Super Bowl QB accused of sexual asault

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Let's see, she doesn't file a criminal complaint at all, it takes her forever to file a civil suit, then blames everyone who said it didn't happen for covering it up.

Yeah, I can't imagine why she didn't file a criminal complaint, when this was the response she got from her employers when she reported it:

Quote :

She said the security chief, Guy Hyder, told her she was "over reacting," that "most girls would feel lucky to get to have sex with someone like Ben Roethlisberger" and that "Koster would love you even more if he knew about this."

Quote :

Because really, it probably didn't happen, these people would be telling the truth, so naturally she'd have to say they're covering it up, because ONE party here has to be lying.

But hey, MAYBE there's real evidence that Big Ben raped her. Not just evidence that she WAS in his room, evidence that he actually raped her. But until I've heard it, he's innocent, and I'm skeptical about her motives.

It really sounds like she, as many Nevadaians (Nevadans? Nevadi?), is just trying to make a mortgage payment.

I do love how the player's innocent until proven guilty, yet you've decided that she's a lying, money-grubbing bitch, even though you've got no evidence of that at all.

grmblfjx wrote:

He thinks the system should ensure equal outcome for all parties, as in, if one party's name gets leaked the court should then publish everyone else's name, because else that would be an unfair advantage to the other party.

Except it wasn't leaked. Court filings are public records. Anyone can go down to the court clerk and find out what cases were filed.

grmblfjx wrote:

The bit that we both agree on is that no names should be disclosed at all. You don't know until afterwards which party is the victim, and in either case they are going through enough trouble without having their privacy compromised on top of it.

The problem with that is that it goes against the fundamental belief that courts should be open. What you're talking about is akin to a "secret trial", which is anathema to civil process.

It's like the Kobe Bryant case. There were people on TV saying they knew Kobe and he wouldn't do something like that. These people had never met Kobe. They didn't really know him. They just knew his image as a big time sports star.
We don't know what really happened. Only two people know what really happened.
I wouldn't have sex with him.

karmyn31 wrote:

Do yourself a favor, Cyberwulf. Never read comments on any article

Fixed.

Mikey you're a dickhead, it is and always has been as simple as that. Shut up forever.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Let's see, she doesn't file a criminal complaint at all, it takes her forever to file a civil suit, then blames everyone who said it didn't happen for covering it up.

Yeah, I can't imagine why she didn't file a criminal complaint, when this was the response she got from her employers when she reported it:

Quote :

She said the security chief, Guy Hyder, told her she was "over reacting," that "most girls would feel lucky to get to have sex with someone like Ben Roethlisberger" and that "Koster would love you even more if he knew about this."

She said it, therefore it's true? Okay then, I'm a chunky monkey from funky town.

I SAID IT THEREFORE IT'S TRUE!!! Or does it only work that way if I claim I've been raped?

What reason do you have to believe the hotel staff is lying instead of her?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

Because really, it probably didn't happen, these people would be telling the truth, so naturally she'd have to say they're covering it up, because ONE party here has to be lying.

But hey, MAYBE there's real evidence that Big Ben raped her. Not just evidence that she WAS in his room, evidence that he actually raped her. But until I've heard it, he's innocent, and I'm skeptical about her motives.

It really sounds like she, as many Nevadaians (Nevadans? Nevadi?), is just trying to make a mortgage payment.

I do love how the player's innocent until proven guilty, yet you've decided that she's a lying, money-grubbing bitch, even though you've got no evidence of that at all.

Well, if he's innocent until proven guilty, the charges against him are false until proven true. So she's lying until she's proven truthful.

Off topic:

Mikey I'd rather have a QB who actually doesn't almost cost us the Superbowl by not knowing when to let go of the damn ball.

How many Mikeys Go WOOGA does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Spoiler:

anangrychocobo wrote:

How many Mikeys Go WOOGA does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

2; but they'd have to be extremely small.

Spotts1701 wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

He thinks the system should ensure equal outcome for all parties, as in, if one party's name gets leaked the court should then publish everyone else's name, because else that would be an unfair advantage to the other party.

Except it wasn't leaked.

Well, yes. I never said we stayed on topic.

Quote :

grmblfjx wrote:

The bit that we both agree on is that no names should be disclosed at all. You don't know until afterwards which party is the victim, and in either case they are going through enough trouble without having their privacy compromised on top of it.

The problem with that is that it goes against the fundamental belief that courts should be open. What you're talking about is akin to a "secret trial", which is anathema to civil process.

