with all the speculations, there has been little re: what the Panel did and did not do to reach their decision. To me, saying they are not an investigative body means they will not seek out evidence, interviews, etc, but that does not preclude evaluating evidence for and against. After JW's press, I envisioned that the Panel was a step up from a grand jury: they would review the prosecutor evidence (affadavits, lab tests, interviews, etc) AND also consider defense's evidence and arguments. It appears the Panel only considered the charges (from TRO stating lack of due process and it had a yes/no chart comparing rights of general student vs. Panel) - which I agree with others' comments on what is the point? Yes, he was charged with a felony, so there is nothing further for Panel to consider (ie rendered useless). However, if we can all see implausibility and inconsistencies of the accuser's affadavit and LPD's incompetence on investigating, surely the Panel could have done the same. IANAL, but its seems the TRO hinges on not receiving due process by Panel/DIA vs. case weakness.
TSJ Thread
- Status
rereading the documents i found something that made me skeptical once again. The friend's story says they went to Jayhawk, left for awhile to go to a different bar, and then arrived back at Jayhawk around midnight. It is at this point that the accuser had her first drink of the night. Seems highly unlikely.
But he only goes left according to the scouting reportWell… TSJ does have two arms.
If I read the victim’s statement correctly she said he reached his arm around her waist, grab her butt, and did the assault from behind while they were facing each other. I feel like he would have to have insanely long arms and expert precision with his hands (fingers) to pull off a move like that with another girl on his other arm. Especially with no one else noticing what was going on.Well… TSJ does have two arms.
The bold part is not correct (meaning not all of us think what you said).
I personally don't think the publicly known evidence is strong, but I don't find it implausible, inconsistent, nor incompetent at this point. That could change as new information becomes available.
This language below from the DIA regarding the panel clarifies things a bit and makes it tough for TSJ. They look at the relative risks to the University of: (1) Lifting the suspension should it come out later that he did it; and (2) Keeping the suspension should it come out later that he didn’t do it.
"The Panel will not act as an investigative body but will exercise good faith and reasonable judgment to draw needed conclusions based on the information available to it at the time it convenes. The Panel will undertake an individualized analysis to determine whether the available information justifies withholding the student-athlete from some or all athletic activities pending resolution of the charges or allegations. Based on the information available to the Panel at the time the Panel is convened, the Panel may consider the broad spectrum of risks to the University of (a) immediately reinstating the student-athlete, should further investigation reveal that the student-athlete committed the alleged major offense, against (b) continuing to withhold the student-athlete from athletic activities, should further investigation reveal that the student-athlete did not commit the alleged major offense."
I imagine they'd view (1) as cataclysmic from a University image standpoint, likely justifying the firing of Whitman.
They’d look at (2) as a very sad injustice perpetrated on one student-athlete and, to some extent, his teammates. However, I think they’d view the Kansas DA as the culprit here and could say that the University was relying on their propriety while being hypervigilant about stopping sexual misconduct.
That bar is WAY TOO HIGH if the panel finds the paltry amount of evidence in the police report enough to uphold his suspension.
If the defense can disprove this part of her account (receipts, witnesses, etc), it would be significant. But without such evidence, I'm not sure it means much.
Things like this make me think it could be a long process. Unless/until there's clear evidence that exonerates him, both sides will want to be very thorough. As much as TSJ wants this to go away quickly for his draft prospects, it would be a big mistake to rush forward with a he-said/she-said case and possibly miss something significant.
Can you pull DNA from a finger a day later?
And then you woke up just as she was about to . . . .
Makes no sense at all and the article published in the Kansas News paper was silly when the reporter could have read and included information already available to the public.
There is no DNA. 5 seconds…
All this for 5 seconds…
To ruin a kid’s life long dream …
Completely unfair….
Stepping back and evaluating this afar compared to the rest of the craziness of the world…. I been exposed to more in 5 seconds on any social media platform.
This is nothing…
Last edited:
Exactly. This is about as flimsy of a case you can possibly have.
