• 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.

2 top players at St. Louis U dismissed

"Sorry, Tornado is right in this situation. The only part that I would disagree with is that it would never get to this point at Bradley. "

Based on what? There are no facts proving police ignored or prosecutors did nothing. Show me some. Do you know the accused in this case.. at the hearing were represented by an undergraduate students.. while the accused had her attorney presenting her case? None of this would hold up in a real court of law.. and that is the issue.
 
I condemned nobody -- just described the facts as they appear not just to me but to plenty of others..
as I read the police report, it would be hard for me to just ignore what even the players themselves admit and then rule no crime occurred ..

One would have to ignore a lot to rule that no crime had occurred without really even doing much of an investigation...
as noted in the police report, even before the police could complete their questioning of the players, the SLU attorney showed up and
"put a halt to the questioning".

so the prosecutor's ruling was made without even the completion of the questioning..of either the players or the victim...weird..and it was revealed that the prosecutor was a Saint Louis alum...FWIW -- you decide.

"..one of the players admitted that he and his teammates discussed "pulling a train on" their accuser "without her knowledge or consent""

the victim repeated contended "that she wanted to 'stop' and that she 'wanted to leave'"
"verbally expressed that she did not want to go any further"
"The woman "verbally and emphatically told him 'no'"

sorry -- but I call it as I see it..
 
tornado said:
I condemned nobody -- just described the facts as they appear not just to me but to plenty of others..
as I read the police report, it would be hard for me to just ignore what even the players themselves admit and then rule no crime occurred ..

One would have to ignore a lot to rule that no crime had occurred without really even doing much of an investigation...
as noted in the police report, even before the police could complete their questioning of the players, the SLU attorney showed up and
"put a halt to the questioning".

so the prosecutor's ruling was made without even the completion of the questioning..of either the players or the victim...weird..and it was revealed that the prosecutor was a Saint Louis alum...FWIW -- you decide.

"..one of the players admitted that he and his teammates discussed "pulling a train on" their accuser "without her knowledge or consent""

the victim repeated contended "that she wanted to 'stop' and that she 'wanted to leave'"
"verbally expressed that she did not want to go any further"
"The woman "verbally and emphatically told him 'no'"

sorry -- but I call it as I see it..
Click to expand...
Of course the police report also says that Willie Reed never had any sort of sexual contact with the young woman. It seems the only thing he is guilty of is underage consumption and bad judgement. I will say nothing about the other players but Reed's punishment seems harsh based on the police report.
 
what -- Reed received no legal punishment--
he was given the dismissal because of campus ethical rules as judged by the student/faculty panel.
In the end he'll be playing basketball in about 3 weeks...just watch
 
KillerB said:
"Sorry, Tornado is right in this situation. The only part that I would disagree with is that it would never get to this point at Bradley. "

Based on what? There are no facts proving police ignored or prosecutors did nothing. Show me some. Do you know the accused in this case.. at the hearing were represented by an undergraduate students.. while the accused had her attorney presenting her case? None of this would hold up in a real court of law.. and that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Read tornado's post. I can't post exactly what I know about this case. I'd be happy to tell you in person, but it would be deleted if I wrote it. Tornado is exactly right here.
 
Comparison...

In Peoria, we had one accused player - the supposed victim did NOT want to pursue charges, she had nothing more than a cut lip which she admitted wasn't caused by Ruffin, but the prosecutor pushed for a felony, and the newspapers ran with it for weeks with exaggerated claims..

In St. Louis they had four accused players - the victim DID want to pursue charges, she was raped multiple times, she knew the attackers and wished to see charges pursued, but the prosecutor spent little more than a day reviewing the case and dropped it despite recommendations from police, all the while the newspaper has barely mentioned the whole thing.
 
tornado said:
I condemned nobody -- just described the facts as they appear not just to me but to plenty of others..
as I read the police report, it would be hard for me to just ignore what even the players themselves admit and then rule no crime occurred ..

One would have to ignore a lot to rule that no crime had occurred without really even doing much of an investigation...
as noted in the police report, even before the police could complete their questioning of the players, the SLU attorney showed up and
"put a halt to the questioning".

so the prosecutor's ruling was made without even the completion of the questioning..of either the players or the victim...weird..and it was revealed that the prosecutor was a Saint Louis alum...FWIW -- you decide.

"..one of the players admitted that he and his teammates discussed "pulling a train on" their accuser "without her knowledge or consent""

the victim repeated contended "that she wanted to 'stop' and that she 'wanted to leave'"
"verbally expressed that she did not want to go any further"
"The woman "verbally and emphatically told him 'no'"

sorry -- but I call it as I see it..
Click to expand...

