Super Bowl QB accused of sexual asault

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.

I think perhaps it's more a case of being heavily distrustful of the legal system due to such perceived prejudice. But I don't know for sure; that just seems like it would make more sense.

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.

What?! You mean this civil case isn't her ticket to instant cash monies?!

Cyberwulf wrote:

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.

What?! You mean this civil case isn't her ticket to instant cash monies?!

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner folks.

I thought it went without saying she filed a civil suit because getting a favorable verdict is MUCH easier in that scenario than in a criminal court. Really, if she brought this crap to a criminal court, they wouldn't have let her in the door.

Also, anything that comes from a blog called "Yes Means Yes" is going to have about as much rational, unbiased thinking in it as would come from a mental patient or Steeler fan.

Cyberwulf wrote:

[quote="Mikey]there's no real evidence that a crime was committed.

How do you know?[/quote]

I'm assuming that if there WAS any evidence, the police would have initiated a criminal investigation. As indicated by the second question here.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I thought it went without saying she filed a civil suit because getting a favorable verdict is MUCH easier in that scenario than in a criminal court.

Procedurally, yes it is because of the lower burden of proof.

In reality, it depends on the fact pattern of each individual case.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Really, if she brought this crap to a criminal court, they wouldn't have let her in the door.

At this point, you might be right. But at the time of the alleged incident, when more physical evidence would have been available? That's a closer call.

Miss Prince wrote:

I think perhaps it's more a case of being heavily distrustful of the legal system due to such perceived prejudice. But I don't know for sure; that just seems like it would make more sense.

That would make sense. The way they phrased it was pretty crazy, though.

Why did the Mikey go WOOGA cross the road?

Spoiler:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Also, anything that comes from a blog called "Yes Means Yes" is going to have about as much rational, unbiased thinking in it as would come from a mental patient or Steeler fan.

So you think it's irrational and biased to look for enthusiastic consent from a woman before having sex with her? Because that's what "Yes means yes" means.

And no one's (not even Mikey) has brought up ESPN's dubious decision to sit on the story, while Fox Sports, Yahoo!Sports, Sporting News, and pretty much every other major news org in America was all over the story. (They cited some bullshit about not covering stories where there are no criminal charge) They even went so far as to issue gag orders on all ESPN Radio affiliates in regards to the story. (Which lead at least one ESPN Radio local host to say "Fuck this shit")

They only started covering the story (print only, no real on-air coverage) after a week of their competitors pointing and laughing at them, and the Sports Blogosphere openly questioning whether or not ESPN was trying to give the NFL the reach-around by trying to squash the story.

Besides ESPN being a bunch of babbling buffoons, what's your point?

They'd cover Chad Johnson's dumbass web show (someone, for the good of the NFL and the Bengals, PLEASE, kill that man), but they'd ignore this.

Oh, I'm sorry. Chad Ocho Cinco.

I may kill him myself, really. :redangry: :redangry: :redangry: :redangry: :redangry: :redangry:

Well, things just got more complicated.

Quote :

The woman who claimed in a lawsuit that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger raped her and Harrah’s Lake Tahoe management covered it up allegedly bragged about having consensual sex with him to a co-worker, according to court documents filed late Friday. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In a sworn statement attached to a motion to move the case to Douglas County, Angela Antonetti said that Andrea McNulty, the woman who made the rape claim, “did not appear to be upset, stressed-out or nervous” about having “been with” Roethlisberger during the 2008 American Century Championship celebrity golf tournament.

Instead, McNulty “appeared happy and boastful” about it, and later said she thought she might be pregnant from the encounter, the affidavit said.

That sound you hear is the plaintiff's case leaking like a sieve from the massive hole that just got blown in it.

Be that as it may, ESPN still fouled up big-time in not giving the case more coverage on its programs.

Quote :

In a sworn statement attached to a motion to move the case to Douglas County, Angela Antonetti said that Andrea McNulty, the woman who made the rape claim, “did not appear to be upset, stressed-out or nervous” about having “been with” Roethlisberger during the 2008 American Century Championship celebrity golf tournament.

Because all rape victims react the same way after being raped.

Quote :

Instead, McNulty “appeared happy and boastful” about it

Based on the opinion of one person.

Quote :

and later said she thought she might be pregnant from the encounter

Well, that proves she enjoyed it, because pregnancy is always wonderful.

The spin on it is interesting - the alleged victim "appeared happy and boastful", yet this is framed as her "bragg[ing] about having consensual sex with him".

Spotts1701 wrote:

That sound you hear is the plaintiff's case leaking like a sieve from the massive hole that just got blown in it.

The sad part is, you're right, because juries will assume the same thing you just did.

You seem rather bound and determined to ignore the growing holes and cracks in McNulty's story, 'Wulf.

The thick plottens.

Freezer wrote:

You seem rather bound and determined to ignore the growing holes and cracks in McNulty's story, 'Wulf.

You seem to have a dangerously rigid view of how "real" rape victims should behave, and which men can't possibly be rapists, Freezer.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

That sound you hear is the plaintiff's case leaking like a sieve from the massive hole that just got blown in it.

