Stanford Sued After Following Another Student Suicide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.



She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

She was given multiple opportunities to be heard and to present her defense. She was given contact info. for assistance as well. Instead she chose suicide. This appears to be a person with serious psychological issues.

She gave her defense in the fall! Her statement itself sums up the dynamic of both the coffee incident and how she as a woman is being treated on this thread. God forbid a woman stand up for herself or others with any sort of assertiveness. The University had months to send the 2/25 email. I’d love to have a word with the administrator who hustled it out at the last minute to cover themselves under pressure from who knows who. Football coach? Another administrator who had dropped the ball? Someone who knew that the original assault had been overlooked and said something so the administration had to take decisive action of some kind?

You and the rest of the posters obsessed with saying she put herself in this situation are the ones with psychological issues.

It is clear that she initiated the chain of events which resulted in the disciplinary action. Her actions are not excused just because she is a female. Please stop trying to make this out to be about one's birth sex. It is not. It is about actions and consequences. What would you write if the situation involved a male football player accidently spilling coffee on a female soccer player who had been rumored to have given unwanted affection to another male football player ?

No, this was started by the adult male athlete who sexually assaulted a minor and it was fueled by a University administration that did not take action against him!

[Anonymous]

I just read the actual complaint. There’s a lot going on there.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23320591-meyer-v-stanford-complaint?responsive=1&title=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

First, she did get a presumption of innocence and the opportunity to submit her side of the story, an opportunity she apparently took. After reviewing the evidence, the decision makers, which I assume was a committee, found evidence sufficient to justify disciplining her, but still gave her another opportunity to present evidence before making that decision final.

There is no way this is about spilled coffee, come on. You can’t seriously believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see the Stanford incel population has found this thread. Sad.

To be fair, I doubt it’s just Stanford Incels. This is the type of thing Incels live for. Now the world has less smart, hard working talented woman who would consider associating herself with them. This “female” would have gone on to be far better than they could hope to be. All the Incels hate women like her, regardless of their college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.



She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

She was given multiple opportunities to be heard and to present her defense. She was given contact info. for assistance as well. Instead she chose suicide. This appears to be a person with serious psychological issues.

She gave her defense in the fall! Her statement itself sums up the dynamic of both the coffee incident and how she as a woman is being treated on this thread. God forbid a woman stand up for herself or others with any sort of assertiveness. The University had months to send the 2/25 email. I’d love to have a word with the administrator who hustled it out at the last minute to cover themselves under pressure from who knows who. Football coach? Another administrator who had dropped the ball? Someone who knew that the original assault had been overlooked and said something so the administration had to take decisive action of some kind?

You and the rest of the posters obsessed with saying she put herself in this situation are the ones with psychological issues.

It is clear that she initiated the chain of events which resulted in the disciplinary action. Her actions are not excused just because she is a female. Please stop trying to make this out to be about one's birth sex. It is not. It is about actions and consequences. What would you write if the situation involved a male football player accidently spilling coffee on a female soccer player who had been rumored to have given unwanted affection to another male football player ?

No, this was started by the adult male athlete who sexually assaulted a minor and it was fueled by a University administration that did not take action against him!

And now you have revealed the source of your anger. You want to act as judge, jury, and prosecutor over a matter about which you know nothing. Might well have been the reason that the female soccer player spilled coffee on the male football player.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

She was given multiple opportunities to be heard and to present her defense. She was given contact info. for assistance as well. Instead she chose suicide. This appears to be a person with serious psychological issues.

You know none of this for fact. Wow. Do you always walk around living in an imaginary reality?

Read the citation in the initial post.

I read everything. You are making stuff up wholesale. Probably an angry incel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see the Stanford incel population has found this thread. Sad.

To be fair, I doubt it’s just Stanford Incels. This is the type of thing Incels live for. Now the world has less smart, hard working talented woman who would consider associating herself with them. This “female” would have gone on to be far better than they could hope to be. All the Incels hate women like her, regardless of their college.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the actual complaint. There’s a lot going on there.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23320591-meyer-v-stanford-complaint?responsive=1&title=0

So apparently a bunch of female administrators are behind this effort to let the football player run wild and unfairly prosecute the female soccer star?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

First, she did get a presumption of innocence and the opportunity to submit her side of the story, an opportunity she apparently took. After reviewing the evidence, the decision makers, which I assume was a committee, found evidence sufficient to justify disciplining her, but still gave her another opportunity to present evidence before making that decision final.

There is no way this is about spilled coffee, come on. You can’t seriously believe that.

You’re right. It’s ridiculous to withhold a diploma over spilled coffee. And yet— that was Stanford's rationale for threatening to withhold her diploma. That’s just a fact.

What does the land of alternative fact think this is about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just read the actual complaint. There’s a lot going on there.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23320591-meyer-v-stanford-complaint?responsive=1&title=0

I don’t understand 187 onwards. Was the football player given guidance to have all of these supporting comments and documents from his family and team? How did he know to do this and Katie Meyer did not? It feels as if he successfully coached through the process and Katie Meyer was left out to dry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

See. That’s clever because you didn’t lie, exactly. But, here is what you aren’t saying. Standford didn’t act for 5 months and 27 days. She was asked to provide exculpatory evidence on 2/25 (ie, to prove a negative). She was charged three days later, on 2/28. THREE DAYS to prove that spilling coffee while riding a bike was accidental, not intentional. As if that’s even possible to do. And yes, Stanford had to charge her three days later because they didn’t ask her for the “exculpatory” evidence at any point in the first 5 months, 27 days. She went months without hearing anything and thought the matter was settled.

