Calm Posted May 25, 2018 Posted May 25, 2018 Thanks. I have big issues with privacy, so that makes sense to me. Depending on what the tape involved, I could see adapting the suspension to probation with community service due to her being on a student visa if it had a minor impact on people's privacy, but info is not available to make that kind of judgment.
provoman Posted May 25, 2018 Posted May 25, 2018 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Calm said: Thanks. I have big issues with privacy, so that makes sense to me. Depending on what the tape involved, I could see adapting the suspension to probation with community service due to her being on a student visa if it had a minor impact on people's privacy, but info is not available to make that kind of judgment. I am all for privacy too. However I DO NOT think an abuser has a privacy concern when the abuser commits the abuse in a public setting. As for the privacy of the victim, I can accept privacy regardless, however the video was given to the victims family. If the articles are accurate - abuser only suspended after the discovery that video was released, then Ines's suspension in my opinion is suspect that it was about a byuh survalence issue Edited May 25, 2018 by provoman
Kenngo1969 Posted May 25, 2018 Posted May 25, 2018 On 4/10/2018 at 4:30 PM, provoman said: Separately I wonder how Sam Young feels about this case. Sexual based questions asked to a minor leads to discovery of a crime. Right. We're absolutely certain, based on a few news stories that contain absolutely no details, what, specifically, was asked for and what was volunteered.
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, provoman said: I am all for privacy too. However I DO NOT think an abuser has a privacy concern when the abuser commits the abuse in a public setting. As for the privacy of the victim, I can accept privacy regardless, however the video was given to the victims family. If the articles are accurate - abuser only suspended after the discovery that video was released, then Ines's suspension in my opinion is suspect that it was about a byuh survalence issue If I understand the issue, they said she recorded surveillance footage of the attack...but how did she get it in the first place? She may have accessed other video segments while looking for the specific video. Did she have permission to access the recordings even if she didn't have the right to record them or was that also a violation? It may not necessarily be about what she took, but how she went about getting it which may be violating others besides the attacker's rights. The article says the Honolulu police were involved, but I got the first impression it was during the attack they were called when BYU security didn't show and not referring to a delay in charging the man. But now I am wondering. If the Honolulu police were called in for the attack, perhaps BYU was waiting on their findings/charges? If BYU was the only ones investigating and the recording of the footage is what was given to the HP, then it does seem off. 3 weeks seems long to act if the video was clear. We don't know if it was though, do we? If it shows the attack, but does not identify the attacker and it is only the victim who does that, there might be a problem there if he denied it. It might have taken time to track down any witnesses who might add support to the victim's claims. Neither the TV spot nor the article is well written. The article says "other woman" but that is apparently Inez. It might be more complicated than presented...or might not be. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm 1
provoman Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, Calm said: If I understand the issue, they said she recorded surveillance footage of the attack...but how did she get it in the first place? She may have accessed other video segments while looking for the specific video. Did she have permission to access the recordings even if she didn't have the right to record them or was that also a violation? It may not necessarily be about what she took, but how she went about getting it which may be violating others besides the attacker's rights. The article says the Honolulu police were involved, but I got the first impression it was during the attack they were called when BYU security didn't show and not referring to a delay in charging the man. But now I am wondering. If the Honolulu police were called in for the attack, perhaps BYU was waiting on their findings/charges? If BYU was the only ones investigating and the recording of the footage is what was given to the HP, then it does seem off. 3 weeks seems long to act if the video was clear. We don't know if it was though, do we? If it shows the attack, but does not identify the attacker and it is only the victim who does that, there might be a problem there if he denied it. It might have taken time to track down any witnesses who might add support to the victim's claims. Neither the TV spot nor the article is well written. The article says "other woman" but that is apparently Inez. It might be more complicated than presented...or might not be. My first introduction to the story was from a mischaracterization of the story by way of a reddit post that was created by reddit user johndelhin. I read what articles I could find and it wad not clear how she recorded the footage from the surveillance Accesing the BYUH rules/policies governing use of surveliance video requires a byuh login and password. Edited May 26, 2018 by provoman
