The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
Former Stanford commit's family sues Post to keep report on alleged rape case secret
Former Stanford commit's family sues Post to keep report on alleged rape case secret
03-25-2020, 12:08 PM
(03-25-2020, 11:29 AM)Canalejas Wrote: https://padailypost.com/2020/03/11/stanf...se-secret/
This is not good "on the merits."
And I don't even see what the purported winning legal strategy is here.
Wouldn't shock me if this kid does not end up on The Farm. Shaw must be thrilled with this development . . . NOT!
(03-25-2020, 11:29 AM)Canalejas Wrote: https://padailypost.com/2020/03/11/stanf...se-secret/
This is not good "on the merits."
And I don't even see what the purported winning legal strategy is here.
Wouldn't shock me if this kid does not end up on The Farm. Shaw must be thrilled with this development . . . NOT!
03-25-2020, 04:34 PM
Not a good look at all if he was in the room. Also, one might wonder whether the recruiting staff really performed due diligence required of a scholarship offer...(are background checks de rigeur?)
03-26-2020, 05:16 PM
Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
03-26-2020, 06:54 PM
(03-26-2020, 05:16 PM)M T Wrote: Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
From the article:
Hruska also supplied the Post with a letter from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office stating that “… Ayden Hector was a witness in a sexual assault investigation in 2018.” The letter goes on to state that “no charges were filed” in the matter. In her email, Hruska wrote that “despite Ayden’s clear status as a witness, he has been the subject of gossip and harassment over the last two years.”
How do you get from "no charges were filed" to "presuming" multiple crimes occurred?
I wholly agree this does not look good for Stanford [or, of course, for Mr. Hector], in part because people are naturally inclined to make "presumptions."
(03-26-2020, 05:16 PM)M T Wrote: Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
From the article:
Hruska also supplied the Post with a letter from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s office stating that “… Ayden Hector was a witness in a sexual assault investigation in 2018.” The letter goes on to state that “no charges were filed” in the matter. In her email, Hruska wrote that “despite Ayden’s clear status as a witness, he has been the subject of gossip and harassment over the last two years.”
How do you get from "no charges were filed" to "presuming" multiple crimes occurred?
I wholly agree this does not look good for Stanford [or, of course, for Mr. Hector], in part because people are naturally inclined to make "presumptions."
(03-26-2020, 05:16 PM)M T Wrote: Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
i agree. imo filming and distributing the video seem the actions of an accomplice rather than a "witness." kind of like calling the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery a witness. i don't think it flies.
i can see suing to prevent release of names of minors. i can't see how naming an accomplice, while suing on his behalf to prevent release of the details, can possibly help his reputation. seems like bad legal advice to me, but perhaps the attorneys here can opine.
maybe the issue is that the teenager who named ayden hector as one of 2 boys distributing the videos only heard about him second-hand from friends. thus hearsay. but why conceal the details if they clear hector? it's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
i would guess that stanford will require exculpatory details. recall that stanford law school professor michele dauber got judge persky recalled for sentencing brock turner to "only" 6 months. unless this situation is resolved with more detail rather than less, i suspect she won't go easy on david shaw.
that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.
(03-26-2020, 05:16 PM)M T Wrote: Wouldn't the filming of the incident be a crime, assuming it shows minors involved in sex acts?
Wouldn't distributing the video be a further crime?
I also presume whomever did the distribution, did so without permission of those portrayed, which I'd guess is yet another crime.
Not as bad as rape, but something that might not be acceptable to Stanford.
That said, it is a shame that young people (the accused, here) can ruin their lives so easily with bad judgement.
i agree. imo filming and distributing the video seem the actions of an accomplice rather than a "witness." kind of like calling the driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery a witness. i don't think it flies.
i can see suing to prevent release of names of minors. i can't see how naming an accomplice, while suing on his behalf to prevent release of the details, can possibly help his reputation. seems like bad legal advice to me, but perhaps the attorneys here can opine.
maybe the issue is that the teenager who named ayden hector as one of 2 boys distributing the videos only heard about him second-hand from friends. thus hearsay. but why conceal the details if they clear hector? it's closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
i would guess that stanford will require exculpatory details. recall that stanford law school professor michele dauber got judge persky recalled for sentencing brock turner to "only" 6 months. unless this situation is resolved with more detail rather than less, i suspect she won't go easy on david shaw.
that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.
