I am Daniel Winstead, and for the past month I have been working directly with both Webster Cook and Benjamin Collard, the two individuals involved in the “CrackerGate Scandal”. Through the entire process, I have been slowly unraveling the pieces of evidence utilised against him, and have drawn several conclusions that my colleague and friend, Max Jackson, would unfortunately not be privy to.

What I am going to say is unbiased by my involvement, but it is rather an observation of what has happened. I will present several statements, and I will allow all readers to make their own conclusion. I will present my own conclusion at the end for consideration. I apologise now for the length of this comment.

It became known, through some friends in the Student Government Association (SGA) that there were hearings occurring prior to the actual hearing. We looked through the Impeachment Statutes and found there is no provision explicitly stated, or implied, that allows for these meetings to take place. The times and locations were not published, and the reasoning for this was that there was no active business taking place; no vote, no reason to post.

At these meetings, three people were present as ”interviewers”, and the individual interviewed (with the exception of two cases) were also present, according to the transcripts. We know this is false, already, due to a written statement acquired by an individual documenting the case which states he was present at the interview of Ben Collard, and that he has video-evidence of such. Therefore, the transcripts are already fraudulent. Further adding to their fraudulent status is that these were transcribed incorrectly, with words omitted or changed, as proven by the audio recordings.

It is further odd that in two cases, the individual being interviewed was not present; it occurred over phone conference. In most of the interviews, they were asked speculative questions concerning Webster’s presence at the Mass; furthermore, religious beliefs were cited as truths.

Thus, these fraudulent pieces of evidence were submitted to the general Senate less than 24 hours prior to the hearing (with the exception of one, which was submitted less than one hour prior to the hearing). They were told to read through them and then to formulate questions based off of the documentation, and then they would be able to cross examine all of those who gave statements except for one, who was not present.

They still allowed for his testimony to be submitted as fact, and they said that they “would have to take it with a grain of salt”. Webster asked them about these hearings, and they said that the faculty member over them and the Attorney general (who has been against this matter from the beginning) stated that it was all right, and that it was based off of precedent. They also okayed for the testimony to be admissible without the witness present.

Those two things alone; an interview that is not provided for (they said they made up their own rules for it) and submitting testimony without right of cross-examination: both are grounds for mis-trial. Submitting fraudulent transcripts as evidence is grounds for acquittal.

They also refused testimony from Cook and Collard’s Student Conduct hearings, testimony from the same witnesses that shows a different story. In essence, their stories changed between the two, creating a contradiction. Unfortunately, the testimony from the Student Conduct hearings was considered “not germane” and was not allowed to be submitted, even though student rights violations were cited as possible crimes in the original affidavit.

The Senate based their vote on a concept of illegality; that Webster Cook broke a law and needed to be punished. However, there has been no “real court case” concerning this matter; they overstepped their boundaries and somewhat based his impeachment on a crime he has not been accused of.

Also, when asked where the Witnesses were procured from, the response was that they e-mailed Campus Catholic Ministries, who then provided them with a list. At no point was Webster Cook or Benjamin Collard approached and asked about their own witnesses.

Thus, let us review the facts. They created their own hearings, provided fraudulent transcripts, denied cross examination to Webster on at least seven counts, did not allow for him to defend himself and denounce the charges, did not allow for pertinent evidence to be submitted, did not provide for Webster to provide witnesses in his defense.

Webster proved that the individuals at CCM had touched him, and the witnesses attested to that. He also proved that none of them thought he was acting on behalf of SGA at the time. Yet, he was still found guilty of misrepresenting SGA.

My conclusion is simple: there are political motivations at hand which, unfortunately, made SGA come to this decision. When provided with all of the evidence against him, only one thing stands true: he did enter the Mass, and he did leave with the Eucharist. The witnesses all agree that they can not remember the exact events, except that they found it disturbing and confusing. When provided with evidence that the testimonies provided are fraudulent, and that there are individuals who are lying to them, not one word was mentioned. It was voted on with precision and calculation.

This matter will be appealed (if applicable), and it would not surprise me if certain happenings were brought into what I call “real people court”. Webster may have lost his position, but other individuals stand to lose more; their future as lawyers could be at stake if word of their fraudulence gets out. Either way, it is safe for me to say that this is not over yet.

Thanks Max for writing this article, and sorry I was unavailable for comment earlier. (Got to love being sick.) I will yield to any pertinent questions that anyone has. I thank you for reading.

-dw