AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
NEW: Regents Meeting, Benson Decision, Investigation Report -- Monday, 6/12
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
- Status
http://deadspin.com/michigan-state-fires-suspended-football-staffer-three-m-1795688665
Rape reported on Jan 17th
Staffer suspended on Feb 6th with pay
Staffer contract expired on March 31st
2 one month extensions given
Staffer officially let go
This is an interesting case to follow.
Rape reported on Jan 17th
Staffer suspended on Feb 6th with pay
Staffer contract expired on March 31st
2 one month extensions given
Staffer officially let go
This is an interesting case to follow.
Where's the SI expose?
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
The Michigan State football has been all over the news and plenty of negative press. The two are not related and of course we are going to take the CU handling differently and hear more about it than something in Michigan.
They probably haven't pissed off the victim as much as CU did yet.
This isn't going to go away.
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_31027785/accuser-claims-cu-tried-cover-up-domestic-violence
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_31027785/accuser-claims-cu-tried-cover-up-domestic-violence
So why didn't she report the abuse to police when it started happening? Since when did an employer become liable for the actions of an employee in their personal life?
You've given them a lot of rope already, you really need to give them several more months?
We shall see. $5,000 a day? How'd her attorney come up with that number? I've never understood the way Mac handled this as far as blocking her calls. My assumption is that he was being advised by an attorney. Maybe the school's attorney. I believe the woman's greed gene has kicked in. When an attorney tells you he can get you $3,000,000, well, most people would be influenced by that.
Hopefully, the facts of the case will rule the day. However that plays out.
fify.
While the process has been frustratingly slow, there are clear outcomes (a public report and voting on MacIntyre's extension) coming in essentially two weeks. A lawsuit playing out in public for several more months would be a special kind of stupid, no?
So, how do you settle the suit and not appear guilty?
Tumpkin ain't got no money. CU gots money.
Yes. There are two sides to the lawsuit and CU can only make it go away fast by sttling or getting it tossed. It isn't going to get tossed. I suppose it will have to be settle because any righteousness on CU's part has been long thrown out the window with the actions since it became public.
The accuser's attorney, peter ginsberg, was ray rice's attorney when he sued the nfl after the tmz video got him suspended by the nfl.
Because I'M A SMART SON-OF-A-BITCH!! I'd expect both would be named in a suit.
somebody
Well-Known Member
This is no longer about fault. It's about getting paid.
we have forty-billion lawyers on this site and this thread is now all about legal conclusions from the handful of non-lawyers.
we.still.don't.know.all.the.facts.
here's what we do know: regents kicked it back to benson. that tells me that there is not a majority willing to hang the program. the president will recommend better policies and procedures and that is a good thing, not a bad one. we also know that we cannot control whether or not the victim decides to sue, either CU or other parties. these are the basics.
conclusions (and this is speculation):
1. the mm contract will be approved. statements will be issued about better policies. an effort will be made to disconnect the contract from the events, which never should have been connected in the first place. those efforts will not be super-successful, but it won't change the result.
2. CU will not settle. creating some kind of a reporting requirement that attaches liability in a circumstance like this one seems like a pretty bad idea. the only way a settlement would work for CU is if they do a joint presser with the victim and say everyone wishes things had been done differently and that she supports the new policies but she knows ultimately that the individuals at CU didn't have intent to do wrong.
3. the press is going to do their thing. the way it becomes a subtext as opposed to a lead story is if we can continue to win.
call me cynical all you want.
we.still.don't.know.all.the.facts.
here's what we do know: regents kicked it back to benson. that tells me that there is not a majority willing to hang the program. the president will recommend better policies and procedures and that is a good thing, not a bad one. we also know that we cannot control whether or not the victim decides to sue, either CU or other parties. these are the basics.
conclusions (and this is speculation):
1. the mm contract will be approved. statements will be issued about better policies. an effort will be made to disconnect the contract from the events, which never should have been connected in the first place. those efforts will not be super-successful, but it won't change the result.
2. CU will not settle. creating some kind of a reporting requirement that attaches liability in a circumstance like this one seems like a pretty bad idea. the only way a settlement would work for CU is if they do a joint presser with the victim and say everyone wishes things had been done differently and that she supports the new policies but she knows ultimately that the individuals at CU didn't have intent to do wrong.
3. the press is going to do their thing. the way it becomes a subtext as opposed to a lead story is if we can continue to win.
call me cynical all you want.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
Okay, here goes nothing...
