You forgot one, which is the zeroth point. So it should be:
- Sucks
- Men’s basketball team.
- Fake rape accusation cesspit.
- Where Tucker Max write about in lots of his stories.
Hmmm. Yeah, that’s pretty much consistent with when I last paid any attention to NCAA basketball.
Thanks. Here’s what the article says the accused rapist alleges:
Consent in the guidelines IS defined:
So, stopping once the woman starts crying isn’t sufficient. If the woman in question is not showing consent by clear actions or words, it’s against Duke’s policy.
You’re right that this is vague–but it uses a “reasonable person” standard in the guidelines:
I’m not sure I see how the frat brothers would have relevant testimony. Are they going to testify that they were watching the sex and saw her giving consent? If all they saw is her flirting with the guy before they went into his room, that’s not relevant. Are they going to testify that she wasn’t intoxicated? Maybe they could, but I’m not sure their judgment is entirely to be relied on here. Certainly there’s a case to be made that frat brothers might be an eensy bit biased toward their frat brothers.
So it’s possible that Duke unfairly denied their testimony, but the facts so far don’t seem to prove that.
As for discouraging him from seeking legal advice, in what way did they do so, and does that have any relevance? As for expelling him under an unpublished policy, you just linked to the policy, didn’t you?
According to him, he did give clear verbal consent to sex. She admitted that to the hearing committee. According to the committee’s findings, she was too intoxicated to give that consent, but both she and McLeod confirm that she did. The panel had no evidence in front of it to conclude that she did not give verbal consent.
That objection goes to the weight of their testimony. Testimony is not “irrelevant” if it comes from a possibly biased source. The panel was free to disbelieve any testimony it heard after judging the demeanor and credibility of the witness – but not to refuse to hear the testimony in the first place. That refusal runs directly counter to their published policy.
And what about the anonymous witnesses? You failed to respond to that aspect of McLeod’s complaint.
I linked to the policy that’s currently published. McLeod alleges in his complaint that the University adopted an addendum to that policy which requires expulsion in the case of sexual assault. McLeod is referring to this claimed second policy, which does not appear on the Duke website.
According to McLeod, he was told flatly by a Duke University employee that he was not permitted to have legal representation. If true, that’s certainly relevant.
Where are you getting that information from? If that’s true, that definitely changes my opinion of the case–as does a lot of the other information you’re offering here. Not that I doubt you, but did I miss a link to the committee’s findings or something?
Okay, sure, that makes sense re: frat brother loyalty. But what about the issue of whether their testimony was relevant? If the issue is consent, they might not have been present at the critical moment.
It’s because in my brief perusal of the guidelines I couldn’t find anything about a right to confront witnesses or anything like that.
Honestly, I’m not so clear on what the difference is: if the published policy says he can be expelled for sexual misconduct, and the committee found that the preponderance of evidence supported a finding of rape against him, expulsion seems a foregone conclusion. If you’re not going to expel someone for rape, the idea that you might expel someone for sexual misconduct is ludicrous.
I agree. I didn’t see that–I just saw his claim that he was “discouraged” from legal representation.
The case filing has his complaint. Obviously, his complaint consist of what he alleges to be true as opposed to what a court has found to be true. But this complaint comes from his lawyer, and while a lawyer will certainly cast his side in the most positive light possible, he generally will not simply fabricate factual claims. (That is, his complaint will say, ‘If permitted to testify, Student 4 would have said X, Y, and Z.’ That doesn’t mean that the court would have found X, Y, or Z to be true, but simply that the testimony from the student would have been X, Y, and Z.)
Sure – but again according to the complaint, Student 2 observed McLeod and the complainant getting out of the taxi and entering the building and was prepared to testify that the complainant showed no signs of intoxication. The complaint alleges that the hearing panel did not permit Student 2 to offer that testimony.
From the linked policies:
It’s the other way around: he contends that this “secret” policy demands expulsion for any lesser offense of sexual assault, and that the university relied on this instead of considering a wider range of sanctions that were supposedly available under the original policy.
For what it’s worth, his lawsuit against the university included a request that the university be prohibited from expelling him until his suit is heard. A hearing on that request was conducted in front of Judge W. Osmund Smith in the civil section of the Superior Court of Durham County. The judge granted McLeod’s request, saying:
Bricker, I don’t mean to shit up this thread the way I stupidly shit up a thread in GD, but are you sure it’s even relevant if she gave verbal consent or not if she was intoxicated, which he seems to be conceding?
According to this link an intoxicated person cannot legally consent to Sex in North Carolina.
http://healthcenter.ncsu.edu/health-promotion/resources/health-and-wellness-topics/rape-and-relationship-violence/sex-with-consent/
And yes, this is North Carolina State not Duke, but is the situation different at Duke or North Carolina in general?
On the thread I shit up, ITR Champion began by saying he was under the impression that it was unclear whether an intoxicated person could legally consent to sex and all the evidence I’ve seen seems to back up his assertion.
Now obviously, realistically had this case been turned over to the authorities it’s doubtful the case would have gotten passed the Grand Jury and regardless of the law, no jury would have convicted him, but from a strictly legal standpoint, it’s not clear that the North Carolina State Health Center is wrong that women who are intoxicated can’t legally consent to sex.
If that’s the case, does the kid have a leg to stand on?
Not of course that I’m saying this is right.
Well, yes and no. By that I mean: yes, you’re correct that her verbal consent is not relevant if she were intoxicated, but no, he’s not conceding that she was – or in the alternative, he’s saying that a reasonable person in his position would not have known she was intoxicated. Thus the relevance of the various witnesses who, if permitted to testify, according to him would have said that they saw the complainant both immediately before and immediately after the sexual intercourse and she exhibited no signs of intoxication.
The case was turned over to the authorities, who declined to prosecute, citing inconsistencies in the complainant’s version of events and a lack of cooperation by the complainant.
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.
I appreciate your insight, too, Bricker: with the additional information you provided, it’s looking good for the dude.
At least at this stage… yes. It may turn out that if the additional witnesses testify, they are not credible. The guy’s complaint is that he wasn’t given a fair hearing… but he cannot be sure that if he IS given a fair hearing, the results will not be the same.
Still, at this point in the proceedings, I think he has the correct position.