- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Male Student is Possibly Raped; Gets Expelled for Sexual Assaut
Posted on 7/21/15 at 1:20 pm to VOLhalla
Posted on 7/21/15 at 1:20 pm to VOLhalla
Do you know why it was "undisputed"?
He was deprived of his due process rights. He was procedurally prevent from cross examining his accuser. His only "recourse" was writing down questions that the panel had the ability to decide whether or not to ask. On top of that, she was allowed to write her responses to the question instead of audibly responding (which the investigator found she was capable of doing), which only works in favor of her credibility. Part of requiring a person to audibly respond is that you can assess the content of the statement as well as the tone and manner in which it is given.
This doesn't even address the fact that she lied to the investigator/panel, withheld exculpatory evidence (think Brady violation), he was deprived of having counsel present, the investigator had no subpoena power, etc.
Moreoecer, by Amherst own policies, they had/have (but refuse to look at) evidence showing that she committed sexual assault. In the immediate aftermath of the event, she texted a friend saying he was intoxicated.
Please explain how he gave affirmative consent to her when, in her own words, he was intoxicated and thus could not give consent to her performing oral sex on him?
He was deprived of his due process rights. He was procedurally prevent from cross examining his accuser. His only "recourse" was writing down questions that the panel had the ability to decide whether or not to ask. On top of that, she was allowed to write her responses to the question instead of audibly responding (which the investigator found she was capable of doing), which only works in favor of her credibility. Part of requiring a person to audibly respond is that you can assess the content of the statement as well as the tone and manner in which it is given.
This doesn't even address the fact that she lied to the investigator/panel, withheld exculpatory evidence (think Brady violation), he was deprived of having counsel present, the investigator had no subpoena power, etc.
Moreoecer, by Amherst own policies, they had/have (but refuse to look at) evidence showing that she committed sexual assault. In the immediate aftermath of the event, she texted a friend saying he was intoxicated.
Please explain how he gave affirmative consent to her when, in her own words, he was intoxicated and thus could not give consent to her performing oral sex on him?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News