What kills me here is this case is solely based on the testimony of someone who illegally fabricated evidence, provided false testimony that was proven to be false by two credible witnesses. Is it possible that a crime was still committed? Of course. But the accuser loses credibility as a witness at that point. No judge would ever allow a case regardless of eviduciary standard to be based on her testimony. She committed a crime which is also a violation of SCoC. I am fairly confident they are hanging their hat on Bubu admitting she was drunk and he slept with her. Judges get that is not the same as incapacitated but it is clear that ISU doesn't based on the language used in their appeal and the new findings leath added. They are essentially saying someone can claim they had legal ability to consent and thus not consent and have ISU say in fact they didnt. This element hasn't really been tested but if someone claims the consent they provided shouldn't have been granted because they were so intoxicated that is one thing but it is completly another when they do not make that claim and ISU does. This case was about assault and it seems he may have been charged of misconduct in the form of statutory rape due to incapacitation. The alcohol training and consent language leads me to believe this is the underlying issue here. What a mess. I think this is a bigger issue and one the court should rule on but unfortunately one that is creating a sideshow for this basketball team now.
