No, that's specifically what illini0440 said. I quoted that from him after he told me I have not read the laws.
TSJ Thread
- Status
Pretty much everyone that has posted on this thread is out in left field . . . . with no bat, no ball, and glove . . . .
(not everyone mind you, but pretty much everyone).
I don't think everyone is agreeing with this. But, if you all are agreeing, then you are saying that the DA is radically misapplying the law or saying that the 0440 isn't talking about a legal misrepresentation in the charge of rape but rather just explaining why the alleged victim had a change of heart. If it's the latter, then that is going to be hard for anyone to prove.
This is why TSJ or anyone who finds themselves in a similar situation is in such a tough spot.
As I said yesterday, I doubt this is a case of "He pinned me down against my will and raped me." Force or fear. All she has to do is say after the fact that she felt afraid or she felt like she didn't have a choice. It could be her word about how she felt versus TSJ's word. That puts a huge burden on TSJ to prove consent.
Hoping he kept his receipts. From what some of the insiders have hinted at, it sounds like he has.
*I'm not claiming this is what actually took place. Just showing how, with the way the laws are written and prosecuted (especially post Me Too) defendants like TSJ face an uphill battle.
Edit: I'm not a lawyer
Until something more happens, we are ....
@lstewart53x3 said it much more concisely than I did.
I think we are trying to align what we know publicly (which is little) with the statute too directly. (As @JFGsCoffeeMug said in the previous thread)
Disclaimer: This is all in the vein of discussion on misrepresentation, which has not been publicly confirmed yet.
What seems to be happening is:
A) Alleged victim is saying TSJ misrepresented himself. We’re not sure if he told her he played football or he simply didn’t correct her when she said he was a football player or she just assumed and found out later and TSJ wasn’t part of the thought process at all.
B) Alleged victim goes to police after finding out TSJ isn’t a football player and says “I wouldn’t have given consent if I’d known the truth. I now feel violated…and never verbally gave consent to him in the first place.” (True or not, courts have to figure out based on evidence)
C) Lawrence PD/AD now do their investigation and subsequently charge TSJ with rape. They can’t use the medical or procedural misrepresentation statutes of rape because they don’t apply. So they go with the force/fear statute and say that TSJ used the misrepresentation in a way that allowed him to gain consent (if it was given at all) and then had sexual intercourse. (Digit to female sex organ counts) Basically, without the misrepresentation, TSJ would have needed force/fear to finger her.
D) Now that they know he had “sexual intercourse” (again, digit to sex organ counts under Kansas law) and the accuser is saying she would never have consented or never actually gave consent, they tie that sexual intercourse to no consent and bam, you have rape by force/fear.
TL;DR - They used the accusers allegations to piece together a force/fear charge based off of TSJ having (digit) sexual intercourse which was only possible because of how he misrepresented himself.
My opinion (FWLIW): That is an extremely weak case, and only gets (a little) stronger if TSJ outrightly said “I’m a football player”. If he didn’t say anything or she assumed it, it would be VERY difficult to have it hold up.
I think we are trying to align what we know publicly (which is little) with the statute too directly. (As @JFGsCoffeeMug said in the previous thread)
Disclaimer: This is all in the vein of discussion on misrepresentation, which has not been publicly confirmed yet.
What seems to be happening is:
A) Alleged victim is saying TSJ misrepresented himself. We’re not sure if he told her he played football or he simply didn’t correct her when she said he was a football player or she just assumed and found out later and TSJ wasn’t part of the thought process at all.
B) Alleged victim goes to police after finding out TSJ isn’t a football player and says “I wouldn’t have given consent if I’d known the truth. I now feel violated…and never verbally gave consent to him in the first place.” (True or not, courts have to figure out based on evidence)
C) Lawrence PD/AD now do their investigation and subsequently charge TSJ with rape. They can’t use the medical or procedural misrepresentation statutes of rape because they don’t apply. So they go with the force/fear statute and say that TSJ used the misrepresentation in a way that allowed him to gain consent (if it was given at all) and then had sexual intercourse. (Digit to female sex organ counts) Basically, without the misrepresentation, TSJ would have needed force/fear to finger her.
D) Now that they know he had “sexual intercourse” (again, digit to sex organ counts under Kansas law) and the accuser is saying she would never have consented or never actually gave consent, they tie that sexual intercourse to no consent and bam, you have rape by force/fear.
TL;DR - They used the accusers allegations to piece together a force/fear charge based off of TSJ having (digit) sexual intercourse which was only possible because of how he misrepresented himself.
My opinion (FWLIW): That is an extremely weak case, and only gets (a little) stronger if TSJ outrightly said “I’m a football player”. If he didn’t say anything or she assumed it, it would be VERY difficult to have it hold up.
Last edited:
pruman91
- Paducah, Ky
I'm O & B through and through....................I really really am................................................
