I have no idea how much she drank, but my impression is that she purchased at least three drinks from two bars that night.
Unfortunately, "she should never have been in the bar" is not a defense to either of the charges against TSJ.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Unfortunately, "she should never have been in the bar" is not a defense to either of the charges against TSJ.
Yeah, but that isn't really a defense to the accusations.
As a lawyer that has never tried a rape case (my only criminal case was defending an 11 yo for driving without a license - got him off BTW), I concur 100%.
The Jayhawk Cafe has a reputation for being a dirty place that underclassmen flock to and most upperclassmen outgrow. In other words underage drinking keeps it in business.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Where does that impression come from?
Who do you want making the decision then, if not a jury?
To be more precise, if his motion to exclude aka motion in limine is granted, the testimony/evidence is barred. Since I don't have twitter I can't read the entireity of the motion and can't see the relief requested. IAARCDL
What if the DNA was only identifying as male?
Problem is that the PD didn't do any real investigation until much later, and then probably only talked to the people who were with TSJ and the victim that night. Doubt a bartender is going to remember how many drinks some random young woman had months later. You might be able to check her or her friends credit cards to see how much money they spent in bars that night, but that would not account for drinks others may have bought them or for which they used cash. that horse is already out of the barn so to speak.
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
agree
but if it gets to trial (and it wont), can it be brought up in court as an example of her character?
How so? Most criminals desire to avoid witnesses to their acts, or at least limit the number of witnesses against them. In every criminal case that goes to trial there are pattern jury instructions to assist the jurors in their deliberations. In every case IPI 1.02 instructs the jury as follows: Only you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony of each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account his ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias, or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case. You should judge the testimony of the defendant in the same manner as you judge the testimony of any other witness. IPI instructions are readily available online for those who wish to see how a jury is instructed on the law, and particularly frustrating in Illinois is that you do not get an instruction defining the term "reasonable doubt," leaving both sides at the mercy of what that term means from jury to jury. Kansas also has standardized jury instructions and unlike Illinois does have an instruction defining resonable doubt as follows: "A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence."
Everyone only had a "couple of beers" ='s 5 or 6 in actuality.
Somebody (with better internet acumen than me) get FAR Penthouse the downloaded document please!
Is this what you're looking for?
The original question was how does TSJ's exclusion from the DNA get heard in trial if the report is barred by the motion. Something to that effect.
The defense is trying to not allow the talk at least part of the KBI report talking about male in the underwear.
The defense's own hired expert that authored the only report that we have access to so far, is the one that excluded TSJ from the 1.3 evidence. That's what I was trying ro explain. KBi report vs DNA defense expert report.
This is likely not true for campus bars. In Champaign you could be 18 and be allowed in the campus bars.
Here's the first part
Attachments
Here's the second part
Attachments
Illini in Indiana
- Indiana
I hate all this happened to TSJ, but I am happy with the way he and the U of I dealt with the situation. It ain't over and media can't ever take away damage done. I am just glad this came out prior to the NBA draft. Maybe it will help teams understand the character of TSJ, and help him get paid his worth.
There is not much of that and the charges lack credibility.
Chuck Nuggets
Dip your nuggets in my staff source sauce.
Yes. Thanks for the confirmation.
@FAR Penthouse - attachments have been loaded into the board. We anxiously await your comments!
Thank you.
My impression that she purchased at least three drinks is based upon her known itinerary for the evening. She went to The Jayhawk. She got bored. She went to another bar and spent some time there. She returned to The Jayhawk. She said she had a drink in one hand when TSJ assaulted her at some point after her return to The Jayhawk.
The inference that I draw is that if she bought a drink at the third stop, and spent a fair amount of time on the first two stops, then she also bought drinks at those stops. Did she drink them all? If you buy her testimony, she was very upset by the assault and wanted to leave right away, she did not wait to finish her final drink.
I do not know if the defense tried to get her credit card records, and likewise have no idea whether they would even be discoverable in a case like this. Heck, she was 18, so I don't know if she even had a credit card.
I concede that I am only guessing here, and that the jury is never going to have the honor of hearing my guesses, but I think my guesses are reasonable ones in light of the known facts.
The accuser's friend stated "she and [accuser] had just gotten their first drink, but had not consumed much of it."
That could just mean first drink at the Jayhawk, or first drink of the evening. Would be helpful to clarify.
- Status