IlliniHQ 2
General Category => Fighting Illini Basketball Forum => Topic started by: Lkdog on January 21, 2024, 10:59:11 AM
-
Am interested to hear the sentiment of people here.
Not going to get into the weeds of the processes that UI did or did not follow to date.
Not going to get into the merits of the case.
As it stands right now he is out on bond for a felony charge.
Simple question.
-
Apply the process correctly is my vote.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/bFMMw5g/Screenshot-20240121-110920-Samsung-Internet.jpg)
-
Great poll. All 6 of us on this board with split views.
-
It’s not the University’s responsibility or place to determine innocence or guilt. Until he’s been proven guilty, he should play. Plain and simple. Otherwise suspending him and not playing is punishing him while he’s presumed innocent. How in the world is that ok?!
-
It’s not the University’s responsibility or place to determine innocence or guilt. Until he’s been proven guilty, he should play. Plain and simple. Otherwise suspending him and not playing is punishing him while he’s presumed innocent. How in the world is that ok?!
The judge's ruling was to grant the TRO in large part because the University's Office of Student Conflict Resolution didn't hold a trial, hear his evidence and whatever evidence they could get (probably basically none) against him, and determine his innocence or guilt
I tend to agree it shouldn't be their responsibility - in fact, think it's kind of crazy to rule that it's the University's responsibility to determine that - but that they didn't do that is the reason he is able to play.
-
The judge's ruling was to grant the TRO in large part because the University's Office of Student Conflict Resolution didn't hold a trial, hear his evidence and whatever evidence they could get (probably basically none) against him, and determine his innocence or guilt
I tend to agree it shouldn't be their responsibility - in fact, think it's kind of crazy to rule that it's the University's responsibility to determine that - but that they didn't do that is the reason he is able to play.
Yeah, I agree with that. I was referring to Lkdog’s response. I agree completely with the judges ruling on the TRO and letting him play.
-
Yeah, I agree with that. I was referring to Lkdog’s response. I agree completely with the judges ruling on the TRO and letting him play.
Fair enough, but that's a direct contradiction to what you said in your last post: "It’s not the University’s responsibility or place to determine innocence or guilt."
He is able to play specifically because the judge ruled it WAS the university's responsibility to determine innocence or guilt via the OSCR regulation, and he wasn't granted that.
-
Fair enough, but that's a direct contradiction to what you said in your last post: "It’s not the University’s responsibility or place to determine innocence or guilt."
He is able to play specifically because the judge ruled it WAS the university's responsibility to determine innocence or guilt via the OSCR regulation, and he wasn't granted that.
Oh my apologies, as I must have misread something or misunderstood.
-
It’s not the University’s responsibility or place to determine innocence or guilt. Until he’s been proven guilty, he should play. Plain and simple. Otherwise suspending him and not playing is punishing him while he’s presumed innocent. How in the world is that ok?!
If your daughter's pre-school teacher had a pending felony rape charge against him, would you defend him on the grounds that he is innocent until proven guilty? Would you be okay with him teaching your daughter?
-
If your daughter's pre-school teacher had a pending felony rape charge against him, would you defend him on the grounds that he is innocent until proven guilty? Would you be okay with him teaching your daughter?
You know there’s a big difference between those things. You’re being intentionally and intellectually dishonest, and you know it…
-
If your daughter's pre-school teacher had a pending felony rape charge against him, would you defend him on the grounds that he is innocent until proven guilty? Would you be okay with him teaching your daughter?
If you truly believe in the 5th amendment and persons overall rights, regardless of the situation, then I think you would have to do just that, and let the legal process follow suit...why does it have to be a him?
Trust the process can't just apply to sports??? Can it??
-
You know there’s a big difference between those things. You’re being intentionally and intellectually dishonest, and you know it…
A big difference between what things?
Wouldn't punishing your kid's teacher while he's presumed innocent also not be okay, if you believe in the presumption of innocence?
-
There is conflation here by some of due process rights in a court of law (with which we all agree) with any rights of a student who is deemed in violation of compliance with student or athletic policy code of conduct required in order to continue participating in an extracurricular activity.
