Bobcat Nation Forums
http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/
Jon Krakauer in this case is like having Mike Wallace show up at your door.grizatwork wrote:Hard to tell. Could be the same old culture of football leading to the players above the law attitude or the perceived lynch mob that formed as a result. The truth is likely somewhere in between.
I will too. Presently I'm settling for egriz and missoulian article responses. I especially like the ones trying to discredit Krakauer. What happens if he writes something favorable to JJ? Personally I find trying to discredit him an effort in futility. People like the hunters in the Healy, AK area have been trying this for years with very little success.Bay Area Cat wrote:If he really writes a book on that topic ... well, wow. I'll definitely read it.
People who are on the wrong end of his stories question his credibility. Naturally. Authors of nonfiction often run into this and they do makes mistakes, but byandlarge Krakauer gets it right.Jobu wrote:I love Krakauer and think he's a great writer.
But there are any number of people who question his credibility and accuracy in his books. I'm not certain if that's discrediting him or not, but a quick internet search will provide a lengthy list of experts and non experts who question Krakauer's facts.
Well OK. People indirectly affected tend to be detractors too. A large majority of people listening to both sides of the discussion tend to side with him. His work is respected by most. Many of the claims against him have been refuted. He doesn't always say what everyone wants to hear.Jobu wrote:To a large extent I agree with you. But Krakauer has far more detractors than just those "on the wrong end" of his books.
Me too.Bay Area Cat wrote:If he really writes a book on that topic ... well, wow. I'll definitely read it.
Into Thin Air and Into the Wild are two of my all-time favorite books. Put me on the 'definitely read it' list too!AlphaOAlum wrote:Me too.Bay Area Cat wrote:If he really writes a book on that topic ... well, wow. I'll definitely read it.
- An issue that the Missoulian glazed over, Paoli requested this to be dismissed, this was a planned tactic. It gets a lot of what was just considered rumor out in the open.
- Ms. Smith (accuser) has changed her story per this document including to Dean Coture who apparently chose to ignore them. Coture fails to even admit that Ms. Smith admits confusion and she admits to him if she "shares guilt". However that is not passed to this UM court.
- Coture would only read excerpts of the allegations to the student and Paoli but did not provide them the actual charge/complaint for weeks.
- The UM wrote in these Code of Conduct violations after the event occured and is attempting to hold this student to a standard that DID NOT EXIST when the alleged action occured.
- The UM has threatened to expel the student if he even discusses the case. Dean Coture wrote the student and told him specifically not to talk to anyone about the case or else he'd be immediately expelled.
- Coture attempted to block the student's attempt to interview the roomates who were in the adjoining room at the night of the incident. He called and made threats about CoC and privacy in an attempt to block the investigation. Coture interrupted the defendants right to interview potential witnesses.
- Coture was very hostile and refused to cooperate with the accused student.
- Once able to reveiw copies of the complaints but not receive copies for themselves (per Coture) the accused student notes that the medical note referencing the alleged assault was written as, "torn leggings?" with the question mark after it.
- During a hearing Coture "shouted down" the defendants counsel and then forced the councel to stop talking and have them speak "through" the defendant.
- Coture mocked the defendant reminding him that guilty in preponderance of evidence meant, "Only 51%"
- Coture refused to investigate an actual breach in confidenitality despite his ongoing threats to expel the student if he breached it.
- The 2nd hearing Coture refused to let the defendant talk to his councel.
- In the 2nd interview Aronofsky told the defendant he could finally see copies of the investigation against him only if they stopped trying to interview witnesses.
- The defendant got character witnesses, in the meanwhile Coture got negative character witnesses that shared prior poor instances (dorm complaints of noise). While the defense noted they were complaints of non-sexual nature that was ignored. Coture then removed from the file the positive character witnesses but kept the negative. Coture claimed the negative accounts are the only ones that really mattered.
- Coture told the defendant that when the "case was complete" that he was accepting Ms Smith's story despite her admitting being confused about the event. When the defendant asked what changes/alterations Coture made he informed the defendant that he did not have to give that information to him.
- A female friend of the accuser submitted "exculpatory information" that Coture did not allow nor allow the defense to see.
- Between the initial hearing and the UM Court process the code of conduct was changed to make it easier to find the defendant guilty.
- The defendant was informed his counsel could be at the UM court hearing but not allowed to interact with them.
- The defendant was not notified properly (within 5 business days) of the UM court hearing, when attempting to appeal it Arofnofsky denied the appeal and let the hearing continue on the original day.
- Aronofsky threatened the defendent to, "Get off the track or else you'll get run over."
- Engstrom denied Paoli's requests to talk about his concerns about the actions of Coture and Aronofsky
- The defendant (Ms. Smith) has had several documented breaches of the contract they agreed upon to stay away from each other.
- It has never been reported before but these documents show that the accused student also filed a restraining order.
- Text convo on page 121/122: The victim texting a friend (possibly the exculpatory evidence left out of the hearings?) where the victim states, "he will take care of everythinghe would do everything in his power to convict him bcuz he is on my side." Quite obviously the "he" taking care of everything is Coture, and the "him" being convicted is the defendant.
