Agreed. Clearly the university interprets "incapacitated" much differently than it is intended in the law (the code of conduct cites the legal standard so they should be the same) based on what many on here have said they are now told in freshman orientation. Based on the legal standard you have to no longer be in control of your actions. This is a high bar. She made a call to bubu to arrange a pick up (an act demonstrating she was in control) she recalled the event in her testimony, she testified that she was able to make a decision and did not consent (based on original allegations) hence I would imagine this was enough to demonstrate she was not likely legally incapacitated in the eyes of the prosecuter, the alj and the DC. But Leath and Ms. Stahle may have seen it differently. Also, they are contending he can be charged with one violation then found guilty of another on appeal to leath (from the appeal papers). This is odd and unusual for procedural grievances as a defendant wasn't defending against that charge (shouldn't the process start over?). Anyway, that is the only explanation that makes semi sense and somewhat explains Leath's bizarre behavior in a somewhat ethical light so I hope it's true even if I disagree with it. But again has a lot of holes still.
You make some valid points and I might be more sympathetic to the possibility that Leath is a hapless pawn to Stahle, a big donor, the BOR or whoever in this. But I have little doubt Leath worked on J.P.s public statement since Leath didn't make one of his own, and the statement was arrogant, defiant, and downright disrespectful to the district judge, and very divisive with the ISU basketball team and Fred. It showed a complete lack of humility and good judgment in dealing with the situation, and a woeful lack of knowledge of how ISU's own appeals system works. A lot of what I think of Leath's role in this situation is based on JP's defiant statement.