That discretion allowed the school's investigator to ignore the existence of the text messages, even though they were mentioned during the hearing. In another court document, the case investigator, Allyson Kurker, acknowledges that she was only looking for evidence that corroborated the accuser's story. That's far from the "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation Amherst promises.
Kurker was asked if things an accuser says that indicate the encounter was consensual would be considered irrelevant if the accuser eventually changed her mind to claim the encounter was sexual assault. Kurker answered "yes," over the objections of attorneys. So, to Kurker, it's not relevant what an accuser initially believes about an encounter; all that matters is what they say once they claim it was sexual assault.
Kurker is also asked if she considered "it important to find out about any such communications or writings that mention the incident." She responded: "To the extent that the incident is being described as nonconsensual, yes."
So, the only evidence Kurker was interested in finding was evidence that supported the accuser's claim – and not the truth.
In a follow-up question, Kurker is asked if she was interested only in emails which claimed the sex was nonconsensual, to which Kurker replied: "Those are the only emails that I would have found material."
It's pretty clear that Amherst's "investigation" of the case was designed to ignore evidence that the sex was consensual. If this accused student doesn't find justice, there's little hope for any other falsely accused student.
The male student was expelled by a campus process where he lacked basic due process rights. After being expelled, he got a lawyer, who discovered text messages from the accuser immediately following the alleged attack. Needless to say, the texts do not support her story.
Her first text was to a boy she had a crush on and with whom she had been flirting earlier in the night. She invited him over for sex, right after she had allegedly just been sexually assaulted. She also texted a female friend, writing: "Ohmygod I jus did something so f--kig stupid" [sic throughout]. She then fretted over upsetting her roommate, because "it's pretty obvi I wasn't an innocent bystander."
The woman then complained to her friend about the second man she invited over waiting until 5 a.m. to have sex with her. This male friend would supply an affidavit for the accused student's lawsuit stating that when he went to the accuser's dorm, she was "friendly, flirtatious and spirited" and was in no way "anxious, stressed, depressed or otherwise in distress," as she would later claim during the campus hearing.
Armed with these revelations, the accused went back to the university to try to get his expulsion overturned, and the university declined, saying that he had missed his opportunity (during the appeal process, when he did not have a lawyer or any ability to discover the text messages) and therefore the school didn't need to consider the evidence.
In Amherst's response to the lawsuit, they went so far as to claim that the messages above and others didn't prove the accused student was innocent. The mental gymnastics the school had to perform to come up with that conclusion are Olympic-worthy.
But the story doesn't end there. Amherst, still trying to defend itself after mediation with the accused failed, provided a memorandum to the court, in which it explains that the school's investigator had "discretion in identifying relevant witnesses and documents" and that the school's policy did not "promise perfection."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...cases-is-expecting-perfection/article/2586636
Kurker was asked if things an accuser says that indicate the encounter was consensual would be considered irrelevant if the accuser eventually changed her mind to claim the encounter was sexual assault. Kurker answered "yes," over the objections of attorneys. So, to Kurker, it's not relevant what an accuser initially believes about an encounter; all that matters is what they say once they claim it was sexual assault.
Kurker is also asked if she considered "it important to find out about any such communications or writings that mention the incident." She responded: "To the extent that the incident is being described as nonconsensual, yes."
So, the only evidence Kurker was interested in finding was evidence that supported the accuser's claim – and not the truth.
In a follow-up question, Kurker is asked if she was interested only in emails which claimed the sex was nonconsensual, to which Kurker replied: "Those are the only emails that I would have found material."
It's pretty clear that Amherst's "investigation" of the case was designed to ignore evidence that the sex was consensual. If this accused student doesn't find justice, there's little hope for any other falsely accused student.
The male student was expelled by a campus process where he lacked basic due process rights. After being expelled, he got a lawyer, who discovered text messages from the accuser immediately following the alleged attack. Needless to say, the texts do not support her story.
Her first text was to a boy she had a crush on and with whom she had been flirting earlier in the night. She invited him over for sex, right after she had allegedly just been sexually assaulted. She also texted a female friend, writing: "Ohmygod I jus did something so f--kig stupid" [sic throughout]. She then fretted over upsetting her roommate, because "it's pretty obvi I wasn't an innocent bystander."
The woman then complained to her friend about the second man she invited over waiting until 5 a.m. to have sex with her. This male friend would supply an affidavit for the accused student's lawsuit stating that when he went to the accuser's dorm, she was "friendly, flirtatious and spirited" and was in no way "anxious, stressed, depressed or otherwise in distress," as she would later claim during the campus hearing.
Armed with these revelations, the accused went back to the university to try to get his expulsion overturned, and the university declined, saying that he had missed his opportunity (during the appeal process, when he did not have a lawyer or any ability to discover the text messages) and therefore the school didn't need to consider the evidence.
In Amherst's response to the lawsuit, they went so far as to claim that the messages above and others didn't prove the accused student was innocent. The mental gymnastics the school had to perform to come up with that conclusion are Olympic-worthy.
But the story doesn't end there. Amherst, still trying to defend itself after mediation with the accused failed, provided a memorandum to the court, in which it explains that the school's investigator had "discretion in identifying relevant witnesses and documents" and that the school's policy did not "promise perfection."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...cases-is-expecting-perfection/article/2586636
