DMR -"Lawyer: University should have acted sooner on Marcus Coker"
- Thread starter storminspank
- Start date
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
This is nothing more than a publicity grab for Conlin.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
not that I'm aware of.
storminspank
Justin VanLaere
Not yet.
homes
Well-Known Member
What if the girl let the JCA know within days she didn't want to prosecute the claim, the University was made aware of that and other problems the JCA would have with the case, and the University's investigation revealed no wrongdoing - I think that could have a large role in the decision to not suspend him at that time. She knows no more about the facts and timing of this than any of us I suspect, so difficult for her to support her charge that the school should have acted sooner. Plus, although it's fair to assume this, there hasn't been any acknowledgement that the suspension is connected to this investigation. There were/are lives and reputations to protect on all sides of this, no need for hastiness. Inquiring minds would like to know the details, but very unlikely we ever will.
Last edited:
NeilDiamond
Well-Known Member
As a lawyer, I can tell you one thing plaintiff's lawyers love to do: Talk about what should have happened--with the benefit of hindsight! Its a no lose situation and very easy to do. You sound brilliant up there on your white horse!
I am just as frustrated as anyone when this type of news is made, whether true or not. However, this woman just wants to get her name in the paper and like the rest of us, does not have a clue what the situation is. My guess is that this suspension is not related to the October incident. If it is, then the University is being run by morons. If just the report results in suspension (I don't know the policy on when they are to take effect), then it should have taken effect immediately.
I am just as frustrated as anyone when this type of news is made, whether true or not. However, this woman just wants to get her name in the paper and like the rest of us, does not have a clue what the situation is. My guess is that this suspension is not related to the October incident. If it is, then the University is being run by morons. If just the report results in suspension (I don't know the policy on when they are to take effect), then it should have taken effect immediately.
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
Roxanne Conlin = Iowa's Gloria Allred, without the looks
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
defendants were not found 'not guilty'. it never went to trial. that doesn't mean nothing illegal or unseemly happened that the U is privileged to know about. just means the alleged didn't want to go thru a circus for no gain.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
Without charges being filed by both the "victim" or the county prosecutor what reason did the university have to suspend Coker? I know in the court of public opinion anymore most people are assumed guilty until proven innocent however in the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty. He may have been in the midst of being investigated but without charges I don't see any reason to sit him.
This.
You can be suspended by the university for doing things that are not "illegal" per se. For example if you can legally drink beer you can still be suspended from residence halls for drinking beer there because it is against U of I policy.
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
yep. and you can be found 'not guilty' criminally and found 'guilty' civilly.
This is a stupid comment from Conlin, especially coming from an attorney. I don't think people should get in the habit of kicking people out of universities, or firing them, etc. as soon as an allegation of misconduct arises. People should not be punished before there is a fair investigation into in allegation. I'm sure she wouldn't be an advocate of having lawyers be disbarred as soon as an allegation is leveled against them.
Hawkfromnorwalk
Well-Known Member
I understand this, the whole OJ thing and whatnot. My point is, at no point was he officially charged with anything therefore up front there is no reason to suspend him on that. Now, I understand the university has it's own codes to follow however during the time of investigation does the university have any reason to suspend him? My guess is no and that's the reason he was on the team until a few days before the team left to Phoenix. The university must have found enough during their investigation to suspend him and once they came to that conclusion they sat him.
SteveGarvey
Well-Known Member
That is really frightening.
