TSJ Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#151      

Kaks33

K
Kaks33
Here is a copy of the federal court docket for anyone with a Pacer account. His case number is 2:24-cv-02010-CRL-EIL

Federal Docket.PNG
 
#154      

CharliedonSurf

C
CharliedonSurf
AdamFletchersBicep said:
This seems to not be in line with the thought that the university is ‘in on it’ with the goal of getting TSJ back on the court quicker. Seems quite the opposite actually
Click to expand...
Right. The board of trustees is represented by their in-house counsel and likely outside counsel who are ethically bound to protect the interests of the Board and institution, not necessairly the IL men's bball team or TSJ.
 
#156      

Username

U
Username
AdamFletchersBicep said:
This seems to not be in line with the thought that the university is ‘in on it’ with the goal of getting TSJ back on the court quicker. Seems quite the opposite actually
Click to expand...
I agree...and isn't that what the university would/should want it to look like? I'm no 3 dimensional chess player, but it did concern me from a reputation standpoint for the university, that it could appear that U of I was just putting up a token defense against the motion filed by TSJ's attorneys. By doing this, it would appear to show that U of I is looking for the proper court to make the correct outcome, and then, of course, U of I will abide by that court's determination.

Obviously I'm on this website so I'm a homer with the orange colored glasses in one hand and the orange kool aid in the other, but that makes sense to me anyway.
 
#159      

TheGMan

TheGMan
TheGMan
danielb927 said:
I've been storing up a lot of thoughts, and in light of the release of more information last night, wanted to share some of them. I apologize in advance for the long post.

First of all, a lot of posts are addressing the prevalence of false accusations, unreported crimes, and topics one might consider part of the "culture wars" of our time.

The first thing to recognize is that many people are convicted for crimes they didn't commit, while many others did commit crimes and aren't convicted. Both things can be, and very much are, true.

The prevalence of both types of mistake also can and should guide the questions we ask around how we handle criminal cases. How many actual offenders walking free is too many? How many wrongful convictions is too many?

It's all well and good to say that, morally, one of either is too many. But realistically, we will never make both numbers zero. Even more unfortunately, efforts to reduce one number will most likely lead to an increase in the other. Want to be tough on crime? Fewer criminals will walk free - but you're going to lock up a few innocent people too. Or is "innocent until proven guilty" the most important thing? In that case, more innocent people will see justice prevail - but more victims won't, because the burden of proof can't be met.

In the case of sexual violence, the trend that has been playing out over the past decade is a recognition of (and response to) the fact that this ratio was heavily skewed towards guilty persons going free.

I am not an expert, and I can't prove this as fact, but I'm still choosing to use the word "fact" because it seems so thoroughly supported by everything I've attempted to learn. This trend manifested itself in many ways: overt victim blaming or shaming; non-reporting due to low expectations for any justice being done or relief given; reframing of acknowledged acts as appropriate rather than inappropriate. The response to that, then, has been to make efforts to ensure more actual crimes are reported and prosecuted. And this involves a whole host of efforts: awareness campaigns; efforts to encourage belief in those making an accusation; likely an increase in decisions to prosecute cases with less concrete evidence.

That is the context we're in on a societal level - a shift away from the heavy presumption of innocence in cases of possible sexual violence.

Second, the strength of this particular case is a topic of ongoing discussion.

This is where "IANAL" comes in, of course. That said, in trying to read the documents that were released yesterday with an impartial, disinterested mind, I arrived at the conclusion that this is, at present, a "he said, she said" case. It sounds neither like something that absolutely had to have happened, nor like something that absolutely could not have happened. It also sounds like something that, if it did happen, matches what was charged.

That's really about all I can say from what I read. The caveats and ongoing questions are much more numerous and significant. We (or at least I) have no idea if there's additional evidence that has yet to surface. Personally, I have no idea what the standards are for conviction on either charge - what they were, whether they've changed in light of the societal changes above, or to what degree judge or jury variability weighs in. To my untrained eye and (probably futile) attempts to be impartial, the case seems to be on the weaker side. But, I put very little confidence in that assessment. The posts by others with more expertise, which I greatly appreciate, seem to have some level of variability, confirming my view that this is not a straightforward assessment to make.

That, in summary, is where the legal case seems to be at - a case of conflicting accounts with a huge amount still uncertain.

My last point is the one I feel is perhaps the most challenging. As important as these discussions are - as relevant as first is to the world we're constantly re-shaping, and as critical as the second may be in determining whether we see TSJ play again - to me, they amount to approximately zero information about whether what's alleged did or didn't occur.

And that's hard, because we all want to know. How could we not?

Like most of us, I had a good impression of TSJ's character before the charges were filed. He seems like a nice guy, a hard worker, and a good teammate. But I have to be honest with myself - the impression I have is based on watching him play basketball, on thirdhand message board reports, and on the curated media personality that every high-profile athlete works hard to polish. In other words, I like the guy, but would be seriously kidding myself to feel like I know him.

And yet, despite my best efforts to be impartial, I still want to know whether TSJ is "good" or "bad". I want to know if he "did it" or not. I want concrete information to tell me whether to root for him unequivocally or to write him off entirely. I'm not proud of this inclination, but at our core, morality and the desire to be one of the "good guys" is really what drives us all, and this is no more than an expression of that desire. The fact that I regard almost everyone in the world as striving for good within their own worldview, though I hold that at the core of my identity, helps only a little.