Yes, but how "open" is a court when the defendant gets publicly named, but the accuser doesn't? "The State vs Joe Hillbilly" is not naming both parties. The state is a proxy.

The example that gaijinguy had was that his parish priest was accused of molesting children, but he was never told who accused him. He never got convicted of anything, so we are to assume he was innocent. Is that an "open court" where your name is in all the local papers, your life is ruined, and you never even find out who to thank for this?
I understand protecting the victims. But sometimes the defendants are the victims, and they don't seem very protected to me.


I get your point; secret trials are dangerous. The status quo doesn't seem quite right to me either, though.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

She said it, therefore it's true?

Ben's lawyer said he didn't do it, and yet you accept that's true. Isn't she innocent of lying until proven guilty?

Less flippantly - 1) I find it plausible that she got this kind of response, because it's one that's regularly directed at rape victims when they report that their rapist was a male that society deems as desirable, such as a pro-athlete or other celebrity. (See also the reprehensible nudging and winking that takes place when a man or boy is raped by a "hot" woman.) The comments on the article in the OP are similar to what the hotel staff are alleged to have said.

2) If the alleged victim did receive that kind of response, it explains why she didn't go to the police. If her employers, who knew her, wouldn't believe her, why would the cops, who are strangers?

Quote :

What reason do you have to believe the hotel staff is lying instead of her?

When did I say they were lying? I said that she says they didn't believe her - in that they didn't believe she was raped, just that she'd had sex with the quarterback.

Quote :

Well, if he's innocent until proven guilty, the charges against him are false until proven true. So she's lying until she's proven truthful.

"Innocent until proven guilty" means we can't just throw people in jail based on someone's word and nothing else. It also means that onus is on the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the crime, rather than on the defense to prove that the accused is innocent (reasonable doubt). It doesn't mean that no crime occurred, that the defendant didn't do it (neither does a Not Guilty verdict), or that we can safely assume the victim is just making things up.

By your logic, until someone is convicted, murder victims are suicides who just made it look like they were murdered. Burglary victims trashed their own houses and sold off their own property. Mugging victims just fell down or something and lost their valuables in the process. If the police adhered to this logic, why would they bother investigating any crime? What's stopping them writing off the victim as a liar? And who would report that they had been victimised if they knew the police wouldn't take them seriously and would assume they were lying?

WHY, I THINK I'VE JUST FIGURED OUT ONE REASON WHY RAPE VICTIMS DON'T ALWAYS REPORT THEIR RAPE TO THE AUTHORITIES.

grmblfjx wrote:

He never got convicted of anything, so we are to assume he was innocent.

An acquittal doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Quote :

Is that an "open court" where your name is in all the local papers, your life is ruined, and you never even find out who to thank for this?

"Thank" how, grmbl?

I read in the Irish Examiner today about how a man convicted of dangerous driving "thanked" one of the witnesses who gave evidence against him. He asked to meet him, and proceeded to assault him and kick his teeth in.

Cyberwulf wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

He never got convicted of anything, so we are to assume he was innocent.

An acquittal doesn't mean he didn't do it.

Oh, I know. Let me rephrase: For all we know he was innocent.

Quote :

Quote :

Is that an "open court" where your name is in all the local papers, your life is ruined, and you never even find out who to thank for this?

"Thank" how, grmbl?

I read in the Irish Examiner today about how a man convicted of dangerous driving "thanked" one of the witnesses who gave evidence against him. He asked to meet him, and proceeded to assault him and kick his teeth in.

I meant "thank" in the abstract sense. As in, "thanks to my lying friend I'm now in trouble with my teacher." Or something.


Surely someone who testifies against someone can refuse to meet that person, right?

Cyberwulf wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

Is that an "open court" where your name is in all the local papers, your life is ruined, and you never even find out who to thank for this?

"Thank" how, grmbl?

I read in the Irish Examiner today about how a man convicted of dangerous driving "thanked" one of the witnesses who gave evidence against him. He asked to meet him, and proceeded to assault him and kick his teeth in.

There are cases where people accuse others of committing crimes just to get attention or get revenge or whatever ludicrous reason enters their little minds. For example, when it's something like accusing a teacher of molesting them, even the allegation, whether there's any truth to it or not, can ruin the teacher's life and career. False allegations can also have the effect of making the authorities more cynical about people who report a crime, so that when someone comes to them with a real problem, they're less likely to believe them.

grmblfjx wrote:

Surely someone who testifies against someone can refuse to meet that person, right?