The sad part is, you're right, because juries will assume the same thing you just did.

What's her motive to lie? Especially since this was filed in a sworn statement, which means that it was taken under penalty of perjury.

Here, read the affidavit (PDF file) for yourself.

Spotts1701 wrote:

What's her motive to lie?

Who said anything about her consciously lying? The alleged victim didn't behave the way her coworker expects rape victims to behave (or perhaps the way the people questioning the coworker expect rape victims to behave). She "appeared" "happy and boastful"...to one person.

Quote :

read the affidavit (PDF file) for yourself.

Oh dear Jesus:

Quote :

11 [...]On frequent occasions, I observed Andrea wearing scantily clad and provocative clothing.

12. Andrea specifically told me that her inappropriate dress was made reference to by a casino dealer at Harrah's.

Quote :

20. Also during this time period, in August 2008, Andrea told me that she had dated a baseball player. [...] Andrea also mentioned to me that the baseball player had a lot of money.

Yes, because that's completely relevant.

I do love how she knew the allegation was false right away. Because she was there in the room when it happened and can see into both their minds.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Oh dear Jesus:

Quote :

11 [...]On frequent occasions, I observed Andrea wearing scantily clad and provocative clothing.

12. Andrea specifically told me that her inappropriate dress was made reference to by a casino dealer at Harrah's.

Quote :

20. Also during this time period, in August 2008, Andrea told me that she had dated a baseball player. [...] Andrea also mentioned to me that the baseball player had a lot of money.

Yes, becasue that's completely relevant.

Actually it is if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather offered to ascertain the plaintiff's state of mind.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Freezer wrote:

You seem rather bound and determined to ignore the growing holes and cracks in McNulty's story, 'Wulf.

You seem to have a dangerously rigid view of how "real" rape victims should behave, and which men can't possibly be rapists, Freezer.

I can only go by what we - the public - have been shown. And that says "Money Grab". Feel free to rub my nose in it if something other than McMulty's claims emerges that says"sexual assault".

ETA: That is some Olympic-class jumping (To Conclusions) regarding what I actually think

Womyn never lie about whether they've been raped or not. This dirty man, Ben Roethlisberger needs to have the death penalty for whatever he's done because it's not right for a man to stick his dirty instrument of oppression up a poor womyn's vagina. He need to be anally violated as she was through a different orifice with dynamite, which will then be detonated to demonstrate the wrongness of his behavior.

I say we make him live with Mikey. That would be punishment enough.
but Mikey would probably rape him.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Oh dear Jesus:

Quote :

11 [...]On frequent occasions, I observed Andrea wearing scantily clad and provocative clothing.

12. Andrea specifically told me that her inappropriate dress was made reference to by a casino dealer at Harrah's.

Quote :

20. Also during this time period, in August 2008, Andrea told me that she had dated a baseball player. [...] Andrea also mentioned to me that the baseball player had a lot of money.

Yes, becasue that's completely relevant.

Actually it is if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather offered to ascertain the plaintiff's state of mind.

So if a woman wears "scantily clad", "provocative" clothing, and someone remarks on it, that means if she later says she was sexually assaulted she's likely to be making it up.

Yeah, that's not fucked up at all.

Freezer wrote:

I can only go by what we - the public - have been shown. And that says "Money Grab".

Yeah, you certainly don't have a rigid view of how rape victims are supposed to behave.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Spotts1701 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Oh dear Jesus:

Quote :

11 [...]On frequent occasions, I observed Andrea wearing scantily clad and provocative clothing.

12. Andrea specifically told me that her inappropriate dress was made reference to by a casino dealer at Harrah's.

Quote :

20. Also during this time period, in August 2008, Andrea told me that she had dated a baseball player. [...] Andrea also mentioned to me that the baseball player had a lot of money.

Yes, becasue that's completely relevant.

Actually it is if it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather offered to ascertain the plaintiff's state of mind.

So if a woman wears "scantily clad", "provocative" clothing, and someone remarks on it, that means if she later says she was sexually assaulted she's likely to be making it up.

Yeah, that's not fucked up at all.

1) That's not what I said. You're drawing an inference I didn't make, and putting words into my mouth.

2) Plaintiff's state of mind is always relevant in civil matters.

3) Relevance does not equal conclusiveness - the jury still ultimately must decide how much weight this evidence has. The problem for the plaintiff is this, when combined with the other known evidence, severely compromises her case even with a lower burden of proof.

Spotts1701 wrote:

1) That's not what I said.

I didn't say you said it.

Quote :

You're drawing an inference I didn't make

But that's the inference the defendant is hoping the jury will make, isn't it?

Quote :

2) Plaintiff's state of mind is always relevant in civil matters.

Her "state of mind", as far as the part I quoted is concerned, was "she often dressed provocatively" and "she once dated a baseball player who she said had a lot of money". What's being implied is that she's a slut and a golddigger and therefore probably lying. That's fucked up.