After it was over, you lying asshole. Up to that point, you said he should not be allowed to play, the judge was an idiot, the DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him, no one would participate in a Title IX investigation when criminal proceedings were pending, etc. Everything you were wrong about is in that thread.
You're lying about a number of my positions here, which I suppose you have to to keep up the act.
I said the university should have the right to choose who represents them, and if they don't want someone with a pending felony rape charge on the court that should be their prerogative - yes. That was a unanimous opinion until it happened to OUR best player, which is surely just a coincidence and not that complete moral void I've been talking about.
I didn't say the judge was an idiot, but I've acknowledged a number of times I was shocked that she granted the TRO. From what I saw, most people with even a layman's knowledge of the law were surprised by it. I also said over and over it doesn't matter what I think, the judge's ruling is what mattered - once the ruling came down, I was fine with him playing (and in fact, it was the only possible choice).
I have no idea where you even got the third claim about me saying DNA evidence would play no role in exonerating him. I took umbrage with the ridiculous slutshaming that stemmed from the pointed release of the DNA report, but said over and over in that thread that if the vaginal swab wasn't a match then it shouldn't even go to trial - it did, but they reached the correct verdict.
I said that no lawyer is going to present their client's evidence at some University OSCR panel, and no lawyer did. They interviewed Shannon, and then they dropped the case as soon as the season was over because - who'da thunk it - they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt or innocence, nothing from the accuser, nothing from the police. I said I thought it was a crazy precedent that he had to be determined to be guilty by a University panel before they could suspend him, because that panel would necessarily not have the evidence they'd need to make that determination - and then when they dropped the case for that exact, explicit reason you started ranting about how wrong I was for being exactly right.
Just lie after lie after lie. But when your base-level point is a lie, you have to lie about the evidence too to pretend to win.
RecentNFL 2025: General Discuss... by Judge Judy
Cubs playoff run by ILLove1997
Komic Relief by Custard
wtf is wrong with the rig... by ThePAMan
Total Members: 141