Unfortunately again (as so many things are in this case), I don't hold out much hope that we ever will know what happened. Even if the case turns out to be the thinnest of thin, barring something specifically exonerating, that would only amount to an absence of evidence - not an evidence of absence. On the flip side, if there's enough evidence to lead to some sort of conviction, it will still be natural to question that evidence, or even to go a level deeper and concede the action but wonder about the motivation.

In summary, time - a lot of time - will eventually tell us how we as a society chose to change our response to sexual violence claims in this era. Trying to assess that via what happens to TSJ is short-sighted; not useless, but of the same value as any other single sample. Time - a bit less of it - will also tell us whether TSJ is criminally guilty or not. That is the key question of the day, the one that impacts us as fans and, on some level, the only one that matters to us as participants in a society governed by the rule of law.

No amount of time, in all likelihood, will reveal what really happened in that bar on that day at that hour. The challenge, as I see it, is to make peace with that uncertainty.
Click to expand...
This is a fantastic post
 
#165      

LouHenson

LouHenson
LouHenson
LvilleILL said:
Gonna stop posting on this until more finality is reached. Feel bad for the team during this time as well. Hope they can come out strong and beat MSU. Should have an answer on this before the weekend
Click to expand...
I guess I get the venue change due to the optics for the university, but if I was a future “potential” UI athlete this would concern me. If the university is perceived as not supporting its student athletes why would I go to school there?

The process Whitman created is fine, it just has been outdated in 8 years mostly due to the advent of NIL which changes everything. Any athlete charged should be able to have their ability to present in front of this board. This just seems like Judge, Jury and executioner all in 3 peoples hands?
 
#168      

WyattEarp

WyattEarp
WyattEarp
stlrunner said:
Considering you could have received bed bugs from a Motel 6, maybe that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they at leas left the light on for him. It’s helpful when you’re trying to avoid the hookers and the drug deals in the parking lot.
 
#170      

WeWillWhen

WeWillWhen
WeWillWhen
winepros said:
The actual complaint has been released, I believe I saw it on Twitter. In my opinion, as a woman who believes women as a rule, there was not enough evidence there to have charged him with rape. Even if he is found to have done what is alleged (butt grabbing, and sticking his hand up her skirt), they should have at least investigated before moving on such serious charges. They didn't even question any witnesses (Justin Harmon, Hunter Dickinson, Lance McCullars, the grad assistant from Illinois). I'm not saying she's lying, but she may be mistaken. There's at least reasonable doubt, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I just don’t see any possibility that a 12 person jury could ever find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on these facts.

This isn’t a “he said/she said,” this is an “entire room full of people didn’t see it/she said” — even the accuser’s friend didn’t see anything happen. THAT, coupled with what appears to be a total lack of physical evidence + that this supposedly all happened in 30 seconds with no words exchanged and another woman on TJ’s arm + the accuser not reporting this until after going home and hunting for a perp online, creates reasonable doubt.

If, in addition, there is any substance to the online rumors that this accuser has a history of doing this … wow. I have trouble understanding how the charge was brought.
 
#171      

eas23

E
eas23
AdamFletchersBicep said:
This seems to not be in line with the thought that the university is ‘in on it’ with the goal of getting TSJ back on the court quicker. Seems quite the opposite actually
Click to expand...
The order itself is not in line with that thought. The idea that the school and/or the DIA would capitulate to being dragged through the mud like that to get a player, any player, back on the court (when there are still criminal procedures pending) is absolutely ridiculous.

Our fanbase is taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.....again.
 
#172      

JFGsCoffeeMug

JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
Chicago
JFGsCoffeeMug
ThePortalMadeMeDoIt said:
It is a damn shame that the University is turning its back on the players. Terrence and the people who believe he is isn't should be ashamed at this university. To say potential recruits are not looking at this and thinking they don't have our back I am going to find a school that does is just foolish.
Click to expand...
Because the legal challenge is not based solely on TSJ's specific circumstances, but the relevant policies in general, the University must defend in court its policies and how they are implemented. The course of action they are taking is not personal. Abandoning or failing to defend its own policies would open up the University to potential litigation from others.
 
#173      

Old Farm Illini

O
Old Farm Illini
LouHenson said:
I guess I get the venue change due to the optics for the university, but if I was a future “potential” UI athlete this would concern me. If the university is perceived as not supporting its student athletes why would I go to school there?

The process Whitman created is fine, it just has been outdated in 8 years mostly due to the advent of NIL which changes everything. Any athlete charged should be able to have their ability to present in front of this board. This just seems like Judge, Jury and executioner all in 3 peoples hands?
Click to expand...
This is a horrible situation to be in but at the end of the day he's being charged with a crime that could send him to prison for decades. If he's innocent, this should reflect negatively on Lawrence, Kansas and their DA, not Illinois and its staff.
 
#174      

Mr. Tibbs

Mr. Tibbs
southeast DuPage
Mr. Tibbs
JFGsCoffeeMug said:
Because the legal challenge is not based solely on TSJ's specific circumstances, but the relevant policies in general, the University must defend in court its policies and how they are implemented. The course of action they are taking is not personal. Abandoning or failing to defend its own policies would open up the University to potential litigation from others.
Click to expand...
thoughts

yea, the UofI has to walk the tightrope of doing what’s right in totality of entire student body and for TSJ in particular

processes need to be followed and given proper time

moving to Fed court may add a day or two , but still is more than likely the right thing to do .

sports and Admin seldom sing from the page - esp at UI

we knew this was a can of worms from the get go - if he can get on the floor and play starting next week , I will be feeling 1000% better than 10 days ago
 
Status
Not open for further replies.