Ryllini
- Lombard
And slipping in a digit dry all in under 10 seconds.
Here is my problem with that. The panel was not put in place to protect the university. The existing processes for all students are probably sufficient for that.
My understanding is this particular sort of panel was created specifically for accused student athletes, to provide them with due process, before the criminal case and any internal university processes are resolved.
The reason being athletes have limited eligibility that could well be over before the case is resolved, and it can't be restored.
Based on the letter explaining the decision to continue the suspension, it appears the panel based that decision on the seriousness of the charge, rather than the weight of the evidence.
I tend to agree. I'd like to think most federal prosecutors or local ADAs from bigger cities would never bring a case based on this evidence because of the difficulty of proving it at trial, but is it so weak that it could not survive pretrial motion to dismiss? There's a direct identification and going to be sworn testimony as to the prepretator and the act from the victim. Then it becomes a credibility issue. If the jury or judge finds her testimony credible and there is no other evidence to create a reasonable doubt, it may be enough to convict. Having said that, the evidence seems fairly weak at this point and I'd think agood criminal defense lawyer can create reasonable doubt here. But by the time this goes to trial, the NBA draft will likely be over.
Even with a consenting partner… this is a challenge for most men…. Most men do not know the proper angle and trajectory
Imagine a female standing upright in a typical stance…. I know TJ is deadly accurate in pull up threes but this single handed feat is near impossible while holding another girl in another arm. I invite the female Illini Loyalty members to chime in… and tell me I am wrong
If I was the judge hearing the TRO case I would ask the university this question
Your panel does not conduct investigations so is there any way for a student athlete to get a suspension overturned? Does the athlete have any means to present their side of the story or do the legal matters have to be resolved?
From my perspective the panel just confirms yeah you were suspended and the university states you should be suspended. Is that enough to get the TRO I don’t know
Your panel does not conduct investigations so is there any way for a student athlete to get a suspension overturned? Does the athlete have any means to present their side of the story or do the legal matters have to be resolved?
From my perspective the panel just confirms yeah you were suspended and the university states you should be suspended. Is that enough to get the TRO I don’t know
Can I go off on a slight tangent here? Assume there is a possibility that TJ is guilty. Then why let him stay attend classes or stay on campus at all? Don't we want to protect all Illinois students from him, or do our concerns apply solely to protecting people at basketball games. Seems to me that if you think he might be guilty, you want him gone.
And if you let him stay, you are saying you don't think he is a threat, i.e., you think he is not guilty. You cannot have it both ways. Either expel him because he is a threat, or let him play. Don't try to have it both ways at once.
And if you let him stay, you are saying you don't think he is a threat, i.e., you think he is not guilty. You cannot have it both ways. Either expel him because he is a threat, or let him play. Don't try to have it both ways at once.
BirdDog9048
The Chief Lives
- Chicago, IL
The LPD investigation has definitely shown incompetence. There are known and identified witnesses (Hobson and Harmon) that they have yet to interview, and they apparently didn't interview McCullars (or potentially a different KU player) until last week, four months after the incident and a month after deciding to charge.
BirdDog9048
The Chief Lives
- Chicago, IL
This stuck out to me as well. She mentions that she was holding a drink, but had only taken a couple sips, but also mentions that they were about to leave the bar before the alleged incident. It's been a decade since I was in college, but I don't remember leaving too many bars with a full drink in my hand.
I hope you aren't saying what I think you're saying. 5 seconds of sexual assault is still 5 seconds too many.
If he did what was alleged, the only person who has been treated unfairly is the victim. And if he's innocent, of course it's unfair to him, regardless of how bad the assault was.
When my wife and I started dating, I used to give her a lot of grief for leaving drinks at the bar. I don't think I ever saw her finish one. She explained to me that she didn't want to get drunk, so she sipped all night and left them on whatever table she happened to be near. I asked if that ever got expensive, and she said it would be if she ever bought her own drinks! I began finishing them for her. Now I finish our kids food.
- Status