• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Now her story has changed. Alleged sexual assault thread.

rjequalsmj said:
going thru a judicial hearing, dropping out of school, and going on tv and talking about rape/sexual assault dont sound like a whole lot of fun. im sure this has been extremely difficult for the girl and her family. i tend to believe the girl in this case. maybe its not completely clear cut but i think she woulda have been a lot happier had this not happened. also, if she had consensual sex would she go this far to have her story heard. one of these guys is a nobody, and the other wasnt much until last week.
Click to expand...

An athletic scholarship is renewed annually. One player left for the NBA, but the other player's scholly was renewed after this incident. Just bare that in mind.

Kobe's Bryant's accuser went to a party the day after fucking Kobe Bryant bragging about her conquest and only filed charges after attending that party. She made the boneheaded mistake of going to the hospital wearing a pair of panties soiled with multiple men's semen, and STILL they went forward with a I believe a civil trial and she ended up getting Kobe to pay her some significant go away cash.

That Wake's accuser is being supported by the a woman who advised the Kobe Bryant accuser makes me somewhat weary of the intent here. Is it so this doesn't happen to other women? Or is it in preparation for some kind of suit? Or both?

Probably not fair but the the Kobe bryant trial was a total fraud and was really about Kobe blowing her off the next day.
 
pourdeac said:
But if this was a classic "he said, she said" thing then what were they supposed to do? Discipline him just in case he was bad?

The problem here is the other side can not be told, which just perpetuates the desire to avoid these situations altogether and turn the other way. No good comes of it even if you try to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

That's definitively a good point, and I guess his minutes his junior year could be indicative of being in the doghouse, but I would think there would be some sort of repercussion for finding himself in that situation (even just extra running, which I think we would have heard about with as closely as people watch the goings on of Wake sports).

I don't think the university would turn a blind eye to these allegations or cover for athletes if they were found to be true, but that is the part that bothers me.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
And further, let's suppose that the player who became team captain wasnt the actual sexual assailant, but merely present in some capacity. Then things obviously get hazy, but it's plausible then that a judicial committee could find him innocent of any wrong serious enough to get him kicked out of school.
Click to expand...

I understand that it's difficult to impose punishments on circumstantial evidence, but wouldn't that make you pause when you're deciding to make him team captain?

Where there's smoke, there's fire, and even being present (and "guilt by association") tells me that he may not be the best choice for the team's leader. It's not like Gary Clark was a worldbeater going into his senior year, either.
 
WhatUTalkinBout Willis said:
you can't fault the NCAVA in this at all, IMO. They're just an advocacy group advocating their cause, which is a very good one.

those who take their story on face value and begin to judge before hearing all the evidence, plenty of fault.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it is definitely in NCAVA's best interest for the assault to be a rape. It is in their best interest for the charges to be true. It is in their best interest for Wake to have scandalously covered up the facts.

The same thing is true for the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, the Duke 80, and Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case. They would have been MUCH better off had Crystal Magnum not been full of shit.

Thus, it is OK to question advocacy groups. They are advocates, not truth seekers.

NCAVA was on the wrong side of one of these already (KOBE!)
 
pinochadeac said:
Agreed, but it is definitely in NCAVA's best interest for the assault to be a rape. It is in their best interest for the charges to be true. It is in their best interest for Wake to have scandalously covered up the facts.

The same thing is true for the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, the Duke 80, and Mike Nifong in the Duke lacrosse case. They would have been MUCH better off had Crystal Magnum not been full of shit.

Thus, it is OK to question advocacy groups. They are advocates, not truth seekers.

NCAVA was on the wrong side of one of these already (KOBE!)
Click to expand...

Agree, you just take them at face value and move on. They're not a judge and jury, simply a group helping out a cause.

I would think their ultimate "want" would be to go out of business, because the issue no longer exists.
 
there are a couple of things I think people should remember when looking at Gary's continued presence on the team. re:Tony Woods many though that the coach should have stepped up and advocated for the young man. It is entirely possible that after the hearing was held and no wrongdoing could be proven that Dino and/or others took up for Gary and said that he was a good kid and should continue with the team and that they would hold him accountable for his poor judgement. just something to think about.

as far as the captain thing, I still agree it is odd. again, I don't know if the team elects the captain or the coach but either way it is odd. having said that, if they couldn't prove he did anything malicious and it was his ONLY instance of poor judgement then the concept of second chances, innocent til proven guilty, etc would preclude somebody from simply declaring he can't be captain. he was also the lone senior and really only upperclassmen on the team which may have factored in as well. in the end we'll never know but none of this is going to look good to the general public
 
Last edited:
There's something strange to me that some people are absolutely accepting of the notion that a mother would 100% believe and support their daughter (and approve of that), but completely disregard the possibility that teammates, coaches and administration might 100% believe and support a player (or criticize them for that). This is the uncomfortable part of these situations - it's completely socially acceptable (even expected) that those close to the accuser support the accuser; not so when those close to the accused support the accused.
 
