He's not a suspected rapist. Why is innocent until proven guilty such a difficult concept?
Bubu Thread
- Thread starter capitalcityguy
- Start date
He's not a suspected rapist. Why is innocent until proven guilty such a difficult concept?
I don’t mean to intrude on the conversation you have going on here, but thought I might quickly share a prior post in which I defined my concerns with regard to the way Leath handled this issue. If this is not in any way of value, feel free to disregard.
Are there immunity provisions that obstruct or limit the liability of University officials and the Board of Regents actions in this matter? If so, is it reasonable to suggest that anecdotal evidence would imply that immunity promotes corruption and a misuse or abuse of power?
It would seem to me the rule of law should serve as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of university officials. A form of tyranny may be described and observed when students are forced to live by and under different sets of laws and codes of conduct than those applied to university officials or the board of regents. Such tyranny is especially scandalous when university officials are free to breach tacitly understood, but potentially unwritten codes of conduct without consequences being uniformly applied. At issue here is the fact that Leath sat on Bubu’s appeal for 3 months before suspending him from the team. This virtually eliminated any assurance of an effective transfer. Those specific actions seem to have been "universally condemned" by the majority of those in the cyclone nation as has the rubber stamp process applied by the board of regents in this matter.
That said, such condemnation does not in any way discount what I believe to be the University’s right to rule and function within the purview of their jurisdiction with regard to the established code of conduct. Nonetheless Leath’s inaction and the board's rubber stamp does point out a very troubling breach of a code of conduct that should also be applied to university officials and the board of regents in the handling of such matters. A parallel to such reasoning has been clearly established in the American concept of “equality before the law.†This establishes that no one shall be above the law and that the law should be implemented uniformly and evenly.
Obviously, high-profile cases with sordid facts receiving the current level of media attention tend to appeal to voyeuristic tendencies. Egregious errors in judgment are evident on both sides of this issue. Nonetheless, I look forward to the time we can put this matter to rest and sincerely hope this serves as “smelling salts and teaching moment†for counsel, university officials, the board of regents and the student body.
no. ISU is still fighting turning it all over as public evidence for the hearing is my understanding.
I need to go back to make sure it was title IX that was referenced for the automatic appeal requirement. I am positive it is title IX regs that are mandating sexual assault preponderance of evidence standards and internal sexual assault CoC policy. It is clear that Leath is in a tough position. But I think he certainly could of handled it better. Somewhere between Sally Mason's handling a couple years ago told the football players and Leath's handling of this is the correct approach. I feel the bar for overturning an ALJ that does all the discovery and hears the testimony should be very high. If they truly believe he raped her he should be expelled. If they think it was a case of him sleeping with someone that was impaired but not incapacitated (which is likely what they determined and hence the partial punishment) he shouldn't of been punished. This reaks of sending a message.
I don't think there are many people any more that consider her a victim, in fact I suspect most now view BuBu as the victim of an attempted false rape charge and very poor handling of his case by Leath. There's a very simple question that needs to be answered- if Leath has some secret information that BuBu commited a sexual crime, assault, or even serious sexual misconduct of any kind, why wasn't he kicked out of school? I seriously doubt any evidence Leath has will show that and apparently the ALJ, district judge and supreme court didn't either. I think it's time to give it up on calling her a victim and insinuating BuBu did something wrong other than having sex with a woman who had been drinking.
I don’t mean to intrude on the conversation you have going on here, but thought I might quickly share a prior post in which I defined my concerns with regard to the way Leath handled this issue. If this is not in any way of value, feel free to disregard.
As posted above, the university was required by US Department of Education Title ?? to appeal the ALJ decision to Leath. Leath had to make a decision using the "preponderance of the evidence" burden of proof as required by ISU procedures for this matter. Preponderance of Evidence basically says that the burden of proof is met if there is a 51% chance that the alleged action occurred.
Legal burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Have you seen all of the evidence, and do you know all of the circumstances surrounding Leath's decision? If you haven't and don't, how can you judge his or the BOR's decision?
Do you know for certain that Leath just "sat" on the appeal, and that other things weren't going on that caused the delay?
Do you know for certain that the BOR just rubber-stamped Leath's decision? Perhaps the preponderance of evidence burden of proof was so easily met that the BOR didn't have to scour over the testimony. The district court said there was an appearance that a rubber-stamp may have happened, it hasn't ruled that to be a fact.
