Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be pretty easy to refute the promotion angle of this legally, it is just bad optics.
1) It was a gain of responsibility, not in pay. When you lose an assistant coach, and another one is out the door, everyone gains responsibility on the defensive staff. Tumpkin was already involved in the game planning and half time adjustments so the additional responsibility of calling plays is just as comparable as Clark picking up coaching the entire secondary instead of just corners.
2) Like it or not, situations like this take time and institutions can't make quick decisions like this without going through the appropriate steps.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Did Tumpkin abuse her after she reported it to Mac? If not I don't see how she has damages against CU.
Click to expand...

I think the SI article said the last time they saw each other was the weekend of the Wazzou game. Her lawyer is claiming people at CU knew this was going on long before she reported to MM. I sincerely hope that isn't true.
 
Last edited:
onealcd said:
It would be pretty easy to refute the promotion angle of this legally, it is just bad optics.
1) It was a gain of responsibility, not in pay. When you lose an assistant coach, and another one is out the door, everyone gains responsibility on the defensive staff. Tumpkin was already involved in the game planning and half time adjustments so the additional responsibility of calling plays is just as comparable as Clark picking up coaching the entire secondary instead of just corners.
2) Like it or not, situations like this take time and institutions can't make quick decisions like this without going through the appropriate steps.
Click to expand...

Another angle here: Let's say JT isn't given play calling duties or is just fired after the victim reported to MM. Then the temp restraining order isn't made a permanent one, and charges are never filed against JT. I have no legal background sure, but I would think JT would have a case against CU at that point. Tough spot for all involved, excluding JT.
 
Was CU obligated to contact the authorities on behalf of the victim? Because that seems to be what the lawsuit would imply.
 
Buffnik said:
By its own policies? Possibly. By law? No. Failure to report a crime is not a crime.
Click to expand...

I guess we will find out in a couple of weeks whether any policies were actually violated. Just trying to wrap my head around what kind of legal case this lawyer seems to think they have.
 
TSchekler said:
Even at the request of the victim not to get the authorities involved...
Click to expand...

JT's neighbor did call the cops once after hearing him beat her, and she told the cops everything was ok and they were just having rough sex. Who is to say if CU did report JT that she wouldn't have tried to protect him again?
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
I guess we will find out in a couple of weeks whether any policies were actually violated. Just trying to wrap my head around what kind of legal case this lawyer seems to think they have.
Click to expand...

It is well-established that DiStephano did not properly report the issue.
 
Scotch said:
JT's neighbor did call the cops once after hearing him beat her, and she told the cops everything was ok and they were just having rough sex. Who is to say if CU did report JT that she wouldn't have tried to protect him again?
Click to expand...
Seeing as how she told MM not to call the police and that she didn't want this to affect JT's job status (iirc?), I would say that's a high likelihood.
 
TSchekler said:
Seeing as how she told MM not to call the police and that she didn't want this to affect JT's job status (iirc?), I would say that's a high likelihood.
Click to expand...

Could be. I'm not speculating one way or the other, just another thing to add to the pile.
 
Duff Man said:
It is well-established that DiStephano did not properly report the issue.
Click to expand...

Not by my understanding of the policy. The way I understand it, is that CU is required to report incidents where the victim is a student, an employee, or the incident occurs on campus. Neither of these criteria were met by this incident. Now DiStephano has stated that he should have consulted the OIEC about the issue regardless of what the letter of the rule says and that he made a mistake by not doing so.

Also my understanding is that this is part of the policy that is to be clarified by the regents and president Benson at the upcoming BoR meeting.
 
Scotch said:
Could be. I'm not speculating one way or the other, just another thing to add to the pile.
Click to expand...
This whole situation sucks and I think we're all on team "**** Joe Tumpkin", but it sucks that there was really no way to know that JT was that type of person when the hire was made, as I'm sure MM did/does his homework on the personal backgrounds of all Assistants.
 
Settle for 500K. Make this go away.

Do so before Benson makes decision and/or report leaks.
 
I think there is going to be some clear blame toward DiStephano.

Not an easy situation by any stretch. In retrospect, it was a blessing Tumpkin and the defense were obliterated in the bowl game.
 
Buffnik said:
By its own policies? Possibly. By law? No. Failure to report a crime is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Some interesting stuff here: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

Under Texas law, for example, you can be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for failing to report an offense that resulted in serious bodily injury or death. In Ohio, on the other hand, it's illegal to knowingly fail to report a felony.

No examples of Colorado having reporting laws on the books like Texas and Ohio.

Accessory After the Fact


While merely failing to report a crime is one thing, helping to conceal a crime is another. A person can generally be charged with accessory after the fact, or aiding and abetting, if he or she wasn't actually present during the commission of a crime, but took actions to conceal the crime or help the perpetrators avoid capture.

