I don't think that's necessarily true. My understanding is that TSJ would likely have been afforded more due process, but the decision to suspend may not have changed.
TSJ Thread
- Status
One thing that I think is different here is that the Nassar and Sandusky abuse went on for quite some time and the Universities failed to respond appropriately including when one of the assistants coaches walked in on Sandusky and a young kid. That to me is what was some harmful to their reputations - not a single alleged incident not involving their university. I don't think the reputation bof a University gets destroyed by merely waiting until the process plays out in court. You may say that TSJ could give his side of the story to the university but that is a terrible idea for anyone to prove their innocence outside of a courtroom. Even IN a courtroom the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case e beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused has no obligation to speak at all. I wonder what difference it makes, if any, that UIUC is a PUBLIC entity and whether that demands due process. As some have mentioned, private companies typically have at-will relationships with their employees and can terminate without cause. In this case a public institution is making a determination (even if only preliminary) that a student who has not been convicted of a crime should NOT be able to participate in team activities.... TSJ will still have to deal with the trial either way.... better he should not be tried by his school by administrators but in a proper court of law with time to collect exculpatory evidence.....
Mr. Tibbs
- southeast DuPage
yea, I dont follow you here
My reading is he either would have been expelled from the University as a threat to others, or reinstated to the basketball team.
I don't see how any information can be released in an ongoing investigation.
I agree. Was going to post the same. Why is the case allowed to be tried in the media? Makes no sense.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
Seriously, though, this is my first day back at the office since my paternity leave ended, and my brain shut down trying to keep track of if anything here was new, noteworthy, moved the needle, etc.
I could be misreading / wrong . It would not be the first time. It happened once in 1968.
This is from TJ's court filing:
"Illinois did not apply Title IX in issuing the Suspension. Had Illinois applied Title
IX, it could not suspend TJ from the Team unless and until Illinois’ Title IX coordinator
“undertakes an individualized safety and risk analysis, [and] determines that an immediate threat
to the physical health or safety of any student or other individual arising from the allegations of
sexual harassment justifies removal, and provides the respondent with notice and an opportunity to challenge the decision immediately following the removal” (“Title IX Risk Analysis”). 34
CFR §106.44(c)."
"42. Illinois has never performed a Title IX Risk Analysis of TJ. Regardless, TJ has been on Illinois’ campus since the alleged incident, without any criminal, disciplinary, or other issues. Prior to his December 28, 2023, temporary suspension, TJ was a full participant on theTeam, traveling to numerous destinations. And all along TJ has continued his studies at Illinois, again working towards a degree in sociology in May 2024. Further, according to the various affiants [Exhibits A and Q-1 through Q-7], TJ is not a threat to anybody at Illinois or otherwise,
and Illinois has not alleged to the contrary. Instead, Illinois has allowed TJ to remain on campus as a student ..."
Last edited:
If I'm reading it correctly, the University of Illinois Police Department received the LPD detective's notes/summary by the end of September, and was told at the end of October that charges were likely imminent. Perhaps that was not conveyed to Josh Whitman, or they don't consider detective's notes to be of any substance, but I was under the impression that the University and the DIA were much more in the dark.
It also appears that TSJ's attorneys (I'm making an assumption that a redacted name is TSJ's based on context) did not make him available for an interview at least by the end of October. IANAL, so I thought his lawyers made it sound like he had cooperated more than that. I fully respect his desire to protect his defense by refusing an interview, but their statement seems misleading to me even if technically correct.
None of this is evidence of anything other than the fact that publicly available information is really tough to interpret.
I don't see anything here or in the 'full document' at end that adds any real new information (to the case) other than some info related to DIA handling it beforehand. What would be informative are the attachments in Josh Leitner's 9/27 email to UIPD Briggs, "Attached are my narrative reports I have completed in this case as well as a summary of what I would write in the affadavit for search warrant if I were the author".
A natural question to me is, why seek a DNA search warrant if the evidence which was already collected (and tested?) from accuser - underwear - didn't show non-accuser DNA? That is, why collect if there is nothing to match to? Then if it were a match, why that wouldn't be included in the charges which moves charges way past "plausible". Does that suggest it was not a match or that there was nothing to match to but they went thru the motions.
Edit: Board of Trustees account paid for the gas to travel to Lawrence on 12/28. Why would they being paying that?