They are not the same.
There is a reason no one can name one NCAA athlete who continued to participate while awaiting trial on felony rape charges.
That does not mean they are expelled from school, or even necessarily lose their scholarship that year. But representing the university on a team is not a legal right.
And while we are on the subject- most employers in Illinois are at will and can terminate an employee for any reason at any time as long as it is not illegal.
-
There is conflation here by some of due process rights in a court of law (with which we all agree) with any rights of a student who is deemed in violation of compliance with student or athletic policy code of conduct required in order to continue participating in an extracurricular activity.
They are not the same.
There is a reason no one can name one NCAA athlete who continued to participate while awaiting trial on felony rape charges.
That does not mean they are expelled from school, or even necessarily lose their scholarship that year. But representing the university on a team is not a legal right.
And while we are on the subject- most employers in Illinois are at will and can terminate an employee for any reason at any time as long as it is not illegal.
I don't think it's an accident.
A lot of people are willing to bend / ignore a lot of their stated values, and argue a lot of things, if they perceive some personal benefit to them.
As you saw by JJ's response, the presumption of innocence isn't going to apply evenly to everyone who's been charged with a crime - the JJ's of the world aren't out there ranting about how you violate some accused inner city shooter's rights by holding him in jail before he's convicted of the crime. It applies stringently when it would benefit me, and in other cases - maybe.
The real truth is that 'innocent until proven guilty' does not and has never meant 'there can be no consequences if you haven't been convicted of a crime'. The only reason people are arguing that is because they see a personal benefit.
-
If your daughter's pre-school teacher had a pending felony rape charge against him, would you defend him on the grounds that he is innocent until proven guilty? Would you be okay with him teaching your daughter?
Courts do flight risk and threat assessments when setting bail all the time. Or at they are supposed to.
There is nothing wrong with making risk and threat assessments when someone is charged with a crime.
The UI apparently found that Terrence Shannon posed no threat to his fellow students. The only potential risk they found was to the reputation of the University. The court found the risk to Shannon's reputation etc. outweighed that.
The potential risk an accused pedophile poses to children is clearly a different situation.
-
Courts do flight risk and threat assessments when setting bail all the time. Or at they are supposed to.
There is nothing wrong with making risk and threat assessments when someone is charged with a crime.
The UI apparently found that Terrence Shannon posed no threat to his fellow students. The only potential risk they found was to the reputation of the University. The court found the risk to Shannon's reputation etc. outweighed that.
The potential risk an accused pedophile poses to children is clearly a different situation.
This.
-
Isn't a 'risk and threat assessment' a violation of the presumption of innocence, as you seem to interpret it? Who are you to say I'm a risk just because I was charged with a crime; what about my presumption of innocence?
Why would you presume your kid's teacher is guilty before he was convicted?
-
Isn't a 'risk and threat assessment' a violation of the presumption of innocence, as you seem to interpret it? Who are you to say I'm a risk just because I was charged with a crime; what about my presumption of innocence?
Why would you presume your kid's teacher is guilty before he was convicted?
The risk to the children would outweigh the loss of liberty and property rights of the accused teacher.
It's called balancing the equities, and is part of the reasoning Judge Lawless used.
The harm to TJ if he doesn't play and is eventually cleared outweighs the harm to UI if he plays and is found guilty.
-
Pretrial release is a different thing than the presumption of innocence and neither really have anything to do with whether the U of I can, must, or should play a student-athlete with a pending felony charge, other than this only being an option because the Kansas court was not overly strict with bail and release conditions.
If you believe there should be minimal impact on a person's life in a pending charge because they're good at basketball I really hope you'd maintain that consistency with other criminal defendants. But there's no consistency with believing merely accused pedophiles pose some unreasonable risk compared to merely accused sexual batterers; that's picking and choosing which defendants are already guilty based on which one you like in the absence of any other relevant information.
-
Balancing the equities.
The potential harm to children if their teacher turns out to be pedophile
Versus, the harm to the teacher if (s)he is reassigned duties and is eventually cleared.
That is not hard.