For example, hiding a weapon that was used in a robbery will probably make you an accessory after the fact under the laws of most states, even if you took no part in the actual robbery. Depending on the severity of the underlying crime, aiding and abetting can be either a misdemeanor or a felony in most states.

Two things here:
1) If MacIntyre's assistant really did delete an email to him from the victim to conceal Tumpkin's crimes then that assistant might be in some legal trouble.
2) Apparently Nebraska doesn't have these laws. They give out awards for hiding guns used to commit crimes in a coaches filing cabinet.

The information in the link talks about mandatory reporting laws when it comes to child abuse. No indication that abusing women has an equivalent reporting requirement.
 
TSchekler said:
This whole situation sucks and I think we're all on team "**** Joe Tumpkin", but it sucks that there was really no way to know that JT was that type of person when the hire was made, as I'm sure MM did/does his homework on the personal backgrounds of all Assistants.
Click to expand...

Somewhere behind the veil of attorney client privilege is a 97-page document from Cozen O'Connor that presumably sheds light on who knew what and when.
 
Clean Undies said:
Somewhere behind the veil of attorney client privilege is a 97-page document from Cozen O'Connor that presumably sheds light on who knew what and when.
Click to expand...
As it pertains to JT's time at CU, no? I'm just speaking to the idea that JT is a piece of ****, and I don't see MM hiring anybody to his staff that had a known history of violence.
 
TSchekler said:
As it pertains to JT's time at CU, no? I'm just speaking to the idea that JT is a piece of ****, and I don't see MM hiring anybody to his staff that had a known history of violence.
Click to expand...
He wasn't abusive until he moved to Colorado, he cheated on her and their relationship was strained though.
 
onealcd said:
He wasn't abusive until he moved to Colorado, he cheated on her and their relationship was strained though.
Click to expand...
Which was my original point. It sucks that MM and CU has to go through this ****show, ultimately because JT was a POS, and there was no way to really know that when hiring.
 
again, there are many pertinent facts that we do not know. the unknown facts could be material and could sway the opinions (and perhaps even liability concerns) in either direction.

what we know is that a thorough independent investigation has now been completed by a reputable firm. the regents and leadership have reviewed the resulting report. they have concluded that some processes need to be improved. the president has been tasked with issuing a plan to improve based upon the report.

conclusion: there is moral, political, ethical, and legal responsibility to consider in a matter like this one. all are reviewed through different lenses. i believe that CU is trying to do the "right" thing here, as best it can. i also believe that a lot of folks at CU wish they had handled some of this differently. whether somehow that all leads to some kind of culpability in a civil lawsuit is really impossible to know at this point with the limited facts we have.
 
Big Jim said:
Why? So we can see a whole bunch of new threads pop up in it's place? Why wouldn't you want to contain this in a singular thread?
Click to expand...
This is a tired ****ing topic that's been rehashed to death... I'm all for deleting those new threads that pop up as well
 
CB17Cubed said:
What I fail to understand is how the lawyer stated JT abused her on CU property, at CU sanctioned events, and verbally through phone provided by CU. That because of this, it's CU's fault. CU did not know for the two years until she called Mac in December. By that statement, if I ever get a DUI and kill someone in a company car, the victim's family should go after my company instead of me because it is my employer's fault for providing me with the car. This just seems like an attempt to make a quick buck that probably came to fruition when this lawyer realized he could make a whole lot of money.

Look I agree that CU mishandled this. But they should be accountable from the time of when it was first reported to the coaches till when JT was fired. That being said, CU could only do so much. I don't agree with dismissing JT before any charges are brought up because that can open another situation up. But I do think he should not have been put in charge of the defense for the bowl game. CU needs to change policies overall with handling or domestic violence and sexual violence against non-university personnel/students.
Click to expand...
Unless your company knew or should have known you have a drinking problem.
 
Liver said:
again, there are many pertinent facts that we do not know. the unknown facts could be material and could sway the opinions (and perhaps even liability concerns) in either direction.

what we know is that a thorough independent investigation has now been completed by a reputable firm. the regents and leadership have reviewed the resulting report. they have concluded that some processes need to be improved. the president has been tasked with issuing a plan to improve based upon the report.

conclusion: there is moral, political, ethical, and legal responsibility to consider in a matter like this one. all are reviewed through different lenses. i believe that CU is trying to do the "right" thing here, as best it can. i also believe that a lot of folks at CU wish they had handled some of this differently. whether somehow that all leads to some kind of culpability in a civil lawsuit is really impossible to know at this point with the limited facts we have.
Click to expand...

Former US Senator Ken Salazar has been brought in by the regents to advise how to proceed, too.

cowboy-ken-salazar.jpg


Cowboy Ken and his law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door will certainly help university leaders lead.

Sorry, Burrito. No word about hiring a bIg name PR firm, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top