I'm with you. I have serious doubts about her story. Find a guy in a bar who has a high probability of being an athlete. Concoct a story.
There's too many hoaxes out there for me to give certainty to people in these situations.
TSJ Thread
There's too many hoaxes out there for me to give certainty to people in these situations.
Genuine question, and please forgive my ignorance of the process: Is it possible there is prosecutorial evidence of which we are not aware…?
I have one question. How is this in any way, a trial for a felonious charge, considered a money grab? She will not get a penny if he is guilty as far as I know.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
The big matzo ball hanging out there is whether there are any witnesses on either side.
We know from the police report that the victim's friend didn't see the alleged incident. But the bar was packed, tons of people may have seen something. Given the description of events I don't know how the state could have a great witness, but even placing the two of them together could be valuable for them.
If I read correctly, she says she found him attractive and approached him.
He says he never met her, doesn't recall her.
It could be she was upset because nothing happened.
The prosecution gives the defense team the evidence in discovery. The defense will have it, but the public will not necessarily know it.
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
The other thing that does make me nervous is that this DA is basically on trial for her job. She’s been atrocious prosecuting cases and may feel like she has to get a conviction in any way possible. Given her previous misconduct issues, I would not put it past her to push the envelope (and I’m being diplomatic here) to get a conviction by any means necessary. I hope the defense team is on the lookout for ethical issues.
Nah. The lack of comments does not mean the lack of care, support and concern for TJ. In fact, it’s heightened for me.
At this point, there is a trial and that’s where this will be decided. Reading and commenting about the incident no longer offers value, imo. I hope his attorneys represent him well.
The Sprouting Divot
Invisible and Bulletproof
- Miracle Mile
Of the ten pages you cite, there were five worthwhile posts, maybe ten.
Last edited:
This is not a case that should go to trial from everything I've seen. Not saying it is not possible, but just seems so improbable that the risk of sending a young man to jail and/or ruin his reputation is so great that I just don't see any evidence to support the allegations.
I think this topic inspired a lot of folks to practice law
Will there be cameras in the courtroom during the trial?
IANAL. A criminal conviction is a huge win for a civil trial to follow. She could still win a civil trial even if the criminal complaint fails --something we've seen in the metoo era several times in high profile cases. There is a ton of money at stake in these proceedings.
Please delete if necessary, but I have avoided asking this "Elephant in the Room" question for a while now. However, with a new son who recently turned 4 months old ... I frankly want to prepare him for the world he will grow up in. And, of COURSE, IANAL!With that said, here is my question that I truly am trying to ask in the most respectful and nuanced way possible...
Am I to understand that in the eyes of this Kansas law, a man could have "unspoken consent" to be touching a woman sexually up until a point where she can determine that a successive "next sexual act" was not consensual and have grounds to allege sexual assault? Again, not talking "morally" here ... just legally. I believe in the documents for this case, the alleged victim claimed she had "given" consent for the alleged perpetrator to be touching her buttocks and then the alleged perpetrator apparently interpreted their sexual-in-nature interaction up to that point to be of a nature that he could touch her frontal private parts. And because she was only okay with the former and not the latter, this constituted sexual assault.
I mean, can we be real for a second here? If beginning to put your hands down the front of a woman's pants without formal verbal consent is potentially sexual assault, the vast majority of sexual interaction between men and women the age of TSJ could be considered potential "rape" if the woman retracts consent after the man takes it to that next step. Is a male in that situation just simply and unequivocally risking a VERY dicey situation if he does not obtain verbal consent first? And what if the woman gives verbal consent but later decides she was not okay with it? Is that a "He Said, She Said" case even though his DNA WILL be found? Did he need it in writing??
I know the situation described would be INCREDIBLY rare, and in most cases it is clear if two people are engaging in consensual sexual acts. Maybe the risk is just with a stranger? Because I can guarantee you that most guys I know do not stop and ask, haha. And I have never considered "going with the flow" of the sexual interaction to really be "RAPE." I have avoided asking this to not appear totally delusional or disrespectful toward the sensitivity of the case, but man ... I guess I really don't understand where the legal line here is drawn. Any thoughtful and respectful responses are REALLY appreciated, so thank you!
