I started this out as a reply to dragon and Rubes discussion on the EOAA report in the Still thread, but thought it might be better served in its own thread. I recognize that there are some questions the other way, but don't feel that the below questions that are raised have been given enough thought by many since the negative appearances of the conduct of the players and the "conclusions" of the EOAA have been the story, as opposed to the reliable evidence on the "consent" issue.
Actually, this is one of the reasons where I read the report (after reading the police investigators report) and thought there was a ton of bias in their interpretations. At every point, they said RS was more credible than what the players were saying. If I was doing a review of their findings, I would have these questions for them:
1) RS reported that the situation and actions were compelled from the start. She indicated that she was just going up to the apartment to look at the floor plan and was going to be right back (what she told her female friend).
*If that is the case, is there any significance to the fact that she told the police investigators that she sat down between Djam and the recruit and was "flirting" with them?
* Is there any significance to the fact that one of her female friends asked if she was ok, and she said she was fine and wanted to go with the two to the apartment?
* Is there any significance to the fact that another female friend reported RS was flirting with the two guys and assumed something "sexual" was going on when she left up to the apartment based upon what she observed between the players and RS?
* Is there any significance to telling her female friend she was going to be back "within an hour" per the police report v. being right back later?
* Did it appear to the EOAA that the initial circumstances of going up to the apartment may have been for potential (consensual) sexual activity (as the other neutral witnesses assumed) as opposed to looking at the floor plan as RS suggested?
2) RS claimed the sexual activity between her and Djam and recruit was compelled and not voluntary. If that reported version is true:
* Do you (EOAA) come to a different conclusion from reviewing the first video tape than the trained sexual assault investigators that said RS appeared "lucid, alert, somewhat playful, and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time"?
*If you come to a different conclusion, what is the basis for the same?
*When you report that RS states "Noooooo" in your report when the recruit reaches toward her, you omit the police reports interpretation of that "Noooooo" which qualified it by saying it sounded sarcastic which has an entirely different feel to the evidence. Do you acknowledge that omitting the sarcastic tone is misleading?
* Is there anything in that video clip that corroborates RS's version of coercion at that time, or does it in fact tend to contradict RS's version at that point?
*Is there any significance to RS reporting to police investigators that the sexual contact with Djam and recruit may have been consensual, and now that position has changed by RS?
3) What is the significance or impact of the victim not agreeing to Release the 2nd video clip to your investigation?
*Does that create any pause as to the credibility of RS's version of the events at that time when she was sexually involved with Djam and recruit?
*What reasonable reason could she give that would make sense not to authorize that disclosure as otherwise we are left with trying to investigate two different versions with no solid evidence, correct?
*Even with the police report summary of the video tape in hand, is there any significance to the fact that RS appears casual, random, laughing, and discussing how to do it as a threesome?
*Do you disagree with the trained sexual assault investigators interpretation that RS "does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity" and is "certainly conscious and aware of what is going on"? If you disagree, what do you base that upon?
*Do you disagree with the trained sexual assault investigators conclusion from the videotape that the "sexual contact appears entirely consensual"?
*If you do disagree, is there any reliable evidence to support that disagreement?
4) Couple other random questions or concerns for the EOAA:
*What investigation was done into the players/suspects drinking levels at the time and whether that impacted their decision making and or memories or was was level of drinking only significant only to RS?
*Was any significance placed on the fact that after this traumatic night and after RS escapes the sight of the trauma, she receives a text from Djam and voluntarily returns to the bedroom! the place where she just experienced the trauma, and with someone that assaulted her?
*Are those actions consistent with someone that finally was able to get out of her nightmare/
*What do you make of RS's texting Merrick the next day asking what he heard about the events, and when Merrick indicates it was a freshmen and not a big deal, she clarifies it was her and not a freshmen? Why is she turning to one of the football players to discuss and highlight what happened?
*Did you give any weight to the fact that RS pleaded the 5th re: some of the questioning at the TRO hearing? Why do you think she did that, and what does that mean to the rest of her testimony and reports?
*Did the rape kit results provide any corroborating evidence of forceful and non-consensual sexual activity?
And finally, but of significant importance to me:
*After the previous year's investigation into alleged sexual harassment by the football team members by your chairperson and the resulting push back from the football team and staff, do you believe you are able to perform an unbiased investigation in this case?
