cheeseheadgophfan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,107
- Reaction score
- 1,709
- Points
- 113
Let me start by saying I'm taking a lot of my information off of the internet and from Gopherhole, so that might be my first mistake. However, if what I have read is correct, the following aspects of this make NO sense:
1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.
2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.
3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......
4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non
1. IF the accuser plead the 5th at the ROR hearing, she clearly was concerned (along with her attorney) that the answers to questions asked of her could implicate her in a criminal charge. That means perjury or obstruction. That means that there are aspects of her SWORN statement which are not truthful (not just that she couldn't remember, or that she was mistaken) but she intentionally lied on her statement. That's a really big deal. In 10 years as a prosecutor, I don't believe I've ever seen that. This puts her credibility really in question.
2. IF (as I've read) part of the settlement of the ROR, both parties agreed to stay away from each other and the players agreed NOT to file civil lawsuits against the accuser, this is INCREDIBLY rare. There was obviously concern from the accuser (and her attorney) that there may be a basis for a civil suit. It was obviously her (and her attorney's) idea to place this in the settlement. Both of these things are admissible in a criminal trial as consciousness of guilt evidence and again, puts her credibility at issue.
3. It's my understanding that none of the players were even arrested. The burden of proof for arrest is probable cause. The prosecutor didn't even believe they could meet that low threshold. Between the statement of the victim and the SANE exam, this burden is really low. If she was forcibly part of a gang rape, the SANE exam would show evidence of this......
4. While this is not part of the legal system, to (allegedly) be suspending players for being at the residence is ridiculous. Djam's encounter was deemed consensual. Is this committee going to start investigating the consensual sex lives of non