CU ****ed this up from Day 1 and it snowballed to this. So here's the breakdown since it is now out there and some will say oh this is ridiculous but oh well:
One of Mac's assistant deletes an email because she is worried the victim is going to bring up Joe's relationship with herself.
MacIntyre is made aware she has been trying to get ahold of him through his wife. He calls. She says what happened. Mac is shell shocked and advises her he needs to take it to his bosses and find out what to do.
He talks to her again the next day. Dec 10th. Assures her he believes her.
Mac, George tell idiot DiStefano. DiStefano tells them it's not University matter from what has been said. They for some reason contact Banashek. Banashek represents Tumpkin and the Athletic Department. First red flag.
Banashek spoke for not just Tumpkin but the Athletic Department. This was before anyone was aware she was going to the cops to file a report. In between that time, they tell Mac to block her calls and break off any interaction. Texts don't go through but VMs do. Likely alerts George and Banashek of said VM. Banashek calls her again?!
The investigator calls Banashek to get Tumpkin to interview. He is told no, he will not. Investigator asks if Banashek knows if MacIntyre is available or whom to call since he was not able to get ahold of him. Banashek tells him Mac will not be talking with you either.
RED FLAG. Again, Why the hell is he speaking for both the perpetrator and AD?
Mac names Tumpkin defensive play caller (de facto DC) for bowl game. Oops. Looks awful.
Restraining order filed week before bowl. Banashek is made aware but tells AD Joe is not available to sign until after bowl.
Gets back from bowl. Boulder Daily Camera digs up this information a week later. Suddenly CU is surprised.
OIEC is finally alerted and only because they read the article and they reach out to victim because uh oh that's a red flag for them. They were unaware of rest. Too little too late since it is a half hearted attempt.
Tumpkin gets fired when restraining order is made permanent by Joe's signature. Charges filed days later.
CU doesn't honor what she asked which was to get Tumpkin help. That help isn't promoting him. Keeping her in the loop, keep communicaton and providing compassion were left out.
The letters from chancellor, AD and Mac are not sent to her. No one from university has reached out other than to say are you okay and get a little info when OIEC called after article.
CU admits to mistakes in not reporting. The problem is what if she never reports anything to cops? What if she lets Mac know? This is never brought up. It is hidden and Tumpkin finds employment elsewhere or even worse is retained because it's just her word and she never filed a report.
This woman hired an attorney because no one kept her in the loop. That is on CU for lacking communication and compassion. That is on the Boulder/Broomfield DAs for having CU alums and that's on Banashek and his firm for trying to double dip and put CU in a ****ty spot. Now, I think $3 million is ridiculous and yes Joe Tumpkin has a lot of blame in this but we all know how lawsuits work. And she showed sympathy to Tumpkin throughout. She showed sympathy to Mac until she found out he blocked off communication. This is part of the reasoning for being disappointed with Mac. God, family and football in that order. Well, friends are family and this woman confided in him.
I believe CU should cover her lawyer costs and yes, take one on the chin and pay her for not being transparent. Talk to the non message board diehard and just casual CU fan or impartial not a fan of any program and the issues this woman brings up are the questions they bring up.
CU has done no help to themselves by not making a more quick judgement. This gets done before graduation and she gets some answers and maybe this doesn't blow up. Her answers are still as cloudy as they are for us.
And you have 6 months to file a civil suit after alerting someone of an issue. That was this month. So this is not a surprise.
It sucks because I am tired of seeing CU deal with this sort of bad publicity but CU could have not messed it up throughout.
As I have said, DiStefano needs fired and CU needs to be more clear, compassionate and communicate better. This has become an unnecessary mess. And please let your university attorneys be used instead of a defense law firm.
CU ****ed this up from Day 1 and it snowballed to this. So here's the breakdown since it is now out there and some will say oh this is ridiculous but oh well:
One of Mac's assistant deletes an email because she is worried the victim is going to bring up Joe's relationship with herself.
MacIntyre is made aware she has been trying to get ahold of him through his wife. He calls. She says what happened. Mac is shell shocked and advises her he needs to take it to his bosses and find out what to do.
He talks to her again the next day. Dec 10th. Assures her he believes her.
Mac, George tell idiot DiStefano. DiStefano tells them it's not University matter from what has been said. They for some reason contact Banashek. Banashek represents Tumpkin and the Athletic Department. First red flag.
Banashek spoke for not just Tumpkin but the Athletic Department. This was before anyone was aware she was going to the cops to file a report. In between that time, they tell Mac to block her calls and break off any interaction. Texts don't go through but VMs do. Likely alerts George and Banashek of said VM. Banashek calls her again?!
