Gibbons news

The presumed findings without any input from the Respondent. Hoke acted after the OSCR acted following submission of each side's statements. To act prior would have been unjust. Sentence is never imposed prior to the completion of the proceeding, at least in the country I was raised.

I am confused…I have heard about these reports changing in 2011 and information was known then and I hear it was in 2013. Am I confusing two different things or have two dates been thrown out there

From what I understand, the rules OSCR rules relative to burden of proof changed in 2011, thus exposing Gibbons to UM sanctions liability that did not exist when the incident occurred in 2009.

But the issue had been considered closed in 2009. I believe.

Wouldn't that be a sort of double jeopardy?

Or sorta like,

"You didn't break the rules we had in place in 2009 so we're going to change the rules."?

Look, I do not condone Sexual Assault. But I also believe in Due Process. To a fault I do.

In recent years the laws have changed with sex cases, as have civil rules, which this is a matter of. Jeopardy does not attach until one is brought to trial and the jury is sworn in, so first, this is not a criminal matter, and second, since he was never charged and brought to trial there is no jeopardy. Just so you know, this does not apply always. For example, you could be charged under a state statute for some offense, tried and acquitted, and then later charged with a federal crime for the same conduct. Since Federal and State courts are separate justice systems, no jeopardy (the correct spelling) exists. some of you guys may know that I have some expertise in this area (legal, not sex assaults). Also, I think Gibbons is a rich-boy pampered piece of shit, and am in no way sympathetic to him, but "them's the rules".

Plus woody, none of this is bound in a court of law. YET.

Everything everyone is talking about is 100% outside the judicial system. This means there would be no way to force someone to talk or even tell the truth.

Unless it is in a court of law, under penalty of perjury, no one is compelled to tell anything much less the truth.

In my opinion this is exactly where the FREEH Report was flawed yet everyone took it as Bible.

The NCAA can't make anyone tell the truth. UofM can't make anyone tell the truth. Ace Whatsisname and Drew Sharp can't make anyone tell the truth.

The Supreme Court CAN make you tell the truth.

Whew. I need a rest. lol

Actually no one can ever make any one tell the truth. But that's neither here nor there. In any event, he wasn't charged so he won't be prosecuted. I suppose he still could be (at least for another year or so) IF the woman chose to request prosecution. In any event Gibbons is just piece of shit, as are many jocks at all levels of education when it comes to sex and women.