attorney..."Not sure who you're getting your information from, but it is not accurate. Most DV cases are he said/she said cases, rarely are there other witnesses to what happened. The prosecute these cases daily in San Diego. Your best defense is an experience local attorney who knows the in's and out's of DV cases and can minimize your exposure."
Vijay Dinakar Criminal Defense Attorney ..."Most DV (and sex cases) are "he said/she said" cases where there are no independent witnesses to the battery or sexual assault. While there may be "independent evidence" of injury (photos, medical evidence, etc) this surely doesn't prove who caused this to occur, whether it resulted from consent and can almost never a sustain a conviction without the alleged victim's live testimony (assuming there is no independent eyewitness to the alleged event). That said, I don't agree with your assumption that juries are very reluctant to convict in "he said/she said" cases; if they were there wouldn't be so many convictions in DV and sex cases. If the alleged victim takes the stand and the jury believes that he/she was battered or sexually assaulted, the jury will convict. There is much a good an attorney can do to undermine the alleged victim's credibility however so it is not hopeless if the alleged victim continues to tell a consistent story. I'm not aware of reliable numbers regarding DV conviction rates in San Diego but even if they exist surely there is an element of self selection where the worst cases result in pre-trial dismissals which skews the "conviction rate". Hire the best San Diego criminal attorney you can afford and allow him/her to investigate the matter and fight for your rights. Best of luck."
John M. Kaman Criminal Defense Attorney ... "
I agree with my colleagues in general but the person who started the case by calling 911 is usually the person the jurors believe. That doesn't mean you can't win but the first one to telephone the police has an advantage, particularly if it's the woman."
So you're saying that you hate yourself. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::boxing:
- Status