Oh, man, yeah. The witness should've known, using the power of magic, that this guy was a violent nutcase who was going to kick his teeth in.

Lady Anne wrote:

False allegations can also have the effect of making the authorities more cynical about people who report a crime, so that when someone comes to them with a real problem, they're less likely to believe them.

Bull and shit. You know how many allegations turn out to be false? As in, someone maliciously and deliberately lied to the police, making shit up out of whole cloth? About 2%. That's across all crimes, including rape and sexual assault. They only make the authorities more cynical about alleged victims if the authorities were already predisposed to disbelieving them.

Not to mention, it's the cops' FUCKING JOB to investigate every reported crime, no matter what they think about the veracity of the report. Fuck cynicism. Cynicism just tells criminals that there are certain crimes they can get away with, or certain types of victim they can targed with little or no risk of being caught.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You know how many allegations turn out to be false? As in, someone maliciously and deliberately lied to the police, making shit up out of whole cloth? About 2%.

Could I get a source on this please?

grmblfjx wrote:

Surely someone who testifies against someone can refuse to meet that person, right?

No - the Fifth Amendment states that a defendant has the right to confront the witnesses against him. Now, there are circumstances where the identity will not be divulged to the public (such as if the witness is a child, or releasing the witness' name to the public would put that witness in danger of death or severe bodily harm). But the defendant will, for the most part, always know in the proceeding who is testifying against them.

But again, we're blurring the distinction between a criminal trial and a civil trial. A civil case, which is what this case is, is always "John Smith v. Bob Jones". So the defendant and the public always know who is the accuser, and who is the accused. The only exception is if the plaintiff or the defendant are not legally competent. In those cases it may be "John Smith, on behalf of minor child Jane Doe v. Bob Jones".

Cyberwulf wrote:

When did I say they were lying? I said that she says they didn't believe her - in that they didn't believe she was raped, just that she'd had sex with the quarterback.

She says the one guy said she'd be lucky to be raped by Ben and other stuff. That dude says he said no such thing. One of them is lying.

You get all bent out of shape about me assuming it's the lady without any real evidence, but you do the same thing claiming he's lying when there's no real evidence of that.

Cyberwulf wrote:

By your logic, until someone is convicted, murder victims are suicides who just made it look
like they were murdered. Burglary victims trashed their own houses and
sold off their own property. Mugging victims just fell down or
something and lost their valuables in the process.

You are a total idiot.

Just because one guy didn't do it, doesn't mean somebody else didn't do it.

When a guy is found dead from thrity-seven stab wounds, one can reasonably conclude it was a murder. It doesn't mean they have a damn clue who did it.

And in this case, there's no real evidence that a crime was committed.

1.) You can't say Roethlisberger had sex with this woman without her consent.
2.) You can't say Roethlisberger had sex with this woman at all.

Aggie wrote:

anangrychocobo wrote:

How many Mikeys Go WOOGA does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

2; but they'd have to be extremely small.

The lightbulbs or the Mikeys?

Orry wrote:

Mikey I'd rather have a QB who actually doesn't almost cost us the Superbowl by not knowing when to let go of the damn ball.

1.) It's better than Maddox, who cost the Steelers the playoffs (and a winning season) because he kept releasing the ball to the other team.
2.) Which Super Bowl was this? Super Bowl XL? That was a fairly pathetic performance. But his arm was what put them over the edge in Super Bowl XLIII. He completed over 66% of his passes, and was the root of all of the Steelers' offense. Their running game was pathetic. He may have had another TD if, instead of trying to punch the ball in with lightweight RBs and a mediocre run blocking O-Line, they let him throw it more when they had six chances inside of the four yard line.

Hell, let HIM run it. He runs more powerfully than Parker or Moore.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

there's no real evidence that a crime was committed.

How do you know?

Quote :

1.) You can't say Roethlisberger had sex with this woman without her consent.
2.) You can't say Roethlisberger had sex with this woman at all.

And you can't say she's lying.

Nice homophobic avatar, btw, fuckhead.

EDIT: Article on why the alleged victim may have opted for a civil rather than a criminal case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cyberwulf wrote:

EDIT: Article on why the alleged victim may have opted for a civil rather than a criminal case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem, at least from the legal end of it, is that with no criminal complaint at all she's going to go into court at a tremendous disadvantage. Doesn't matter how well you conduct voir dire, there are going to be jurors who will see that as a big gaping hole in her case.

