If that's her testimony at trial she's instantly lost all credibility with every one on the jury whose been a college student out bar hopping.
TSJ Thread
I should clarify that I can't say for sure without hearing all relevant testimony (which I may never). But in her account, she saw him, left the room, discussed him with her friend, re-entered the room, walked over to him, and had some interaction with him. So she had ample time to get a good look at him, and her friend also ID'd him. Her ability to ID the person sitting next to him could certainly add credibility to her ID of him, but it doesn't hinge on it for me. She was focused on him, not the person sitting next to him, and TSJ has a pretty distinguishable appearance.
As for misidentifying Harmon, I assume you're referring to the investigative report. I personally think there's room for several possibilities in the detective's account (there's a recording, so I assume both sides will review and bring it up if relevant). It's possible she didn't misidentify anyone, but rather saw both of Harmon and McCullar at the bar with TSJ (my understanding is that TSJ was indeed with both of them), and her statement either wasn't clear or wasn't reported clearly by the detective. But as I said, she was focused on the person she thinks is TSJ, so identifying others isn't necessarily as critical, and doesn't raise any alarms, especially if Harmon and McCullar were both actually there.
She also stated "Terrance was wearing a mustard yellow shirt". If he was, in fact, wearing a yellow mustard shirt (and I have to believe he was, or the defense would have mentioned it somewhere), that would also help her believability.
I'm not going to assume anything about her level of intoxication beyond what she and other witnesses/evidence can demonstrate. For now, it sounds like that was a minimal amount. It would be obvious from the video if she was plastered, but that obviously can't prove how lucid she was.
That is incorrect
What is your source for this?
Would be interesting to know if they have video from any of the other bars she said she went to
To be clear, she sent the detective an Instagram picture showing Harmon and Shannon together and said "that's the Kansas player I saw Shannon with. That's how I knew to look at the online rosters." In other words she knew to look at the rosters based on a case of mistaken identity, which is the theme of her accusation.
Source?
I completely agree with you. It’s especially unfortunate for defendants given the trial penalty.
I’m not sure what the law is in Kansas. I would hope it’s similar to Illinois just for the health of the criminal justice system.
Well you lead your analysis of her statement with "she clearly thought " .
We have no idea what she thought. Shannon said it's a complete fabrication. Why do you think she's telling the truth?
Your source doesn't look very credible. It appears a lot of gaps were filled in based on assumptions.
The motion by Shannon's lawyers tells a different story.
Her identity is available… it’s public info in one of the previous court docs. Can’t remember it now but her name is out there. She was white iirc
Exhibit B-3:
"[Victim] stated there was a male next to the suspect that [Victim] recognized as [redacted], a KU basketball player."
"[Victim] stated in the Instagram post, Terrance was pictured with the same male she saw next to him in the bar."
The Instagram post below the text shows Shannon and Harmon. Illinois deleted the Instagram post, but the picture itself can still be seen publicly in this article.
It's interesting you're asking for a source for this, when you mentioned the mustard yellow shirt, which was listed in the text directly below the Instagram post.
Last edited:
Fair point. It would have been more accurate to say "she clearly states that she was having an interaction with the person who she says assaulted her (rather than being grabbed out of nowhere, turning around, and assuming it was the first person she saw)."
I was generally responding to posts that seemed to misrepresent her accusation.
You used quotes around a statement that was not in the report: "that's the Kansas player I saw Shannon with. That's how I knew to look at the online rosters."
Did she say exactly that, or is that your impression from the report (which is a detective's summary rather than a full transcript)?
It's possible that it's exactly as you say (which doesn't necessarily invalidate her ID of Shannon, though I can see how it could add doubt). It's also possible that she saw TSJ with both McCullar and Harmon, and the detective summarized it poorly. I'd need the full recording to know for sure, and I'm sure it will come up at trial.
Your argument is that the detective might have failed to write down what she said properly. While possible, if we have to entertain that, it invalidates any possible discussion because we could say about anything that doesn't line up that it was misheard or miswritten.