The investigator calls Banashek to get Tumpkin to interview. He is told no, he will not. Investigator asks if Banashek knows if MacIntyre is available or whom to call since he was not able to get ahold of him. Banashek tells him Mac will not be talking with you either.
RED FLAG. Again, Why the hell is he speaking for both the perpetrator and AD?
Mac names Tumpkin defensive play caller (de facto DC) for bowl game. Oops. Looks awful.
Restraining order filed week before bowl. Banashek is made aware but tells AD Joe is not available to sign until after bowl.
Gets back from bowl. Boulder Daily Camera digs up this information a week later. Suddenly CU is surprised.
OIEC is finally alerted and only because they read the article and they reach out to victim because uh oh that's a red flag for them. They were unaware of rest. Too little too late since it is a half hearted attempt.
Tumpkin gets fired when restraining order is made permanent by Joe's signature. Charges filed days later.
CU doesn't honor what she asked which was to get Tumpkin help. That help isn't promoting him. Keeping her in the loop, keep communicaton and providing compassion were left out.
The letters from chancellor, AD and Mac are not sent to her. No one from university has reached out other than to say are you okay and get a little info when OIEC called after article.
CU admits to mistakes in not reporting. The problem is what if she never reports anything to cops? What if she lets Mac know? This is never brought up. It is hidden and Tumpkin finds employment elsewhere or even worse is retained because it's just her word and she never filed a report.
This woman hired an attorney because no one kept her in the loop. That is on CU for lacking communication and compassion. That is on the Boulder/Broomfield DAs for having CU alums and that's on Banashek and his firm for trying to double dip and put CU in a ****ty spot. Now, I think $3 million is ridiculous and yes Joe Tumpkin has a lot of blame in this but we all know how lawsuits work. And she showed sympathy to Tumpkin throughout. She showed sympathy to Mac until she found out he blocked off communication. This is part of the reasoning for being disappointed with Mac. God, family and football in that order. Well, friends are family and this woman confided in him.
I believe CU should cover her lawyer costs and yes, take one on the chin and pay her for not being transparent. Talk to the non message board diehard and just casual CU fan or impartial not a fan of any program and the issues this woman brings up are the questions they bring up.
CU has done no help to themselves by not making a more quick judgement. This gets done before graduation and she gets some answers and maybe this doesn't blow up. Her answers are still as cloudy as they are for us.
And you have 6 months to file a civil suit after alerting someone of an issue. That was this month. So this is not a surprise.
It sucks because I am tired of seeing CU deal with this sort of bad publicity but CU could have not messed it up throughout.
As I have said, DiStefano needs fired and CU needs to be more clear, compassionate and communicate better. This has become an unnecessary mess. And please let your university attorneys be used instead of a defense law firm.
Highly paid ambulance chaser. I'd expect he contacted her.
So, here is kind of an interesting thing to me. We were all pissed at the investigation. Now that investigation could provide CU's defense. OTOH, If it found wrong doing then it would definitely not be made public but if Benson punishes anyone based on its findings, that could certainly give her attorney some ammo.
Edit: Oops. Didn't see Mr. Liver's post.
Last edited:
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
The fault lies with Tumpkin, his actions are why this is such a mess. Now, she IS the victim but her trying to lay the blame on CU is bull**** and you know this.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
Nope.
trubuff1
New Member
So let me get this straight...she's suing CU $5,000 per day from the day Tumpkin was hired rather than the first day she called Mac? As if CU was responsible for something they knew nothing about? This also coming from a woman who repeatedly stated previously it wasn't about money. SMH.
So how was Mac supposed to know all of these details of abuse and these locations where abuse took place if he had blocked her calls? Sounds like he reported what he knew immediately but somehow these allegations twist it as a cover up. Has anyone else noticed the inconsistencies in her stories? In her affidavit to the Police she never mentioned stitches, neck injuries etc. Unfortunately anyone can go to the media with any allegation and it can be written as truth. I'm pretty sure there's much more to the other side of this story.
So how was Mac supposed to know all of these details of abuse and these locations where abuse took place if he had blocked her calls? Sounds like he reported what he knew immediately but somehow these allegations twist it as a cover up. Has anyone else noticed the inconsistencies in her stories? In her affidavit to the Police she never mentioned stitches, neck injuries etc. Unfortunately anyone can go to the media with any allegation and it can be written as truth. I'm pretty sure there's much more to the other side of this story.
Now this is a reasonable response to the situation.
- Status