I make no pretense of "knowing" the facts in this case. Maybe he lied, maybe she lied, maybe both lied about some things and told the truth about some things. However, I do not believe that just because someone has a good "reputation," that they never do bad things. The facts that even Bubu admits do not reflect well on a stellar reputation. And perhaps that reputation and status as an athlete would make someone more worried that they would not be believed to the point that they would fabricate evidence. I do not believe that just because someone has lied about one thing, they lie about everything. But one's past actions and incidents of veracity or lack thereof would all be issues of credibility that might make a case easier or more difficult to prosecute. That is why there are extensive rules of evidence regarding character, past bad actions, impeachment of witnesses, etc. But neither a good reputation or one lie or bad act are a slam dunk as to who is telling the truth.
Bubu
- Thread starter Cyclone07
- Start date
- Status
I make no pretense of "knowing" the facts in this case. Maybe he lied, maybe she lied, maybe both lied about some things and told the truth about some things. However, I do not believe that just because someone has a good "reputation," that they never do bad things. The facts that even Bubu admits do not reflect well on a stellar reputation. And perhaps that reputation and status as an athlete would make someone more worried that they would not be believed to the point that they would fabricate evidence. I do not believe that just because someone has lied about one thing, they lie about everything. But one's past actions and incidents of veracity or lack thereof would all be issues of credibility that might make a case easier or more difficult to prosecute. That is why there are extensive rules of evidence regarding character, past bad actions, impeachment of witnesses, etc. But neither a good reputation or one lie or bad act are a slam dunk as to who is telling the truth.
Fair enough, I guess I don't understand what is in BuBu's history at Ames High or ISU that would make you feel that way, but you have a right to your opinion. But why be quick to believe the girl when she's shown that she will lie under oath and fabricate evidence? By ripping, I mean statements like "honor before victory" which is a direct attack on BuBu's honor and character. He also told the press in so many words that BuBu shouldn't be on the team because he had done things worse than other athletes who had been re-instated, which of course includes convicted felons. But even if BuBu is the bad character Leath tries to make him out to be, what purpose did it serve to go so public with it. Why say anything and just keep your mouth shut like BuBu and Fred did. Leath's statements only made a bad situation worse, and even more so if Leath is wrong about BuBu.
I agree with a lot of what you say, but at least as of now we know that the girl lied under oath and fabricated evidence, and that's a pretty big deal. How can we be quick to believe much else she's said if she's willing to lie under oath? There is no evidence that BuBu has lied about anything. Yes a lot of people view sex outside of marriage as bad, and I'm one of them, even though I didn't look at it that way when I was young so I can't be too judgmental about it.
1-I supported Bubu until I learned more about the situation. I believe that irrespective he does not have an explicit right, nor has real or fungible(loosely used) damages.
2-Bubu couldn't say anything as he was persuring a matter. Fred was instructed to keep silent. Leath said:
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/sport...cle_882347b6-85f5-11e3-8732-001a4bcf887a.html
or
http://amestrib.com/news/men-s-basketball-leath-addresses-palo-situation
I've read those articles before and Leath has presented his side to the media. It's a little confusing when he says he essentially agrees with everything regarding the appeals judge ruling, but not the application of the student policy. The ALJ ruled that the charges of student code violations were unfounded, so not sure how Leath's reversal makes much sense. As far as Fred being told to keep his mouth shut, I hadn't heard or read that, but I'll take your word for it. Sounds like you may have some access to information from the administration. Obviously you support Leath and what he's done. Based on what I've heard and read, I disagree completely. Hopefully the court case will uncover more facts and justice will lead to those that have done wrong and/or not been truthful having to pay the price.
The difference being that being drunk doesn't reduce culpability when you are a victim of a crime IT DOES reduce your ability to act and their is a threshold. If bubu slept with her when she had no idea what she was consenting too yeah he committed a crime. But just because she was drunk and consented to something she may not have had she been sober doesn't mean he committed a crime. If so that girl at the county fair when I was 17 raped me because lord knows I wouldn't have consented to that sober. Hence their is a difference between taking advantage of a severely drunk person and sleeping with an intoxicated person. The line is do you have the ability to make decisions and control your actions, if you do you can legally consent if you can't you cannot.
My point was that the evidence suggests she could legally consent. Whether she did is the question. And yes bad things are more likely to happen when you get drunk but that in no way makes those bad things ok. That is akin to saying she dressed provocatively etc. If she did not consent it was rape regardless of the actions that led up to that point. Most objective followers have found her claims lack credibility however and hence we should presume Bubu is innocent until facts suggest otherwise.
Last edited:
OK but that was the question, why do you believe a person is guilty that has not been proven guilty? And why do you believe making judgements based on hunches is good for our system of justice. You have acted like you know the full story but have shared nothing about why you believe this. You suggest that she wanted to hook up with bubu then Spencer raped her and Bubu followed up hence making that rape. That is a theory but what makes you think that is what happened? If it is just a hunch then say that instead of slandering a guys character in a public forum making us believe you have some kind of inside information.