I am very familiar with the way our judicial process and hearings work, especially with matters of sexual assault/rape. Here's my interpretation of the letter, take it for what you want.

First off, no attorneys are allowed inside the judicial hearing. Everyone is allowed to have an attorney though they are not allowed to enter the hearing with you. The only representation you can have is a student advocate. I do not believe Wake would break that rule and allow a

Second, I am curious as to the quotes of "had to go through the school." Since in quotes, they better have that in writing or else it's their word vs Wake's. As well, that statement could be interpreted to mean that the process does HAVE to go through wake forest, not that it only solely must go through wake. Because it was on a school sanctioned trip, there HAS to be a judicial hearing. No questions there.

Third, there is no problem with hearing each other's testimony.

Fourth, the confession issue is pretty important. However, I doubt the validity of this statement. As some have previously mentioned, there are a lot of things you can confess to without sexual assault or rape occurring.

To be honest, I am far more relieved after reading this letter than I was before. To me, this sounds like an issue where the victim did not receive the verdict/decision she wanted and has now attempted to gain justice through other methods. I am not saying Wake did not do anything wrong, but from the claims in this letter, I do not see any problems.

Edit: I will also add that our judicial system inherently favors the victim in these cases. To be determined responsible, "at least five-sevenths of the panel should have a settled conviction that the charges are true based on reasonable scrutiny of the evidence", not free of any doubt. There are other small ways that the victim is favored as well. One example is in cases involving alcohol, witnesses of the victim receive immunity for testifying about drinking alcohol underage. For the accused, witnesses do not receive this immunity. I spent a good amount of time trying to get this changed but unfortunately was unable, and was never given a reason why. I do not know if alcohol comes into play in this case but felt like that should be added just to provide some more background on the Wake judicial process.
 
Last edited:
bigdoublezero said:
"Where there's smoke there's fire" is a stupid phrase. It's meaningless.
Click to expand...

not to mention in this case it is more of "when somebody claims that there at one point may have been smoke, then there is a massive fire".

eta: i am not claiming that Wake is in the clear on this. just think it is incredibly wrong to take the statements of one interested party as saying something happened and continue to assume it did simply because if there is a hint of inappropriate activity it is proof there is
 
Last edited:
TripleDeacon said:
There's something strange to me that some people are absolutely accepting of the notion that a mother would 100% believe and support their daughter (and approve of that), but completely disregard the possibility that teammates, coaches and administration might 100% believe and support a player (or criticize them for that). This is the uncomfortable part of these situations - it's completely socially acceptable (even expected) that those close to the accuser support the accuser; not so when those close to the accused support the accused.
Click to expand...

Well the difference is one's accused of a deplorable act while the other is guilty of nothing.
 
IslandDeac said:
I have no clue what exactly happened between the young woman and the two players but what is known that there were poor decisions made by multiple people. Even if only consensual acts occurred, no parties should be hooking up during a university trip/event. You are representatives of the school and held to a higher standard than most other people. I hope there was punishment handed out for simply putting themselves in an awful spot where bad things could (and may) have happened. Not upholding the standards and values of WF is not only violated by sexual assault but also by making poor, yet legal, decisions.
Click to expand...

Are you like, serious?
 
AnonymousDeac said:
I am very familiar with the way our judicial process and hearings work, especially with matters of sexual assault/rape. Here's my interpretation of the letter, take it for what you want.

First off, no attorneys are allowed inside the judicial hearing. Everyone is allowed to have an attorney though they are not allowed to enter the hearing with you. The only representation you can have is a student advocate. I do not believe Wake would break that rule and allow a

Second, I am curious as to the quotes of "had to go through the school." Since in quotes, they better have that in writing or else it's their word vs Wake's. As well, that statement could be interpreted to mean that the process does HAVE to go through wake forest, not that it only solely must go through wake. Because it was on a school sanctioned trip, there HAS to be a judicial hearing. No questions there.

Third, there is no problem with hearing each other's testimony.

Fourth, the confession issue is pretty important. However, I doubt the validity of this statement. As some have previously mentioned, there are a lot of things you can confess to without sexual assault or rape occurring.

To be honest, I am far more relieved after reading this letter than I was before. To me, this sounds like an issue where the victim did not receive the verdict/decision she wanted and has now attempted to gain justice through other methods. I am not saying Wake did not do anything wrong, but from the claims in this letter, I do not see any problems.
Click to expand...
Agree. If it's my kid you can take your "it must go through Wake" and shove it up your ass. I'm beating down the door of every governmental office with possible jurisdiction over this matter until I get some answers.
 
Oof, apparently I've really touched a nerve against the big reppers on this thread, since I got knocked down like 20 rep points from two negreps. Sweet.

Sorry I think "where there's smoke there's fire" is stupid ...
 
No disagreement there. Far too often it seems in people's hopes that nothing has happened the victims are treated as if they did something wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top