EDIT: I also want to be VERY CLEAR that I get that the basic objective of these laws is to stop an unambiguously bad thing - for someone to perform a sexual act toward a woman that she did not want. And there should absolutely be rigid laws to stop that. I merely want to understand what the legal expectation of men would be to prevent this type of legal trouble in the rare circumstance where there is a disconnect between parties.
My disclaimers are the same as yours and those should be taken in the same way. That said, I take exception to the concept that the initiation of each step of a romantic encounter be preceded with a verbal request and acceptance of said step. It would indeed be tedious and mood killing to have to say may I touch that, may I put my hand there. and so on and so forth for every step preceding and following.
(And I’m presuming this should be reciprocal as well).
I’m sure no one on this thread, male or female, has experienced anything like that. I’ve read that some believe such a transactional procedure should be followed, but no, you haven’t been there and done that.
On the other hand, you don’t step up to the plate, run straight to third base, touch the bag and then run back to the dugout…without remembering it. Not that I would do, or would have done that, if for no other reason than why would you do that? As Dan Fogelberg sang, you want to touch ‘em all.
That said, I’m glad I don’t live in an era of transactional relationships and one night stands. I had enough trouble navigating the good old days. These days? Good luck to your son.
Last edited:
Setting it up for the civil trial where the jury will give her more than her lawyers ask for.
Bro fighter in the night ...Please delete if necessary, but I have avoided asking this "Elephant in the Room" question for a while now. However, with a new son who recently turned 4 months old ... I frankly want to prepare him for the world he will grow up in. And, of COURSE, IANAL!
Am I to understand that in the eyes of this Kansas law, a man could have "unspoken consent" to be touching a woman sexually up until a point where she can determine that a successive "next sexual act" was not consensual and have grounds to allege sexual assault? Again, not talking "morally" here ... just legally. I believe in the documents for this case, the alleged victim claimed she had "given" consent for the alleged perpetrator to be touching her buttocks and then the alleged perpetrator apparently interpreted their sexual-in-nature interaction up to that point to be of a nature that he could touch her frontal private parts. And because she was only okay with the former and not the latter, this constituted sexual assault.
I mean, can we be real for a second here? If beginning to put your hands down the front of a woman's pants without formal verbal consent is potentially sexual assault, the vast majority of sexual interaction between men and women the age of TSJ could be considered potential "rape" if the woman retracts consent after the man takes it to that next step. Is a male in that situation just simply and unequivocally risking a VERY dicey situation if he does not obtain verbal consent first? And what if the woman gives verbal consent but later decides she was not okay with it? Is that a "He Said, She Said" case even though his DNA WILL be found? Did he need it in writing??
I know the situation described would be INCREDIBLY rare, and in most cases it is clear if two people are engaging in consensual sexual acts. Maybe the risk is just with a stranger? Because I can guarantee you that most guys I know do not stop and ask, haha. And I have never considered "going with the flow" of the sexual interaction to really be "RAPE." I have avoided asking this to not appear totally delusional or disrespectful toward the sensitivity of the case, but man ... I guess I really don't understand where the legal line here is drawn. Any thoughtful and respectful responses are REALLY appreciated, so thank you!
EDIT: I also want to be VERY CLEAR that I get that the basic objective of these laws is to stop an unambiguously bad thing - for someone to perform a sexual act toward a woman that she did not want. And there should absolutely be rigid laws to stop that. I merely want to understand what the legal expectation of men would be to prevent this type of legal trouble in the rare circumstance where there is a disconnect between parties.
Well stated on your part regarding a very sensitive topic/situation.
Young men and women can get caught up in dicey social interactive happenings.
I am not a lawyer ... but previous TSjr lawyers stated this case they would take it to trial. But now with felony charges, I would not be surprised if there is a plea deal.
In all said, I hope the best for TSjr and the young lady too.
Are you a defense attorney? Waiving your client’s 5th amdt rights for a remote chance borders on malpractice.
These seem like good attorneys, which is why I’m saying I don’t believe that they fully expected to lose the hearing. That’s spin.
Last edited:
Talk about a hot take!
Case scheduled for June 10th.....Expected to last 3 days.....Draft on June 26th......If found Not Guilty, I don't see why he wouldn't be drafted? Will this hurt his draft stock? Perhaps. I would even grant that it likely does. But I still think that he palys in the league next year, especially if he is aquitted.