She first became aware she needed to gather documentation, get a lawyer, go through all the information and documents, prepare a response on 2/25. She was expected to do this while maintaining a full class load, playing soccer, and serving as an RA. How do they expect a college kid to full that off? A Court would give a defendant at least 30 days to respond (maybe 45 or 60) unless it was a true emergency. (Stanford not bothering to act for almost 6 months is not an emergency). No one can argue in good faith that she got due process.

Stanford played the nastiest sort of legal gotcha with their own student— one with no prior disciplinary record an exemplary academic record— an was chosen for a prestigious award— given by Stanford— between August, when the event occurred, and February, when suddenly they are threatening to withhold their diploma— over spilling coffee.

Quit gaslighting and consider that maybe this makes Stanford look terrible because Stanford’s actions were, in fact, objectively awful.

Whatever she may have done, we can all agree it was not accidental. She deliberately did something to the football player which she may have believed was justified by his actions, but there is no real argument here what she did was accidental.

I like the “guilty until proven innocent” vibe you have going on. Have you ever worked for Stanford?

She alleges it was an accident. I agree that’s an incredible coincidence, if true. But, under the presumption of innocence you would expect us to give the football player in the sexual assault, and MAGA gave Kyle Rittenhouse, and the right gave Beer Bong Brett— no, we can’t all agree, because she says she was innocent and she gets the presumption of innocence.


But, let’s go with “probablies”— probably intentional and probably not scalding and the football player wasn’t disfigured (coffee in a dining hall vat isn’t usually scalding, she felt safe biking with and time had passed while she paid for it, got to her bike, started across campus). Do you think withholding a degree when she has completed 90% of the work is a proportional sanction?

First, she did get a presumption of innocence and the opportunity to submit her side of the story, an opportunity she apparently took. After reviewing the evidence, the decision makers, which I assume was a committee, found evidence sufficient to justify disciplining her, but still gave her another opportunity to present evidence before making that decision final.

There is no way this is about spilled coffee, come on. You can’t seriously believe that.

You’re right. It’s ridiculous to withhold a diploma over spilled coffee. And yet— that was Stanford's rationale for threatening to withhold her diploma. That’s just a fact.

What does the land of alternative fact think this is about?

I read the complaint. It sounds like she poured hot coffee on him, but I can’t tell for sure since none of the disciplinary proceeding documents provided to Katie or submitted by her are attached to the complaint, or even excerpted.

[Anonymous]

https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I read the article cited in the original post in this thread. If I understand correctly, the female student was given notice in February to submit any exculpatory evidence. She ignored the notice and never responded. Stanford University officials waited as long as they could for her response, but ultimately had to proceed six months later due to an approaching statute of limitations.

The student who wanted to be admitted to Stanford's law school seems to have no respect for rules--or she thought that she was above the rules.

Even with just one side of the story, I cannot imagine how Stanford University is in any way liable for the student's suicide.

You need to improve your imagination.

There is no evidence that Katie read the email that Stanford sent. She was notified by email after working hours less than five hours before the university statute of limitations expired - while alone in her dorm room - that the school was proceeding with charges. There are very clearly procedural issues at a minimum with how this was handled. I am assuming that you are a parent if you are on this board - would you want your kid to be in the position that Katie Meyer was?

So your position is that Stanford decided to unfairly prosecute a disciplinary action against a star athlete for shits and giggles? Do you not realize how that makes no sense?

According to the complaint, the male victim did not accuse her. So why was a proceeding started? My guess is he sought medical attention because he was burned with a scalding liquid and the health center reported it. I think it more likely she deliberately poured a hot coffee causing injury than there was a coffee spill that was found sufficient to justify punishing her.

And I think the Stanford football player didn’t complain because he knew her response would be to accuse him of sexually assaulting her team mate, who was a minor. And he had his reputation and future to think about. So instead of complaining and having his name associated with a sexual assault, he griped to the coach and/or athletic boosters, who acted on his behalf, so his ability to play football in the fall was not jeopardized and he got to keep his reputation intact.

I think it’s telling that the minor reported the sexual assault and Stanford didn’t act. And the football player did not report the coffee incident and Stanford responded with a punishment appropriate for a rapist or murderer.

I think that a womens soccer player at Stanford may be an impressive athlete and Katie was probably a much better athlete, scholar and human being than the football player. But the “star athletes” are the members of the mens football and basketball program. And I think they have more clout because these are revenue sports with wealthy and powerful boosters.

I know she spilled the coffee while riding her bike. And I also think that no matter how impressive an athlete she was, she wasn’t biking with “scalding” coffee.

Does any of that seem possible to you?

The complaint against Katie was initiated by Lisa Caldera, Dean of Residential life, not the football player, coach or a football booster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

I read this as Stanford attempting to intimidate the family.

FWIW I live near Stanford and the general feeling around here is that is what Stanford has done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://news.stanford.edu/2022/11/25/information-lawsuit-family-katie-meyer/

Stanford's response.

Once the family learns the evidence against their daughter, this matter may come to a swift resolution.

Everyone regards this as an unnecessary tragedy.

I read this as Stanford attempting to intimidate the family.

FWIW I live near Stanford and the general feeling around here is that is what Stanford has done.

I did not view Stanford's response as an attempt to intimidate. Seems more like an explanation.

Regardless of what you, I , or anyone else "thinks", the family has access to counsel and the court system.