So let me get this right "as you see it".. what a victim contends happened is fact.
What the accused discussed doing.. makes them guilty of actually doing it.
The prosecutor is an alum of the school.. so he buried the case.
A University lawyer steps up for the rights of students.. and it's a coverup.
What can really be proved in a court of law is irrelavent.

Let me call this as I see it. You are not in possession of all the facts. To say the police and prosecutors did not do their jobs.. and that the accused are guilty of crimes is in fact condemning someone.. in fact many someones.

If you have some information I don't know about.. feel free to share.

--as for the media coverage in Peoria vs St. Louis.. I could care less. I have heard no one in St. Louis questioning the coverage of the newspaper or the rest of the media in this case.
 
again -- you misquote me completely...
I don't know what happened, and we will probably never know, but isn't that the case with every single one of these rape and assault cases -- it always boils down to he said-she said...


So -- check every single rape case in history -- every single one depends on the testimony of the victim -- so of course the police MUST give a little credence to the possibility that she's telling the truth..and even the players' version fits precisely with her story -- the ONLY discrepancy being the issue of "consensual"...that's THE ONLY DISCREPANCY!!

So in order to prove or disprove "consensual" -- you gotta do a little digging and get some more facts and interviews...which the prosecutor definitely DID NOT..

The police interview with the four accused players was cut off by the SLU lawyer, then they never spoke again...and there's not a single mention of other witnesses, while the prosecutor dismisses the whole thing so fast, she certainly could NOT have found and interviewed all the people at the party.

BTW -- the prosecutor is a she, and whether it's a factor or not, I know know, but she is a SLU grad and even reportedly had classes under the SLU professor/lawyer who showed up at the police station and cut off the interviews and took the accused players home.


NOTE the timeline...

alleged rape occurs early Sat. morning...players were not even taken to the police station for questioning until later Saturday afternoon...then were released before they could be questioned fully because the lawyer showed up and "put a halt to it"

This article is from 5/6/10 -- case dismissed - no charges to be filed...
City Atty Jennifer Joyce says she doesn't have enough evidence to file a charge so she's closing the case..
BUT -- isn't it her job to go GET further evidence just in case the victim is telling the truth?
http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Poli...asketball-team-members-for-rape-92920699.html

NOW -- from the most recent articles we see that none of the players ever was questioned further, they were asked to submit for further exams, DNA samples, etc..
but there's no evidence that they ever did or were subpoenaed to which would have taken more than the two days before the prosecutor clsoed the case..
..even though while at the police station each of the four basketball players...
"gave slightly different versions of the night's events, according to the police"

Actually, the versions were not "slightly different" -- they were different in one HUGE area -- Mitchell says he left before any of the other assaults occurred, but the other players says he was still there!
Then later when confronted with the discrepancy in his version -- Mitchell changed his story AGAIN!

we also learned that at least one of the accused players readily admits they were going to "pull the train" on her against her wishes....even knowing she had been drinking and may have even been legally drunk and incapable of consenting per Missouri law..

Plus -- read the story about the search for the woman's missing underwear -- on page 4 of the final link I give below -- clearly within hours after the alleged assault -- someone in the campus security department had some kind of really "intimate knowledge" of what was going on...
Doesn't that seem odd?? And yet police didn't return to search where the campus security tipster said until later and didn't talk to the tipster until "the next day"...which would have been at least Monday -- maybe later..
Then the "tipster" clams up and doesn't say how he knew about the incident??
Weird..you can feel free to decide, but I think this case simply HAS to be investigated more -- yet the prosecutor says less than 2 days later -- she's dropping the whole thing!!


Here's prosecutor Jennifer Joyce's own home page (proving she is a SLU undergrad and Law School grad) where she prides herself for vigorously protecting her citizens and thoroughll prosecuting cases of -- especially rape and sexual assault!
http://stlcin.missouri.org/circuitattorney/bio.cfm

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/da...sault_kwamain_mitchell_willie_reed.php?page=4
 
"the ONLY discrepancy being the issue of "consensual"...that's THE ONLY DISCREPANCY!!"

So what additional digging is going to change this? By all accounts no one else was in the room. What additional investigation is going to change this. The accused had an attorney and would not talk to police or prosecutors.

By the way.. I don't know if you noticed the victim miss identified her second attacker.

And I guess I missed it in the police report.. I did not see where the victim was so drunk she could not give consent. In fact the police investigator makes note there were no signs the victim had been drinking.. no odor of alcohol.. no behavior of impairment.. no blood shot or watery eyes.

And since everyone admits they had intercourse.. what would dna prove?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top