The burden of proof in a criminal trial lies with the prosecution, though, eh? The defendant must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which means the evidence must be so strong that there is no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime.
Krombopulos_Michael
- Aurora, Illinois (that’s a suburb of Chicago)
Oops..sorry, I was looking for the 0440 Bourbon and Tequila thread.
I believe the following are definitions in Kansas Law defining important terms in this matter. Doesn't mean a strong case, a weak case, guilt, or innocence.
I believe these definitions, combined with the above may help to explain when determining if charges are filed and what terms would necessitate definition and evidence to prove the term to a trier of fact.
"Sexual intercourse" is defined as any penetration of the female sex organ by a finger, the male sex organ or any object.
"Consent to sexual intercourse or sexual activity" is defined as follows:
A voluntary agreement between 2 or more people to engage in sexual activity. Consent must be clear, informed, voluntary, sober, act and person-specific, ongoing, mutual, active, and come directly from the individuals engaging in the sexual contact."
Also, consent can be withdrawn at any time during the act.
At least these are the definitions I have found when reviewing the Kansas criminal statutes.
I’ll add one thing: Those expecting something to change on the January 18th court date are going to be disappointed. In this hearing, the judge will simply read the charges and TSJ will enter his plea. There will be no evidence presented nor explanations provided. It’s merely the first step in a long legal process.
If the lawyer wanted to file a motion to dismiss when when would that happen? Or is that not even a real thing or likely thing before the trial date? I have no idea what I'm talking about, other than it seems like if a DA came up with some completely ludicrous charge I'd think that there would be a way to get a judge to weigh in before a trial that is months down the road.
skyIdub
Winged Warrior
I will go with the insider on the information on the case that TSJ is innocent. Which personally I truly believe he is. What I will disagree with is whats being implied is that TSJ will be allowed to play while out on bail on a rape charge. IMO the charge will have to go away for that to occur if this truly is "zero tolerence.
However, if this is a "zero tolerance policy" even if JW and BU know TSJ is not guilty i do not see any situation were the University of Illinois, JW or any university would or ever has let a student athlete play any sport while out on bail on a rape charge. I truly believe he is innocent but I dont see the University taking that stance and will let the court process play out. Now if the charge is dropped or reduced he could maybe be allowed to while the process plays out this is a felony is a different beast.
Last edited:
Big Jack
- Decatur
Oops..sorry, I was looking for the 0440 Bourbon and Tequila thread.
Is this regarding him being a football player?
A few things (again I'm no legal expert) but:
1) Knowing what little we know today, IF this were the story the "victim" puts forth, there would seem to be reasonable doubt. We agree on that.
2) Jury trials are notoriously unpredictable.
3) The uncorroborated testimony of the victim is often enough evidence on its own to get a conviction in rape trials.
4) Which is why, relatively speaking, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant more than it would in a murder case, for example, where the victim can't testify.
The defense attorney can file a motion to dismiss the charges (or one of the charges). Under the Kansas statute:
(4) The motion to dismiss shall be made at any time prior to arraignment or within 21 days after the plea is entered. The period for filing such motion may be enlarged by the court when it shall find that the grounds therefor were not known to the defendant and could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered by the defendant within the period specified herein.
Edited to add that the arraignment happens with the initial in Illinois. It’s where the judge reads the complaint.
Retro62
- North Bethesda, Maryland
Will it change anything about his suspension once he enters a plea of not guilty in a court of law? From that moment, does the University see him as an innocent party until proven otherwise, and is willing to say so publicly? I accept the reality that he will most likely not play again, but I am now invested in the procedural aspect of how this all plays out.
I could be misreading the posts, but it certainly seems like the laws are weighed heavily in favor of the accuser, and that TSJ was basically facing complete ruin based on just the accusation, no matter how it turns out. Now, I do not want to denigrate the accuser based on hearsay either, so I am trying not to let my Illini bias cloud my judgement, anymore than it already has anyway. I only hope, for both parties, the full truth comes out.
Yep! I feel he is innocent and wish he could play but unless the charge changes or goes away it is wishful thinking to expect anyone would be allowed to play out on bail on a rape charge. Debate it all you want, be pissed off but unless its dropped or reduced the University isn't going to take that stance even for the Pope.Until something more happens, we are ....
New and a Lurker since the beginning. Having been involved with prosecutions as a Fed on state/ federal levels, I thought I’d weigh in on the charges brought by the DA. If we felt strongly about the serious felony charge, we would not accompany it with a much lesser misdemeanor charge and allow a jury the opportunity to forego the felony and find on the misdemeanor.
Lawyers, please correct me if I’m wrong, but in most states, a motion to dismissed is filed after the preliminary hearing with the trial judge, not the judge who oversees the hearing. This is essentially a way of claiming that the hearing judge incorrectly allowed the case to go to trial.”
- Status