03-27-2020, 02:58 PM
(03-26-2020, 07:33 PM)jonnyss Wrote: that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.
to a gang bang . . . that someone was filming. Somehow that doesn't sound too "best case."
I do agree about one thing: the best case is if coaches knew about this and relayed to Admissions, and they all were collectively satisfied with green-lighting the kid. That would provide some assurances, anyway.
(03-26-2020, 07:33 PM)jonnyss Wrote: that's assuming stanford doesn't have the details. best case: they have the details and are satisfied he's truly only a witness.
to a gang bang . . . that someone was filming. Somehow that doesn't sound too "best case."
I do agree about one thing: the best case is if coaches knew about this and relayed to Admissions, and they all were collectively satisfied with green-lighting the kid. That would provide some assurances, anyway.
04-14-2020, 02:42 PM
The Fountain Hopper is reporting that Stanford has rescinded the admission offer to Ayden Hector.
Quote:In response to an inquiry concerning the status of Hector's admission to Stanford, Stanford Athletics representative Brian Risso sent the following message:
"Under university policy, Stanford may rescind the admission of an applicant based upon a review of additional information. The university has taken that step with regard to an incoming undergraduate for fall 2020 who was scheduled to be a football student-athlete."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
The Fountain Hopper is reporting that Stanford has rescinded the admission offer to Ayden Hector.
Quote:In response to an inquiry concerning the status of Hector's admission to Stanford, Stanford Athletics representative Brian Risso sent the following message:
"Under university policy, Stanford may rescind the admission of an applicant based upon a review of additional information. The university has taken that step with regard to an incoming undergraduate for fall 2020 who was scheduled to be a football student-athlete."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
04-14-2020, 07:14 PM
Speculation is that the unnamed student is Ayden Hector, who was invovled in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl. If true, I for one am glad he's not coming to Stanford.
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
Speculation is that the unnamed student is Ayden Hector, who was invovled in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl. If true, I for one am glad he's not coming to Stanford.
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
04-14-2020, 07:28 PM
(04-14-2020, 07:14 PM)winflop Wrote: Speculation is that the unnamed student is Ayden Hector, who was invovled in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl. If true, I for one am glad he's not coming to Stanford.Tweet has been deleted. You say "was involved in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl." Has he plead guilty or been convicted of something? If so, I am surprised Stanford would admit someone with a record like that. Otherwise, I wonder why we are stating it like we know it's absolutely true.
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
(04-14-2020, 07:14 PM)winflop Wrote: Speculation is that the unnamed student is Ayden Hector, who was invovled in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl. If true, I for one am glad he's not coming to Stanford.Tweet has been deleted. You say "was involved in the gang sexual assault of an 8th grade girl." Has he plead guilty or been convicted of something? If so, I am surprised Stanford would admit someone with a record like that. Otherwise, I wonder why we are stating it like we know it's absolutely true.
https://twitter.com/StanfordSports/statu...2700489728
04-14-2020, 07:36 PM
Hector has been Denied admission per Stanford today
Juvenile records aren’t public.
Juvenile records aren’t public.
(04-14-2020, 03:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The original article link now produces a 404. (h/t slide).
BC
archived version here (at least now)
https://archive.li/S3v2d
(04-14-2020, 02:57 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: His football roster page on gostanford.com is gone.
the archived page is here (for now)
https://web.archive.org/web/202004080701...ctor/16926
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(04-14-2020, 03:17 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The original article link now produces a 404. (h/t slide).
BC
archived version here (at least now)
https://archive.li/S3v2d
(04-14-2020, 02:57 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote: His football roster page on gostanford.com is gone.
the archived page is here (for now)
https://web.archive.org/web/202004080701...ctor/16926
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
04-14-2020, 09:20 PM
2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Hector's admission was rescinded; I believe he had been accepted, but offers of admission are revocable.
