Posted on 04/04/2015 11:46:27 AM PDT by rickyrikardo
The ‘dismissal’ was apparently a technicality in the court, easy enough to happen. He was not “acquitted.”
He was, nonetheless, found “responsible” for the sexual assault by the school’s investigative committee. The committee is not in a position to convict.
It seems you are trying to create a scenario whereby this poor fellow was falsely maligned, similar to the Rolling Stone story that they have just retracted. The situations are not similar. In this case there was an attempted official criminal prosecution that failed, and an actual investigation and finding by the University, not merely false allegations. Or is that difference lost on you?
What was the technicality? Or are you making that up?
And I caught you upgrading your claim from “could have” been a technicality to “it was apparently a technicality”. As you feel less confident about your accusation, you invent facts a la Jackie.
“The judge concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that the defendant knew that I was incapacitated and that he was acting against my will. “
THAT, FRiend, is a technicality.
Go ask a lawyer. I’m quite through here..
Lack of evidence is not a technicality. That’s why it took you this long to tell us what the “technicakity” was. Not submitting paperwork on time is a technicality. You have failed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.