Yeah I hate that judges are in charge of deciding when someone's rights have been violated.
I would agree about not having judges determine some things...but I also do not like it when (some of) the BOR gets involved doing the same thing. What was acceptable the year before (Bubu played 17 games) was not acceptable the next year. The only difference were inputs to Leath from (some of) the BOR that the judge do not have the privilege of seeing.
I think you misunderstand me. If the administration doesn't want a judge to decide it, don't screw the pooch in the first place. I don't know that they did, but that judge sure paints that picture.
I think a school should decide who gets the honor of representing a school in athletics. With that privilege of deciding comes great responsibility to get it right, especially when dismissing someone with cause. When they don't get it right there is no other recourse except for the courts to step in.
Of course. We don't know but our system is based on protecting the innocent from wrongful prosecution. If we don't know, we presume innocence. This case is not about that though. It is about one thing. Did the defendant ms. B take actions that harmed the reputation and future earnings of Mr. Palo. I would say yes (based on what we know right now). Her fabricating evidence and giving a false description of events harmed Bubu reputation. If their is a preponderance of evidence that Bubu in fact did rape her and her actions were secondary and intended only to make sure he paid for the crimes he committed as you suggest as a hypothetical, she should counter sue. Maybe she was planning to do so and this was a preemptive strike, we don't know. There are a lot of factors that could be at play that will make this a very interesting case.
I am not claiming nor have I ever claimed to know Bubu is innocent. Just as I don't know you are not the zodiac killed or innocent of any crime, I presume your innocence until proven otherwise. It is hard pill for many to swallow when the odds of guilt are higher but I try and think of how I would want to be judged by my peers in that situation.
Based on what we have seen it does not appear that there is any evidence supporting her version of events and evidence that her version of events was at least partially fabricated. So I really do not understand why people would presume her version to be correct. Of course it may be but why should anyone make that leap? How is that fair to the accused?
How would you want to be treated if you did something you are ashamed of like infidelity but the guy died when with you and you were accused of murder by the spouse AND it turns out she fabricated some evidence to make it look like you killed her husband. While you could not prove you were innocent would you want us all to reserve judgment and presume innocence because there is no evidence to suggest you did? Or would you want folks always thinking and judging you because you may be a murderer as you could not prove your innocence? To me it is a pretty easy choice. I am going to reserve judgement.
Last edited:
IAStubborn, what is the level of intoxication you have to be at to be incapacitated? My understanding is any impairment means it's impossible to consent.
I support a school being able to determine who represents the school.
I also want information to be opened so we all can make a more accurate decision on the matter.
Iowa Courts Online shows that the case against the Board of Regents will be heard 07/16/2014 at 9 am.
I think we have a long road on the civil matter filed last week.
Last edited:
One attorney I spoke with has followed the case closely and he believes that the judge that made the ruling didn't rule correctly. It seems as both of Bubu's cases will be heard.
I will repost the prosecutors guide. Basically they look at all kinds of factors to determine if one had capacity to function or decide. If you slept with a person in a nursing home that had dementia the court would likely find that the person was incapacitated or lacked capacity to decide for example even if they said yes sleep with me.
As Rohclone stated and (he is a much more credible source) the common standard he has experienced for most is passed out or could not speak coherently. The guide I found didn't present a hard line but rather a series of questions to determine if the standard of the "inability to know and control your actions" is met. Those included:
Could the victim walk?
Was the victim staggering?
Could they speak coherently?
Did they remember the events?
Were they coming in and out of conciousness?
We're they unable to perform a basic function like light a cigarette?
Were they able to use their credit card and pay their tab?
Did they use their cell phone to make a call or text someone?
Last edited:
709.1A INCAPACITATION.
As used in this chapter, "incapacitated" means a person is disabled or deprived of ability, as follows:
1. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of apprising or controlling the person's own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance.
2. "Physically helpless" means that a person is unable to communicate an unwillingness to act because the person is unconscious, asleep, or is otherwise physically limited.
3. "Physically incapacitated" means that a person has a bodily impairment or handicap that substantially limits the person's ability to resist or flee.
Clearly "unconscious" is not the only form of incapacitation. There are numerous cases where the victim was asleep and woke up to an intruder raping her.
As used in this chapter, "incapacitated" means a person is disabled or deprived of ability, as follows:
1. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is temporarily incapable of apprising or controlling the person's own conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or intoxicating substance.
2. "Physically helpless" means that a person is unable to communicate an unwillingness to act because the person is unconscious, asleep, or is otherwise physically limited.
3. "Physically incapacitated" means that a person has a bodily impairment or handicap that substantially limits the person's ability to resist or flee.
Clearly "unconscious" is not the only form of incapacitation. There are numerous cases where the victim was asleep and woke up to an intruder raping her.
Last edited:
- Status