It is obviously very difficult to know exactly what happened, all the more so because virtually any reference to the event is being scrubbed from the internet. From what I recall of the original Palo Alto Daily article, the family was pursuing legal action to keep things out of the papers. It is not clear if the records request was fulfilled despite there being a gag order in place or was fulfilled before the gag order went into effect. I can't help but wonder if it was leaked "accidentally" (and by "accidentally", I mean "on purpose") by a Sheriff's department that was frustrated that the matter was not or could not be pursued further and felt justice wasn't being done to the victim. (end idle speculation on my part)
But the whole thing brings up issues of justice and fairness and privacy that I can't even begin to work through. I can only hope that the alleged victim, whoever she is, is ok.
BC
Hector's admission was rescinded; I believe he had been accepted, but offers of admission are revocable.
It is obviously very difficult to know exactly what happened, all the more so because virtually any reference to the event is being scrubbed from the internet. From what I recall of the original Palo Alto Daily article, the family was pursuing legal action to keep things out of the papers. It is not clear if the records request was fulfilled despite there being a gag order in place or was fulfilled before the gag order went into effect. I can't help but wonder if it was leaked "accidentally" (and by "accidentally", I mean "on purpose") by a Sheriff's department that was frustrated that the matter was not or could not be pursued further and felt justice wasn't being done to the victim. (end idle speculation on my part)
But the whole thing brings up issues of justice and fairness and privacy that I can't even begin to work through. I can only hope that the alleged victim, whoever she is, is ok.
BC
2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Hector's admission was rescinded; I believe he had been accepted, but offers of admission are revocable.
It is obviously very difficult to know exactly what happened, all the more so because virtually any reference to the event is being scrubbed from the internet. From what I recall of the original Palo Alto Daily article, the family was pursuing legal action to keep things out of the papers. It is not clear if the records request was fulfilled despite there being a gag order in place or was fulfilled before the gag order went into effect. I can't help but wonder if it was leaked "accidentally" (and by "accidentally", I mean "on purpose") by a Sheriff's department that was frustrated that the matter was not or could not be pursued further and felt justice wasn't being done to the victim. (end idle speculation on my part)
But the whole thing brings up issues of justice and fairness and privacy that I can't even begin to work through. I can only hope that the alleged victim, whoever she is, is ok.
BC
Hector's admission was rescinded; I believe he had been accepted, but offers of admission are revocable.
It is obviously very difficult to know exactly what happened, all the more so because virtually any reference to the event is being scrubbed from the internet. From what I recall of the original Palo Alto Daily article, the family was pursuing legal action to keep things out of the papers. It is not clear if the records request was fulfilled despite there being a gag order in place or was fulfilled before the gag order went into effect. I can't help but wonder if it was leaked "accidentally" (and by "accidentally", I mean "on purpose") by a Sheriff's department that was frustrated that the matter was not or could not be pursued further and felt justice wasn't being done to the victim. (end idle speculation on my part)
But the whole thing brings up issues of justice and fairness and privacy that I can't even begin to work through. I can only hope that the alleged victim, whoever she is, is ok.
BC
04-14-2020, 09:44 PM
(04-14-2020, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Maybe I misread winflop's post, but I read the "if true" modifier as applying to the claim that a Stanford applicant's admission had been rescinded and that the applicant in question was this kid. I guess in all the COVID-19 craziness, I missed when the initial thread was posted, so I didn't realize there was some substantiated basis to think this had happened. In general, I'm increasingly wary these days of assuming guilty until proven innocent on the basis of a single tweet, news story, etc. But this does indeed sound a lot more complicated.
(04-14-2020, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Maybe I misread winflop's post, but I read the "if true" modifier as applying to the claim that a Stanford applicant's admission had been rescinded and that the applicant in question was this kid. I guess in all the COVID-19 craziness, I missed when the initial thread was posted, so I didn't realize there was some substantiated basis to think this had happened. In general, I'm increasingly wary these days of assuming guilty until proven innocent on the basis of a single tweet, news story, etc. But this does indeed sound a lot more complicated.
04-15-2020, 06:48 AM
It sucks to lose Hector as a football player and I get the "everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance" takes.
But the fact is many boys could have done what Hector apparently did and they didn't do it. Why should he get given an opportunity those who didn't don't have? it is nice to see there are some institutions that won't compromise their values.