- Plaintiff "Doe" (the accused student) has requested a whole new investigative process citing clear bias of former dean Coture. Furthermore Paoli points out that title 9 states the accused is given the right of an investigative process that is impartial, which Coture was not.
- It appears a lot of the sealed documents on behalf of the accused student were provided to the Msla DA's office upon their own request and granted by the UM.
- Page 221 is Engstom's letter to the accused student he states the "Dear Colleuage" letter (preponderance of evidence) gives enough evidence to uphold the verdict. He additionally finds no procedural error and suggests the process was fair. (It would lead me to believe that Royce did not review statements such as the ones Paoli points out in the first 100 pages or esle I could not imagine how one would find this hearing fair).
- The UM has until July 13th to provide their reponse to the current appeal, Paoli and his defendent then have until the 24th of July for their portion.
- Page 230, Commissioner Christian will review both sides and make a decision of what to do. This letter is blurry on the line but I think I read it is July 9 that all info must be recieved and then a ruling will be made within 3 weeks.
- There was a June 22nd hearing to discuss if the "case is now moot and should be dismissed" or "unsealed" either totally or partially. It seems all that was sent in was a status report from both sides with arguments over editing original copies and what was permissable.
The accused student texts the alleged victim, she picks him up to watch a movie at her place, in her room.
- They had been to multiple dances together, have been on at least 1 date, and had kissed before.
- Roomates were there playing video games.
- Kissed on her bed with shirts off.
- Accused student presses the issue, alleged victim says, "No, not tonight." Report states that she says this many times. Pressed onto the bed, tries to push him back with her legs.
- Afterwards accused student gets a towel to clean up, alleged victim texts roomates, "I think I was raped". She then drives him somewhere. Later she picks up a friend from the bar who notices her crying, she tells him she thinks she was raped.
- Next day she goes to SARC and gets counciling, red marks on her chest, evidence of vaginal intercourse.
- Lots of redaction after this, looks like a suggestion that the offical filing of a claim takes place a few weeks later though.
-------
Of this as you read it straight forward it's open and shut. However the claims that her information changed by the defense and then a refusal by Coture to admit it (even though also being told by her) is where it gets odd. As earlier suggested, if this case is so open and shut why was Coture so obviously biased and apparently immediately "out to get" this accused student? The victim in the revealed text even shows that Coture has promised to fight for her - a clear title 9 violation stating the investigation must be without bias
That won't sell books. Saying someone is expelled and then not expelling him for some nefarious football reasons makes a book.BWahlberg wrote:Agreed with both Brad and Allcat - probably a summary of stories and info or just fishing for ideas.
However I think he'd have a very interesting book if it contained:
1. The ramp-up of Grizzly football internal culture over the last 2 decades
2. The program and it's issues pre-Plugrad/O'Day firing
3. The events around the firing and rape accusations against Johnson and Donaldson
4. The results of Donaldson's case
5. The Johnson Trial and eventual not guilty verdict
6. Insight from all parties that would talk or from unsealed documents
7. The post-JJ trial/NCAA penalty culture at the UM
But good luck getting all to participate in that endeavor.
Article but not a book. Outside of Montana who cares.[cat_bracket] wrote:One thing that has probably caught Krakauer's eye is the people (state of Montana) who assigned the prosecutor to the case are the same people who appear to have overruled Johnson's expulsion. Then that prosecutor turned out to be a um football season ticket holder. I've heard a lot of people say the prosecution avoided pounding home some of the key evidence in the case.
There's also the juror's (Donna M. Aucutt) post verdict comment that left you thinking he may be not guilty in a criminal trial, but probably guilty in a civil trial.
Now mix in all the other goings on at um and you've got yourself a potential book.
The story was making the national news, so I'd think a book on that topic might have legs. People love books that uncover corruption, especially when its done in the name of sports or politics. It could be framed as even more "shocking" given that it is set in Montana (as opposed to say, Alabama), where most people wouldn't assume college sports would be a big enough deal to drive such a result.allcat wrote:Article but not a book. Outside of Montana who cares.[cat_bracket] wrote:One thing that has probably caught Krakauer's eye is the people (state of Montana) who assigned the prosecutor to the case are the same people who appear to have overruled Johnson's expulsion. Then that prosecutor turned out to be a um football season ticket holder. I've heard a lot of people say the prosecution avoided pounding home some of the key evidence in the case.
There's also the juror's (Donna M. Aucutt) post verdict comment that left you thinking he may be not guilty in a criminal trial, but probably guilty in a civil trial.
Now mix in all the other goings on at um and you've got yourself a potential book.
[cat_bracket] wrote:One thing that has probably caught Krakauer's eye is the people (state of Montana) who assigned the prosecutor to the case are the same people who appear to have overruled Johnson's expulsion. Then that prosecutor turned out to be a um football season ticket holder. I've heard a lot of people say the prosecution avoided pounding home some of the key evidence in the case.
There's also the juror's (Donna M. Aucutt) post verdict comment that left you thinking he may be not guilty in a criminal trial, but probably guilty in a civil trial.
Now mix in all the other goings on at um and you've got yourself a potential book.