• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

PJ Star articles 2/28

Da Coach

Da Coach

Moderator
Staff member
These may have already been posted elsewhere--

BU will allow Ruffin to play
Senior returns after two-games out, is under court order forbidding contact with accuser
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022808/TRI_BFTLMLAO.060.php


Noted PJ Star legal expert and movie reviewer Phil Luciano also has another column
Ruffin, Duke cases not the same
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022808/PHI_BFTJLSOD.033.php

In his column, Phil says comparisons of the Ruffin case to the Duke case are irrelevant. Could there be anything more irrelevant than Phil's opinion? He has already made a buffoon of himself with his previous column, and his nonsensical ramblings on the radio. This column should have either been an apology to Daniel Ruffin, or a scathing criticism of Kevin Lyons for handling this case like Mike Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case.

Now, thanks to the Freedom of Information act, we see that perhaps the cut on the "victims" lip was not due to being punched or kicked like the initial report suggested. And there are also a number of other new pieces of information coming out that should have been released initially. Amazingly, all these new tidbits of information cast a more favorable light on Daniel Ruffin. Again, I ask, why were these important and relevant parts of the police report intentionally omitted from what was initially released?
 
Now I see the difference between the Ruffin case and the Duke case...

In one the accuser(s) vigorously push for charges and have proponents show up on talk shows and tout how badly their victim/client was abused.

In the other, the accuser wants to drop the case.

Now I see it.
 
cmon guys the Duke case is completely different than Daniel's.

So now everything PL says is wrong? I was not wild about his article he other day but today's pretty much right on
 
Duke case:
Scholarship athletes at a private university find themselves in a position with a female college student who visits the athlete's residence and who later claims she was assaulted. She changes her story as the case proceeds. The athletes claim they are innocent. The university does it's own review and suspends the athletes. The state's attorney pursues the case against the athletes, including promoting it through the media. Media reports and talk shows prematurely presume the athlete is guilty. The state's attorney conveniently leaves out key parts of the evidence that would have favored the defendants. Eventually the case is completely dismissed, and the state's attorney leaves office in shame.

Bradley case:
A scholarship athlete at a private university finds himself in a position with a female college student who visits the athlete's residence who later claims she was assaulted. She changes her story already. The athlete claims he is innocent. The university does it's own review and suspends the athlete. The state's attorney has already pursued his case against the athlete through the media. Media reports and talk shows prematurely presume the athlete is guilty. The police report has conveniently left out key parts of the story that would have favored the defendant. In the end, the case could likely be dismissed.


I think there are similarities, am I the only one who thinks so?
 
Also, both cases are quite unusual in that the incident occurred in the defendant's home, where the
accuser went voluntarily, and eyewitnesses verify the defendant's innocence.

Also note that the State's Atty, Lyons, is and has been in the public eye, and "under a microscope" and also
already feeling pressured to satisfy the press and public with the other recent cases that we've all read about.
 
It's like the Duke case because many folks, especially the media, jumped the gun and assumed Daniel was guilty.

Have the media come out and explicitly said, "Ruffin is absolutely guilty!"? No. But when you have articles like this that say...

-could the woman by lying? sure. but probably not.
-is Ruffin overwhelmingly guilty? no, but the police had PROBABLE cause

C'mon. A journalist or writer should know how the use of words and structure can set a certain tone. And the tone I get from this is someone who has judged Daniel and has judged BU and its fans. It's not a call for calm.
 
ser_solace said:
It's like the Duke case because many folks, especially the media, jumped the gun and assumed Daniel was guilty.

Have the media come out and explicitly said, "Ruffin is absolutely guilty!"? No. But when you have articles like this that say...

-could the woman by lying? sure. but probably not.
-is Ruffin overwhelmingly guilty? no, but the police had PROBABLE cause

C'mon. A journalist or writer should know how the use of words and structure can set a certain tone. And the tone I get from this is someone who has judged Daniel and has judged BU and its fans. It's not a call for calm.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! and that is a key reason why I think that the local paper is garbage.
 
Da Coach said:
Duke case:
Scholarship athletes at a private university find themselves in a position with a female college student who visits the athlete's residence and who later claims she was assaulted. She changes her story as the case proceeds. The athletes claim they are innocent. The university does it's own review and suspends the athletes. The state's attorney pursues the case against the athletes, including promoting it through the media. Media reports and talk shows prematurely presume the athlete is guilty. The state's attorney conveniently leaves out key parts of the evidence that would have favored the defendants. Eventually the case is completely dismissed, and the state's attorney leaves office in shame.

Bradley case:
A scholarship athlete at a private university finds himself in a position with a female college student who visits the athlete's residence who later claims she was assaulted. She changes her story already. The athlete claims he is innocent. The university does it's own review and suspends the athlete. The state's attorney has already pursued his case against the athlete through the media. Media reports and talk shows prematurely presume the athlete is guilty. The police report has conveniently left out key parts of the story that would have favored the defendant. In the end, the case could likely be dismissed.

Yeah, now I see what Phil Luciano is talking about. There is simply no reason to say there might be a comparison of the Bradley case to the Duke case.:rolleyes:

The Duke case is completely different than Daniel's.
It involves Lacrosse not basketball!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The Duke case had local strippers not female college students.
 
This is the only bad thing I saw in today's otherwise good news:

The "negative attention" Lyons said is the phone calls and text messages White has received from other students and basketball players "putting her in a position of guilt."

I really hope no other basketball players would be trying to contact her in anyway and I hope Les pays attention to what is being reported in the story to put and end to it if it is indeed guys on the team.

Also, I encourage other students to leave her alone as well. You can be picked on or looked-down on just for going to Bradley in Peoria. Let's all have the class to not hassel this person.
 
strippers and college students are equally protected under the law and Constitution - they are viewed by the justice system exactly the same as if either was the President's wife, or have you forgotten that from your book learnin'?

and Abe...is there a law prohibiting a student from talking to another student, even if she is involved in a legal case?
 
tornado said:
strippers and college students are equally protected under the law and Constitution - they are viewed by the justice system exactly the same as if either was the President's wife, or have you forgotten that from your book learnin'?
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out the Da Coaches fact pattern was wrong. The Duke accusers were not students and the fact that they were local was a huge part of the story and the subsequent events.
 
tornado said:
strippers and college students are equally protected under the law and Constitution - they are viewed by the justice system exactly the same as if either was the President's wife, or have you forgotten that from your book learnin'?

and Abe...is there a law prohibiting a student from talking to another student, even if she is involved in a legal case?
Click to expand...


No you're right, there is no law, everyone is free to do as they wish.

I'm just talking about the BU basketball community as a whole, in this case the students who may not be friends with her but are trying to contact her. The PR damage has been done. Let's have some class and leave her alone and not give any more ammo to Phil so we don't have to see a column about students harrasing a victim or whatever anti-BU spin he'd put on it.
 
The cases aren't quite the same, but I am not sure why Lyons held certain portions of the police report back. That kind of information could have led to Ruffin's reinstatement in time for Senior Night. While the state doesn't need compliance from the girl to proceed, I would guess that this is going to be dropped based on conflicting stories.

Question for the lawyers out there - Does the order of protection work both ways? Does this prevent the girl from stopping by Ruffin's apartment uninvited? I sure hope so.
 
Lakeview Brave said:
I was just pointing out the Da Coaches fact pattern was wrong. The Duke accusers were not students and the fact that they were local was a huge part of the story and the subsequent events.
Click to expand...



Wrong..................The main Duke accuser WAS a student.......at NC Central University (though some might use the term "university" loosely :lol: ;) ).
 
LG281 said:
Getting pretty heated over at the pjstar on the "Leave a Comment" section after Phil's column.
Click to expand...

Whoa it just got super-modded! Went from 16 (five pretty long posts, some very critical of the PJStar) to 11 really quick. I refreshed and it was gone.
 
Yeah, I was also "not allowed to make a comment" in my first ever attempt at that site. Anyone who is "allowed," please point out to "meg" that Ruffin graduated after 4 years of study, and isn't "allowed" to study over the course of 5 years just because he's a "jock" getting special treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top