Fully expect Hector to end up at USC, where they have no values to compromise.
But the fact is many boys could have done what Hector apparently did and they didn't do it. Why should he get given an opportunity those who didn't don't have? it is nice to see there are some institutions that won't compromise their values.
Fully expect Hector to end up at USC, where they have no values to compromise.
It sucks to lose Hector as a football player and I get the "everyone makes mistakes and deserves a second chance" takes.
But the fact is many boys could have done what Hector apparently did and they didn't do it. Why should he get given an opportunity those who didn't don't have? it is nice to see there are some institutions that won't compromise their values.
Fully expect Hector to end up at USC, where they have no values to compromise.
But the fact is many boys could have done what Hector apparently did and they didn't do it. Why should he get given an opportunity those who didn't don't have? it is nice to see there are some institutions that won't compromise their values.
Fully expect Hector to end up at USC, where they have no values to compromise.
04-15-2020, 07:25 AM
(04-14-2020, 09:44 PM)2006alum Wrote:(04-14-2020, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Maybe I misread winflop's post, but I read the "if true" modifier as applying to the claim that a Stanford applicant's admission had been rescinded and that the applicant in question was this kid. I guess in all the COVID-19 craziness, I missed when the initial thread was posted, so I didn't realize there was some substantiated basis to think this had happened. In general, I'm increasingly wary these days of assuming guilty until proven innocent on the basis of a single tweet, news story, etc. But this does indeed sound a lot more complicated.
I might be wrong, but I think that the incident dates from 2018 and that there have been a few emails since then about this issue.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(04-14-2020, 09:44 PM)2006alum Wrote:(04-14-2020, 09:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote: 2006alum, the operative words in winflop's tweet were "if true". Sure, he should have said "was alleged to have been involved".
Maybe I misread winflop's post, but I read the "if true" modifier as applying to the claim that a Stanford applicant's admission had been rescinded and that the applicant in question was this kid. I guess in all the COVID-19 craziness, I missed when the initial thread was posted, so I didn't realize there was some substantiated basis to think this had happened. In general, I'm increasingly wary these days of assuming guilty until proven innocent on the basis of a single tweet, news story, etc. But this does indeed sound a lot more complicated.
I might be wrong, but I think that the incident dates from 2018 and that there have been a few emails since then about this issue.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
04-15-2020, 07:39 AM
there are 2 issues that might affect admissions: what he did and withholding what he did from admissions.
i don't know for sure, but the recent lawsuit to prevent release of police information on the case seems in-your-face to admissions. what appears to be a stance of i don't have to tell you what happened could in itself nix admissions.
the situation it reminds me of is immigration. even before the current hard-line stance on immigration, admitting a minor arrest on the application might or might not jeopardize naturalization. omitting or lying about a minor arrest, if discovered, got you deported for a minimum of, i believe, 12 years.
i don't know for sure, but the recent lawsuit to prevent release of police information on the case seems in-your-face to admissions. what appears to be a stance of i don't have to tell you what happened could in itself nix admissions.
the situation it reminds me of is immigration. even before the current hard-line stance on immigration, admitting a minor arrest on the application might or might not jeopardize naturalization. omitting or lying about a minor arrest, if discovered, got you deported for a minimum of, i believe, 12 years.
there are 2 issues that might affect admissions: what he did and withholding what he did from admissions.
i don't know for sure, but the recent lawsuit to prevent release of police information on the case seems in-your-face to admissions. what appears to be a stance of i don't have to tell you what happened could in itself nix admissions.
the situation it reminds me of is immigration. even before the current hard-line stance on immigration, admitting a minor arrest on the application might or might not jeopardize naturalization. omitting or lying about a minor arrest, if discovered, got you deported for a minimum of, i believe, 12 years.
i don't know for sure, but the recent lawsuit to prevent release of police information on the case seems in-your-face to admissions. what appears to be a stance of i don't have to tell you what happened could in itself nix admissions.
the situation it reminds me of is immigration. even before the current hard-line stance on immigration, admitting a minor arrest on the application might or might not jeopardize naturalization. omitting or lying about a minor arrest, if discovered, got you deported for a minimum of, i believe, 12 years.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »