This is incorrect. The defense's goal is to introduce reasonable doubt and promiscuity can be a component of that. Whenever there are multiple male samples found and only one man is accused, it becomes more difficult to pull off a successful prosecution.
TSJ Thread
- Status
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
He said she said is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This has interacted with sports fandom and so there has been a chest-thumping aggrievement about it from the start which continues to be in evidence in this thread. I feel better staying out of that.
But what REALLY matters here is the threat to TSJ's freedom, and by proxy his professional basketball career. And that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Reading the motion and expert's report in full, I am much more confident today that the state can't achieve that, and I'm much more hopeful about TSJ's draft status than I was when I woke up this morning.
The latter is the thing though. IF we are headed toward a dismissal and/or certain not guilty verdict based on this report (which is only from mid-April, note), TSJ deserves to have that sooner rather than later as these are critical months in his career.
I'm assuming you're cracking wise because there were possibly 5 males contributing DNA to her swabs, but to say there was lots of it is misleading.
Read the full report posted by the primitive AI bot. The quantity of DNA was so minuscule that it cannot be determined where it came from or how it got there. Gloves, instruments, containers, sneezes, coughs, even the breath of a male technician could be responsible. And none of it matches TSJ.
This report exonerates him not because she is promiscuous, but because she lied. As did the DA. And it's not just his word vs hers, there is DNA evidence and a full report that contradicts her story.
MoCoMdIllini
- Montgomery County, Maryland
This Kansas prosecution smells like Nifong.
bdutts
- Houston, Texas
The state probably should have taken fingernail scrapings under Shannon’s fingernails to determine if her DNA was there. Too late for that now…No DNA was found that raises to the level in the state's own guidelines that would be reliable to indicate anything, as opposed to the background noise of collecting and handling the sample. Fully zero DNA of any kind was found in the swabs of the accusers genitals. The only sample for which they were even able to attempt a profile match was from the accuser's buttocks, and it expressly excluded TSJ.
When put into the context in which the incident occurred and the facts as alleged, this result is fatal to the state's case in my message board poster whose work in criminal law ended during the Weber Administration opinion. Beyond a reasonable doubt is, as justice requires, an extremely high bar.
Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
TBF, I actually think a lot of people were open to the fact that the alleged victim WAS “assaulted” (however that is defined) … they were just HIGHLY skeptical that she correctly identified the perpetrator as Shannon. And it sounds like our skepticism was warranted.
Zorak
- Naperville
Hopefully Terrence will be too busy playing in the league.
Didn't the charge of rape require digital penetration? If DA had this report - with zero DNA found where she claimed he touched her - and decided to charge him nonetheless, then yeah it's Nifong time.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
I never liked hanging the defense on the mistaken ID question (Shannon was at the scene, has unique and identifiable hair, and is of course ridiculously tall when among normal people), why would she pick this guy she doesn't even know, of all people?
But the failure to make the DNA link does make that one more doubt in a case replete with them.
The only thing I still wonder about is witnesses. This was a crowded public bar. The police report said the accuser's friend didn't see the alleged incident, and didn't mention any other witnesses. Have they found someone who saw something in the meantime? Given the circumstances what could they have seen?
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself concluding that the case is dead, but a DNA negative is a big deal.
I don't think it works like that - just because a woman has consensual sex with two men (whose DNA is present) is not a defense that sex with a third male (whose DNA is also present) was consensual. Maybe if the victim cannot identify the male (I.e. she was drugged and unconscious), the presence of multiple male samples would be relevant. Otherwise, it is my understanding of the law that evidence of a woman's sexual promiscuity is not admissable.
In any event, this isn't the situation here. TSJ's team is not going to argue that the DNA present was from a variety of men that had their hands in the victim's pants. They are arguing that the levels are too low to establish that any male DNA was present.
Read the report - TSJ's team is not attempting to get evidence in of the several other males DNA present, but to exclude any such evidence.
This is not correct - the jury has to decide.
For example, a woman shows up with bruises, and a rape kit proves a certain male's semen is present. Woman claims she was raped. Accused males says she consented and said she told him she likes it rough. He said, she said. Does he automatically get off because no witnesses.
Last edited:
DReq
Always Illini
- Central Illinois
You take it out of the "he said, she said" situation when you add DNA present that identifies "a certain male" and I assume that would be the defendant. That makes it he said, she said, the DNA said what she said.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
As much as there's lots of interesting facets to what that DNA test uncovered, the correct legal conclusion is "no sample above the threshold of any kind of reliability was found". It just turned up nothing at all, in a statistical sense.
Obviously it's always a little more complex that a literal "he said she said".
A negative DNA test is compelling evidence against the facts as alleged. Any witnesses who can say "I was with TSJ and didn't see this happen" is further evidence.
You make a very reasonable, logical, legally accurate point. How dare you.
DReq
Always Illini
- Central Illinois
But as you said, he said she said is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt standing alone. It is a toss-up standing alone. That was from your statement.
Of course it is always more complicated than that but the OP responded by adding a DNA test that is not negative. That doesn't seem to be the case here so I simply pointed out that by taking it from bare he said she said to a positive DNA test the OP was changing the premise.
Can anyone post the complete document? Since I don't do Twitter only a small portion of the document is viewable., and as a retired PD I'm interested in the legal arguement.
IlliniKat91
- Chicago, IL
The DNA found on the accuser either doesn't meet the threshold to be used to match TSJ or, where there is enough DNA to meet the threshold, doesn't match. It's not a legal finding he didn't do it, but it pokes a pretty big hole in what seems to be an already flimsy case.Someone smart tell me what opinion to have
He was surrounded by basketball players and she's a freshman community college student who misidentified Justin Harmon as a KU player. She picked a tall guy who got unlucky that his hair would be the easiest to remember and then she scoured the KU and Illini rosters looking for a matching haircut.
I think it would be interesting what she told the police before the DNA sample, if she said the only DNA they would find was Shannon's, then it gets pretty hard to explain several different samples
And judging from what was stated that happened, it’s possible multiple people groped this lady and possibly contributed to the dna found. Not promiscuity as some have stated
Garbage Parrish doesn't deserve the platform he still has. Him and to a lesser extent Matt Norlander went all in on the pitchforks against Underwood and Terrence. I will also be awaiting that apology article. I haven't listened to CBS Eye on College Basketball podcast since their ridiculous podcast those few months ago
Same here, he was a total A-Hole. On his Top 25 and 1 rankings, he would consistently rank us much lower than the AP or the Coaches. He would never even mention TJ's play no matter how stellar it was. He deliberately snubbed us, and specifically TJ. By the end of the season, I despised him.
- Status