There are more questions, but those would be my focus. Length of post is for Wren (hope he reads).
Actually, this is one of the reasons where I read the report (after reading the police investigators report) and thought there was a ton of bias in their interpretations. At every point, they said RS was more credible than what the players were saying. If I was doing a review of their findings, I would have these questions for them:
1) RS reported that the situation and actions were compelled from the start. She indicated that she was just going up to the apartment to look at the floor plan and was going to be right back (what she told her female friend).
*If that is the case, is there any significance to the fact that she told the police investigators that she sat down between Djam and the recruit and was "flirting" with them?
* Is there any significance to the fact that one of her female friends asked if she was ok, and she said she was fine and wanted to go with the two to the apartment?
* Is there any significance to the fact that another female friend reported RS was flirting with the two guys and assumed something "sexual" was going on when she left up to the apartment based upon what she observed between the players and RS?
* Is there any significance to telling her female friend she was going to be back "within an hour" per the police report v. being right back later?
* Did it appear to the EOAA that the initial circumstances of going up to the apartment may have been for potential (consensual) sexual activity (as the other neutral witnesses assumed) as opposed to looking at the floor plan as RS suggested?
2) RS claimed the sexual activity between her and Djam and recruit was compelled and not voluntary. If that reported version is true:
* Do you (EOAA) come to a different conclusion from reviewing the first video tape than the trained sexual assault investigators that said RS appeared "lucid, alert, somewhat playful, and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time"?
*If you come to a different conclusion, what is the basis for the same?
*When you report that RS states "Noooooo" in your report when the recruit reaches toward her, you omit the police reports interpretation of that "Noooooo" which qualified it by saying it sounded sarcastic which has an entirely different feel to the evidence. Do you acknowledge that omitting the sarcastic tone is misleading?
* Is there anything in that video clip that corroborates RS's version of coercion at that time, or does it in fact tend to contradict RS's version at that point?
*Is there any significance to RS reporting to police investigators that the sexual contact with Djam and recruit may have been consensual, and now that position has changed by RS?
3) What is the significance or impact of the victim not agreeing to Release the 2nd video clip to your investigation?
*Does that create any pause as to the credibility of RS's version of the events at that time when she was sexually involved with Djam and recruit?
*What reasonable reason could she give that would make sense not to authorize that disclosure as otherwise we are left with trying to investigate two different versions with no solid evidence, correct?
*Even with the police report summary of the video tape in hand, is there any significance to the fact that RS appears casual, random, laughing, and discussing how to do it as a threesome?
*Do you disagree with the trained sexual assault investigators interpretation that RS "does not appear to be upset by the sexual activity" and is "certainly conscious and aware of what is going on"? If you disagree, what do you base that upon?
*Do you disagree with the trained sexual assault investigators conclusion from the videotape that the "sexual contact appears entirely consensual"?
*If you do disagree, is there any reliable evidence to support that disagreement?
4) Couple other random questions or concerns for the EOAA:
*What investigation was done into the players/suspects drinking levels at the time and whether that impacted their decision making and or memories or was was level of drinking only significant only to RS?
*Was any significance placed on the fact that after this traumatic night and after RS escapes the sight of the trauma, she receives a text from Djam and voluntarily returns to the bedroom! the place where she just experienced the trauma, and with someone that assaulted her?
*Are those actions consistent with someone that finally was able to get out of her nightmare/
*What do you make of RS's texting Merrick the next day asking what he heard about the events, and when Merrick indicates it was a freshmen and not a big deal, she clarifies it was her and not a freshmen? Why is she turning to one of the football players to discuss and highlight what happened?
*Did you give any weight to the fact that RS pleaded the 5th re: some of the questioning at the TRO hearing? Why do you think she did that, and what does that mean to the rest of her testimony and reports?
*Did the rape kit results provide any corroborating evidence of forceful and non-consensual sexual activity?
And finally, but of significant importance to me:
*After the previous year's investigation into alleged sexual harassment by the football team members by your chairperson and the resulting push back from the football team and staff, do you believe you are able to perform an unbiased investigation in this case?
There are more questions, but those would be my focus. Length of post is for Wren (hope he reads).
Last edited:
