Bubu Palo's Trial Moved to January

**LostinIowaCity** · 12-12-2012, 11:25 AM

As someone who lives in Iowa City, let me tell you that I've watched a university screw up a sexual harassment or sexual assault case (multiple times). Iowa State and CFH have handled this as well as you can so far.

**chuckd4735** · 12-12-2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley

They did find physical evidence in DNA. Something happened, and the courts will decide.

Originally Posted by Angie

I thought there was DNA?

Originally Posted by LostinIowaCity

There is DNA evidence against Palo. The question will be whether it was consensual or not. Allegedly there had been a prior sexual relationship.

Can someone let me know if Bubu can redshirt this year? Just not sure how it works since he was a walk-on.

DNA just proves that sex took place, it does not prove rape. From all indications, Bubu is not fighting that sex took place.

**Wesley** · 12-12-2012, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

DNA just proves that sex took place, it does not prove rape. From all indications, Bubu is not fighting that sex took place.

Yep, but that consent remains a major question. If there was a plea bargain to be had, it would probably have happened. The court will decide if this was consensual.

**nallen34** · 12-12-2012, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by LostinIowaCity

Can someone let me know if Bubu can redshirt this year? Just not sure how it works since he was a walk-on.

If innocent I imagine he could file for another red shirt and be a 6th year senior. He won't though IMO because we recruited Clay Custer to take Bubus scholarship starting in the 2014-15 season. We also won't need him for the 2014-15 season IMO because we will have Jones, Naz, Monte, and Custer. No need for 5 pgs on the roster. Granted some of them are combo guards but still.

**CyFanInChiLand** · 12-12-2012, 11:50 AM

Casey Anthony and OJ were found innocent. They've had no sort of negative stigma attached to them since they are 'innocent', right? Being found guilty or not, fans/announcers/etc will still reference him missing this season due to the fact that he was being tried for sexual assault. Heck, I believe even all those Iowa boys (Pierre Pierce, his 1st time, and the football players) were convicted of something other than sexual assault. Doesn't stop us from calling them what we do!

**Gnomeborg** · 12-12-2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by erikbj

not that i completely agree with the original post, but there must be some evidence against him if its going to trial. if there was no evidence, they would not be taking this to court. i would say this is more than accusations, the girl accussed him and the D.A. thought there was enough evidence to find him guilty (now its Bubu's attorney's job to prove the evidence wrong).

even if he is found not guilty, i would be suprised if he stays at ISU (his choice more than CFH).

Normally I wouldn't get this nit-picky, but it actually brings to light a key issue in this thread. The bolded section is completely false. It is still the job of the DA to prove him guilty, not Bubu's job to prove himself innocent.

We work in a system that is supposed to afford a defendant the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Let's, you know, assume him innocent until he is, you know, proven guilty.

**Angie** · 12-12-2012, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

DNA just proves that sex took place, it does not prove rape. From all indications, Bubu is not fighting that sex took place.

I don't think anyone's saying that, it was just a response to where you said it's just he said vs. she said currently.

**chuckd4735** · 12-12-2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Angie

I don't think anyone's saying that, it was just a response to where you said it's just he said vs. she said currently.

Thats exactly what it is. He said it was consensual, she said it was not.

**Angie** · 12-12-2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

Thats exactly what it is. He said it was consensual, she said it was not.

I'm not arguing with you here. You didn't know why we all mentioned that there was DNA evidence. Here was your original post:

Originally Posted by chuckd4735

I'm willing to bet that the only evidence against Bubu is the accusers word. That is the case in most rape trials.

While the DNA evidence does not prove or refute consent, it is evidence. None of us were playing semantics, I believe your intent didn't come all of the way through in your original post (which is why several of us misunderstood it and mentioned the DNA).

**Rabbuk** · 12-12-2012, 12:19 PM

Does evidence of forced insertion constitute dna evidence or would they call that something else?

**Angie** · 12-12-2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Rabbuk

Does evidence of forced insertion constitute dna evidence or would they call that something else?

I think DNA evidence is anything that involves genetic markers (most likely seminal fluids here, or possibly a hair or something). I think bruising or other signs of forced insertion would be more circumstantial (especially if this is the only evidence, lacking DNA evidence), since they could be from a number of things.

**Rabbuk** · 12-12-2012, 12:29 PM

Well ya but would they say that they have dna evidence and evidence of trauma before a trial. Or would they save it for actual argumentation.

**alarson** · 12-12-2012, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Angie

I thought there was DNA?

Which isnt really evidence 'against' bubu, if both sides agree\admit that sex took place.

So unless there's something else, he could be right that there's no evidence against Bubu other than the accuser, but we wont know that for sure until the trial.

**Angie** · 12-12-2012, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Rabbuk

Well ya but would they say that they have dna evidence and evidence of trauma before a trial. Or would they save it for actual argumentation.

I have no official legal training or anything like that, this is what I've understood from reading up on legal cases, but I think the "discovery" phase is pre-trial. It is strongly encouraged that everything be submitted into evidence before the trial begins, thus giving the other side time to examine the evidence and circumstances around it.

**chuckd4735** · 12-12-2012, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Angie

I'm not arguing with you here. You didn't know why we all mentioned that there was DNA evidence. Here was your original post:

While the DNA evidence does not prove or refute consent, it is evidence. None of us were playing semantics, I believe your intent didn't come all of the way through in your original post (which is why several of us misunderstood it and mentioned the DNA).

I guess I could of worded it better, but I didn't mean what I said to say it is the "only" evidence, I meant it was the only evidence that would be used against Bubu, and would be the key argumentative point of the trial. I would venture to guess the DNA wont be much of a talking point in the trial.