Now granted, Nevada has adopted the "majority verdict" for civil cases (9 out of 12 jurors need to agree in order to reach a verdict). But still, this is an uphill fight.

Spotts1701 wrote:

grmblfjx wrote:

Surely someone who testifies against someone can refuse to meet that person, right?

No - the Fifth Amendment states that a defendant has the right to confront the witnesses against him. Now, there are circumstances where the identity will not be divulged to the public (such as if the witness is a child, or releasing the witness' name to the public would put that witness in danger of death or severe bodily harm). But the defendant will, for the most part, always know in the proceeding who is testifying against them.

But again, we're blurring the distinction between a criminal trial and a civil trial. A civil case, which is what this case is, is always "John Smith v. Bob Jones". So the defendant and the public always know who is the accuser, and who is the accused. The only exception is if the plaintiff or the defendant are not legally competent. In those cases it may be "John Smith, on behalf of minor child Jane Doe v. Bob Jones".

As much as I know this requirement is necessary to some degree, the right to confront your accuser becomes so terrible when the accuser is a small child - one of the foster kids we had was brutally sexually abused by his uncle and was terrified of the man, but still had to go into the courtroom to face him when he testified (there were no other witnesses, and his name wasn't released to the public). It made me feel awful, I was only about four years older than the kid at the time and it was obvious to me that this was really a hard thing for him.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

EDIT: Article on why the alleged victim may have opted for a civil rather than a criminal case: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The problem, at least from the legal end of it, is that with no criminal complaint at all she's going to go into court at a tremendous disadvantage. Doesn't matter how well you conduct voir dire, there are going to be jurors who will see that as a big gaping hole in her case.

Now granted, Nevada has adopted the "majority verdict" for civil cases (9 out of 12 jurors need to agree in order to reach a verdict). But still, this is an uphill fight.

That doesn't matter. For example (and a horribly bitter example it is to me), my father owned a bar. At this place, a gentleman came in, drank quite a bit, and was cut off. He then went home. Other bar patrons, worried about him, went to his house twenty minutes away to check up on him. At his own place of residence, the gentleman went bezerk and shot and killed one of the people checking up on him.

The family of the deceased brought wrongful death criminal charges against my father's corporation, and not the man actually shooting her. They were laughed out of court. Then, they filed civil charges against the bar--again, still NOT the man shooting and killing her--and they won. The reason why they won? Because the waitress who cut him off didn't pull the half-drunk drink out of his hand when she cut him off.

It's FAR easier to win in civil court than a criminal court, and they don't need a criminal conviction to do it.

Maximilia wrote:

It's FAR easier to win in civil court than a criminal court, and they don't need a criminal conviction to do it.

I didn't say conviction. I said complaint. Two very different animals in the legal world - lack of a criminal conviction has never stopped someone from being found civilly liable for the same thing (see Simpson, O.J.). But the lack of a criminal complaint is the 800-pound gorilla in the room - even with the lower burden of proof, the plaintiff starts off "in a hole" because the defense will turn this into the central part of their case.

Point. I am a nub when it comes to legalese.

All I can say is that this is not a case I'd want to be on the jury for.

Well, that, and something in the link Cyberwulf linked me to bugged me:

Quote :

8 ) Many victims have mixed feelings about employing a process that
could send someone to jail, particularly if there is some pre-existing
relationship, or the assailant is a person of color (many communities
of color, rightfully indignant about the over-representation of men of
color within the penal system in the US, do not want to be a party to
that system).

I'm not gonna get into the futility of not "being a party" to your country's legal system, but rather the insanity of cutting your rapist a break because "there's too many people of his/our race in jail."

Man, what.

Penguin wrote:

All I can say is that this is not a case I'd want to be on the jury for.

Well, that, and something in the link Cyberwulf linked me to bugged me:

Quote :

8 ) Many victims have mixed feelings about employing a process that
could send someone to jail, particularly if there is some pre-existing
relationship, or the assailant is a person of color (many communities
of color, rightfully indignant about the over-representation of men of
color within the penal system in the US, do not want to be a party to
that system).

I'm not gonna get into the futility of not "being a party" to your country's legal system, but rather the insanity of cutting your rapist a break because "there's too many people of his/our race in jail."

Man, what.

Oh thank goodness it wasn't just me. I just don't get that at all - the only reason I didn't take the people who sexually harassed me to court is because I just didn't have the money to get a decent lawyer (and considering they were nigh-millionaires, y'know). That is just crazy to me.