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, provoman said: My first introduction to the story was from a mischaracterization of the story by way of a reddit post that was created by reddit user johndelhin. I read what articles I could find and it wad not clear how she recorded the footage from the surveillance Accesing the BYUH rules/policies governing use of surveliance video requires a byuh login and password. I doubt we will hear any more, sounds like the assault has been dealt with...with only a year suspension supposedly, which seems bizarre if it was as vicious as claimed, so either we haven't heard all the info or something went wrong. Hopefully the victim has cut her ties with her boyfriend where it appears she hadn't for a year previous to the recorded attack. If it does gain legs and the assault is as portrayed, then hopefully the admin will reconsider and boot him if they haven't actually already (the article is wonky enough I wouldn't rely on it for any details that aren't confirmed elsewhere). My opinion...anyone viciously assaulting another or engaging in long term abuse should be booted from BYUH and the Church. Above I was wondering about the attacker's identity, I had forgotten the article had stated it was an abusive boyfriend. Was there anything that said the date of the attack? BYU provo lists the police incidents. I am thinking byuH might do so as well. Found the date...April 10th. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) Crimelogs are here and from the google snapshot it looks recorded and the investigation may still be open. For some reason (old tech) my iPad is showing no text, so someone else needs to look for the entry: https://studentlife.byuh.edu/security/crimelogs This is what google shows: Quote INC-2018-04-31, Assault. April 10. 06:00. CAC, Active. L. Niumatalolo But what date this was scanned, .i don't know. Reading FB comments to the Laie Voice's article. Apparently the assaulted friend never reported it. It is possible when interviewed by BYU Sec she denied it happened as domestic violence victims often do. She may also have told her friend a different story to avoid getting pressured by her to report it. I have no clues on domestic violence charges. I assume the video if it shows the attacker as her boyfriend would make it possible to charge him without her testimony. ----A name for the boyfriend was posted. It may actually be a perfectly innocent guy who someone hates, so not posting the name...and who knows, maybe there are multiple students with that same name. Only reason mention it, is a week after the assault a BYU student with that name posted what appears to be a very happy picture with a girlfriend. It might be evidence why the story may be more complicated than it appears from the article. ----- From my reading, I am gathering the survelliance footage was in the office of the Fitness Center where Ines worked as an assistant coach iirc. Password was needed to access the footage, but it is possible it was a standard one for using the office computer at all. So likely not breaking and entering kind of stuff, but using a computer she had access to in order to access records she likely did not have official access to, but they were not well protected. Or it is possible office staff has access to the security cam screens in order to supervise the area and it was purely the recording and release of the footage where she violated school rules...and possibly the law as well depending on what laws, if any, apply. Edited May 26, 2018 by Calm
Kenngo1969 Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 22 hours ago, provoman said: I am all for privacy too. However I DO NOT think an abuser has a privacy concern when the abuser commits the abuse in a public setting. ...' Probably not, but that doesn't give any third party the right to (1) steal the surveillance footage at issue in the BYU-H case; and (2) then provide the stolen surveillance footage to whomever she chooses. Doing so may well jeopardize any criminal case that might be built around such footage. At a minimum, depending on what third parties choose to do with the footage provided them, it could taint a jury pool and thereby complicate obtaining convictions for any crimes charged.
Calm Posted May 26, 2018 Posted May 26, 2018 (edited) This is apparently from a friend of the couple involved. She reported as well the attacker/boyfriend was expelled from Hawaii 4 weeks ago (three weeks before she posted a week ago). That makes the date of his going home around April 27 or 17 days after the April 10th attack. This does not add up with the claim of a delay of BYU Hawaii for three weeks. Quote Wish I could add details and all, but it's their private life, it's just so sad that these two were in love and neither wanted to be suspended. Both wanted to work things out, both wanted to get counselling. It's just so sad that it became public. Now it's displayed for all to see. Feel so bad for both families for the parents. With time I hope these kids will heal and be successful in their lives. We all deserve a second chance. It has her name attached to it, so not linking. A response from another poster disputing BYUH acted inappropriatel or at least inconsistently with the local police. Quote I just got the exact same response when I called the police after I saw an assault on a minor at Kahuku Park. The victim had to come in and make a report. They didn’t want any information from me, they actually sounded annoyed over the phone. Btw, she used her phone to record the footage in case that wasn't clear. Not saying people lied, just the facts aren't clear. Edited May 27, 2018 by Calm
bsjkki Posted May 27, 2018 Posted May 27, 2018 Link to Laei voice Facebook. Long interview with Inez. https://m.facebook.com/LaieVoice/#!/story.php?story_fbid=2125137644386558&id=1382867328613597 The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. She was an honors student, basketball coach, worked for the fitness center, not trained on camera policies and was trying to save her friend. Why do they not just warn her? My question is...the victim seems to have been suspended too. Thanks BYU for understanding abuse victims. This story makes me mad. 😡 I had an abuse victim explain BYU and their policies this way...BYU doesn’t work for those who are already damaged because when they make mistakes because of past abuse...they compound the ‘worthless’ feelings imbedded in their souls. Did the victim break the honor code? Was it because she was beaten and assaulted by her abuser if she didn’t? Did BYU get this student counseling or help?
provoman Posted May 29, 2018 Posted May 29, 2018 On 5/26/2018 at 4:05 PM, Kenngo1969 said: Probably not, but that doesn't give any third party the right to (1) steal the surveillance footage at issue in the BYU-H case; and (2) then provide the stolen surveillance footage to whomever she chooses. Doing so may well jeopardize any criminal case that might be built around such footage. At a minimum, depending on what third parties choose to do with the footage provided them, it could taint a jury pool and thereby complicate obtaining convictions for any crimes charged. Well I suppose "steal" could be used regarding the footage. I would say misappropriate not for personal benefit.
Recommended Posts