We have to assume what we are provided in the case files is accurate to the views of the author and the subject. Not that they're the truth, but that they're their truth. Otherwise there's no discussion to be had.
There's a difference between suggesting a report is blatantly/explicitly wrong vs suggesting there's an ambiguous phrase in a summary. It may even have been ambiguity in her statement rather than his summary. I wish we had the recording.
I'm partly considering the possibility of ambiguity on this detail because the photo itself has Harmon labeled as such, and because both McCullar and Harmon were apparently with TSJ at the bar, so it would make sense for her to mention both.
But even if she has them mixed up in some way (in which case it's ambiguous exactly how she has them mixed up), her statement describes focusing on TSJ, so her ability to identify those around him doesn't mean as much. Sure, being able to reliably ID them would help her case, so she'd be missing out on that corroboration, but the case doesn't fall apart on it either in my opinion.
I agree the publicly available evidence isn't strong, but I generally find it very plausible. Who knows what else the jury will hear or what they will think. We shouldn't jump to a conclusion of "innocent" (or even "reasonable doubt") or "guilty" without knowing all the information.
Edit: I hope the outcome is very clear that he's innocent, and that she wasn't assaulted. Just "reasonable doubt" could leave a very unfortunate cloud over him.
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the reason I hammer this misidentification so much is identification is at the center of this case assuming an assault took place. The victim's inability to accurately identify someone present with Shannon would lend to her being unable to accurately identify the culprit.
My hypothetical court conversation:
"You ID'd Harmon as the KU player next to Shannon but he plays for Illinois."
"Sorry, maybe it was McCullar."
"But you sent the picture of Shannon with Harmon to the detective as the player you saw with him."
"It was dark, I just know a basketball player was next to him."
"Morris was there too, how do you know it was Shannon and not Morris?"
"Because I saw Shannon's hair. It has colored dreads."
"But I thought you said it was too dark? So dark enough to mistake McCullar for Harmon, but not too dark that you could make out Shannon's hair?"
I'd prefer to presume innocence until proven guilty. I'm sure Terrance and his legal team and any other person accused of a crime would also.
Yes, that's one specific hypothetical, and it would probably compromise the case. But there are several other possible hypotheticals, such as:
"You ID'd Harmon as the KU player sitting next to the man who assaulted you, but Harmon played for Illinois."
1. "No, I initially recognized a KU player sitting next to him, then when I saw the picture with Harmon, I recognized that Harmon was the other person sitting next to him.
Or 2. "I initially thought the guy sitting next to him looked like a KU player, but I admit I don't watch that much KU basketball. When I saw the picture, I realized it was definitely Harmon who I had seen next to him, and if he played for Illinois, I clearly don't know the KU roster that well.
Or 3. "Yeah, I'm not that confident in who I saw next to Terrence because I was so focused on him the whole time from when he called me over until I was right there next to him. I caught a glimpse of the people around him, and they all looked like basketball players, and the guy next to him looked like a KU player I think I've seen on TV, but I didn't really look at him that closely since I was so enamored with Terrence. When I saw the picture with Harmon, he looked like the guy next to Terrence at the bar who I thought played for KU, but I know I can't be 100% sure since I was looking at Terrence the whole time. (And suppose the prosecution can show that Morris wasn't wearing a yellow shirt that night)
I'm just saying it's premature to judge the case based on hypotheticals we don't know (yet).
Lawyer fight!
OrangeBlue98
- Des Moines, IA
100% agree. She has been a total failure prosecuting cases and has had a litany of misconduct issues. This is political theater for her, nothing more.
Correct, but you missed the part about not having all the information the jury will hear. If you or someone you know were assaulted, you'd want a jury that hadn't already concluded (as in not just presumed, but already made up their mind) the suspect is innocent based on the limited information that was made public.
While option 1 "works", options 2 and 3 both admit mistakes, which is the worst thing you can do on the stand. A mistake is an unintentional lie, either you're unreliable or dishonest.
I agree 2 and 3 aren't ideal for the prosecution, but a jury could find them acceptable.