Your assertion and conclusion are based on a certain interpretation of of events, and your interpretation is opinion, and has not shown to be fact.
Last edited:
I do too. However I can not imag. e a scenario that Leath and the BoR look good here. Either he is a rapist and they let him stay in school instead of kicking his arse out of school like they should Or he isn't and they appeased special interests or tried to send a message. There really isn't a middle ground here yet he gave a middle ground punishment and that has always been my beef.
Well, I'm sure if you ask nicely and say please, they'll give you everything you demand.
Normally I would agree with you but when someone fabricates evidence and has knowingly provided false testimony her character and credibility are all that matter at this point. If she were a nun that didnt fabricate evidence you can bet Bubu would be behind bars right now. When it comes down to he said she said character will be questioned of both he and she.
Re: Bubu back again
Well, I guess we all know that moforisu, isuforlife, Cyclonestate78, and 3GenClone have no idea what happened in this case whatsoever. That much we do know.
Fred still has a say who is on the team and he always has. So does JP and Leath. All of them can boot someone from the team if they wish to. But the athlete would still have the chance to appeal this decision, as they should. Those are the avenues you have open to you.
So as long as you have a decent explanation for why you booted him, you're fine, and that player will be gone. But if the court finds that you didn't have a proper reason to do so, then you are allowed back on. And then they can take it to the Iowa Supreme Court if they choose, which for some unknown reason known only to them, they did.
And the Iowa Supreme Court turned them down too. So Bubu stays. All the proper channels were followed. End of story. But it does NOT mean Fred can't boot whoever he wants to from the team. He just better have a good reason, that's all. That's always been the case and has not changed.
Well, I guess we all know that moforisu, isuforlife, Cyclonestate78, and 3GenClone have no idea what happened in this case whatsoever. That much we do know.
Fred still has a say who is on the team and he always has. So does JP and Leath. All of them can boot someone from the team if they wish to. But the athlete would still have the chance to appeal this decision, as they should. Those are the avenues you have open to you.
So as long as you have a decent explanation for why you booted him, you're fine, and that player will be gone. But if the court finds that you didn't have a proper reason to do so, then you are allowed back on. And then they can take it to the Iowa Supreme Court if they choose, which for some unknown reason known only to them, they did.
And the Iowa Supreme Court turned them down too. So Bubu stays. All the proper channels were followed. End of story. But it does NOT mean Fred can't boot whoever he wants to from the team. He just better have a good reason, that's all. That's always been the case and has not changed.
Probably not. And as such, I'm not going to make any rash decisions about Leath, Pollard, and the BOR until the information is released to somebody who will share it with me.
I agree but that does not make character assessment off limits. I am not talking about the promiscuity attack here but honesty and personality /character assessments are ok.. When you tamper with evidence and all you got is your word don't be shocked that folks are going to look into how good that word is. But their is a line between that and publically dragging someone through the mud andquestioning promiscuity which does discourage reporting.
Last edited:
Re: Bubu back again
Even with him being on the team, I doubt Fred plays him until both Leath and Pollard change their stance. It's still a tough spot for Fred to be in.
He can still be a helpful practice player though.
Even with him being on the team, I doubt Fred plays him until both Leath and Pollard change their stance. It's still a tough spot for Fred to be in.
He can still be a helpful practice player though.
Yeah I am cool with questioning her honesty and her character in general as it is absolutely relevant as is Bubu's at this point when it comes down to he said she said as long.as her identity remains confidential. But their promiscuity isn't unless she is a nun and used to demonstrate the unlikeness of consent. It just isn't relevant.
Sure, but there is a big difference between "She is not a reliable witness" and any variation of "She was asking for it", "She's someone known to be looking for a good time", "She didn't say no hard enough", or anything remotely like that, which is the direction some people were heading.
My assumption is that the university president is equipped to make a rational decision using the preponderance of evidence criteria. If proper evidence is presented to the contrary, I will change my opinion. So far, no such evidence has been presented...not even close. Hec, to this point, Palo's lawyers haven't even directly challenged Leath's decision (at least according to the present court documents available).
Last edited:
Yeah i reread what he wrote and edited my comments. The last sentence was very much out of line. I didn't catch that the first time.
Mtown, she was in his class.
As for those saying I am "victim blaming," that is not what I am doing. Instead, I am arguing that Bubu is "innocent until proven guilty."
As for those saying I am "victim blaming," that is not what I am doing. Instead, I am arguing that Bubu is "innocent until proven guilty."