Last edited:
UIPD knew on Oct 24 that TSJ “either was charged or will be soon”
Seriously, though, this is my first day back at the office since my paternity leave ended, and my brain shut down trying to keep track of if anything here was new, noteworthy, moved the needle, etc.
The LPD probably also wished they had checked him for her DNA as soon as possible. I don't know how long DNA could remain on him- I would think a few weeks is too long, but who knows.
Edit: It's also possible that they hadn't received the results from her DNA tests.
Last edited:
The interesting part seems to be that at least the cops were under the impression that they had enough evidence for the DA to charge him even absent the DNA evidence which would lead me to assume the DNA testing was inconclusive and/or did not clearly exonerate TSJ. I mean I would think you'd wait for the DNA results to come back to followup on those leads before charging someone because it could lead to a different person.
Nothing about this case makes sense. Applying Occum's Razor given the info and timelines, is that you have a rather shaky DA who has a history of overcharging and is in a disciplinary and political fight for their career, pushing forward a "heater" case that the main benefit accrues to their office from a public perception and narrative perspective. I believe this DA's office's actions mirror those of Mike Nifong in the Duke case. Case with alot of loose ends that serve an agenda of the prosecuting office.
Now taking that one step further...
If and when any University tosses aside one of its ‘assets’ before actually being determined guilty (a human being) when it perceives that the U’s interest is not being served by that asset... then the ‘asset’ (a human being) is simply being viewed as an income-generator and little more.
And if this is the case... it is even more right and equitable that an athlete goes for all for NIL money they can... and uses the Portal for the best venue for personal promotion as one can find... because both parties now share the same belief that it is ‘every one for itself’ and the pursuit of the greatest financial good is paramount to all other considerations.
The old system of players not benefitting financially from their talents sucked. It was totally tilted in favor of the U. Now at least the pretenses are over and everyone is being honest about what is going on.
That is actually a breath of fresh air. Honesty and openness.
Why does ANYONE do almost anything? Because they believe they are getting something out of it. Human nature laid bare.
Last edited:
We knew LPD communicated with UIPD. When does UIPD inform DIA of 10/24 and what information do they provide? I believe Josh referred to no "written information". Also we know it was not past tense, and I don't think it end of Dec is "soon".
That is the hard thing to wrap our heads around - A good prosecuting attorney will only bring a case if they feel as if they have enough evidence to confidently secure a conviction. Unfortunately, not all DAs are good prosecuting attorneys. Some vigorously bring cases against the accused for a whole host of reasons, whether they be political, racist, sexist, looking to make a name for themselves with a high profile case, etc. This DA certainly doesn't have the best history with ethical behavior, and the facts as we know them currently certainly don't seem to support TJ's guilt.
All the insiders, who consistently seem to have a great feel for the pulse of what is going on, seem to remain hopeful. Whether or not TJ ever gets to play for us again remains to be seen, but I will remain cautiously hopeful until such a time that those who know say differently. I, for one, selfishly want the process to run quickly, so can know all the ins, outs, and what-have-yous. The legal system rarely moves quickly. Glacial is better descriptor.
Request for speedy trial usually takes 4 months. January - April
Just simply sharing what’s in the article for those that might not have read it.
Attachments
Interestingly, in one of the PDF files, there is an email from Patrick Wade, Chief of Staff, UIUC, Division of Public Safety, to Major McKinley from Lawrence police department.
In this email, Wade states that “the Title IX process is under way”.
Wade also later states, “I don’t consider myself an expert on our Student Discipline or Title IX processes, but my understanding is this is all what’s mandated by federal law and due process requirements”.
So UIUC obviously had some Title IX processes going on……while at the same time, in court documents in Shannon’s TRO case, they were stating that there was no Title IX application in this case.
(Page 91 of the PDF below)
Nifong went on a media blitz sharing his unfounded opinions. Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense and lied about it. Nifong pressed forward with a case where the accuser changed her story many times, and the allegation was disputed by the other woman who was with the accuser.
There's a large gulf between what he did and what has been made public so far. The DA here may have pressed charges with insufficient evidence, but that's nowhere close to Nifong-level offenses.
Forgive my ignorance but who in the hell is Matt Collins and why is his angry email to Whitman and Squire part of the FOIA request lol
very interesting indeed - I missed it when skimming
- Status