There is obvious a lot of unfairness in the system. Terrence Shannon is not a flight risk and is apparently not deemed a threat to others. He probably should have been released on his own recognizance. Would a white businessman been required to post bail or even arrested in the same circumstances?
Perhaps bail exists primarily to provide a pool of money to collect fines, court costs, and various fees?
-
IMO the comparison should not be to previous college players but rather pro players now that these guys are paid to play. The whole dynamic has changed and precedent was going to be set eventually.
-
IMO the comparison should not be to previous college players but rather pro players now that these guys are paid to play. The whole dynamic has changed and precedent was going to be set eventually.
So UI is setting a groundbreaking precedent?
TSj is now a regular Curt Flood for basketball players arrested for felonies.
-
The risk to the children would outweigh the loss of liberty and property rights of the accused teacher.
It's called balancing the equities, and is part of the reasoning Judge Lawless used.
The harm to TJ if he doesn't play and is eventually cleared outweighs the harm to UI if he plays and is found guilty.
Your argument is ludicrous. Him playing 14 games for UI means very little for his future ability to play in NBA.
That rests now entirely on him being cleared of his felony charges in time for the draft, or at a later time and being able to sign as a FA if/when it is resolved in his favor.
Many of the guys in first round of draft are not even playing in college or in this country. The NBA doesn't give a fuck if he plays at Illinois. They know who he is. He can do workouts for them.
They do care if he still might be convicted of a felony rape charge, or if he actually is convicted.
UI did not create that problem for TSj, nor is there really any action they can take that will help him.
And I am also guessing that his NIL deals this year were not being rescinded.
-
IMO the comparison should not be to previous college players but rather pro players now that these guys are paid to play. The whole dynamic has changed and precedent was going to be set eventually.
So UI is setting a groundbreaking precedent?
TSj is now a regular Curt Flood for basketball players arrested for felonies.
Seems to be. No one has been able to find a precedent yet.
But it really doesn’t matter how these things were handled years ago. When you create the Wild West environment that the transfer rule/NIL has (both precedent setting rulings themselves) there is an inevitable ripple effect.
This may be the first of many post-NIL legal challenges now that players demonstrably have a lot more to lose and institutions clearly haven’t caught up in terms of policy making.
The courts are deciding that college basketball isn’t a privileged extracurricular activity and is, in fact, a business. The playing field has been slowly and surely tilted more towards players ability to profit from their labor.
As part of that, I’d expect that college players end up being treated with more protections like NBA and NFL players in cases like this, rather than in the traditional university fashion.
-
Your argument is ludicrous. Him playing 14 games for UI means very little for his future ability to play in NBA.
That rests now entirely on him being cleared of his felony charges in time for the draft, or at a later time and being able to sign as a FA if/when it is resolved in his favor.
Many of the guys in first round of draft are not even playing in college or in this country. The NBA doesn't give a fuck if he plays at Illinois. They know who he is. He can do workouts for them.
They do care if he still might be convicted of a felony rape charge, or if he actually is convicted.
UI did not create that problem for TSj, nor is there really any action they can take that will help him.
And I am also guessing that his NIL deals this year were not being rescinded.
You lose:
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on his
Title IX claim and is, therefore, not entitled to equitable relief as to Count I. As to Count
VI, the Plaintiff has established that he has clearly ascertainable rights that need protection and there is some likelihood of success on the merits[/b]. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. The potential harm to Plaintiff outweighs any harm to the University. The public interest is not harmed by granting injunctive relief to allow for additional procedural safeguards while he is presumed innocent of the criminal charges. Because
Plaintiff financially supports several family members, the Court will not require Plaintiff
to post bond. See Wayne Chemical, Inc. v. Columbus Agency Service Corp., 567 F.2d 692, 701
(7th Cir. 1977) (“Under appropriate circumstances bond may be excused,
notwithstanding the literal language of Rule 65(c)”). Based on this finding, the Court will not address Plaintiff’s remaining claims.
Therefore, Plaintiff Terrence Shannon, Jr.’s Verified Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) is GRANTED.
-
Your argument is ludicrous. Him playing 14 games for UI means very little for his future ability to play in NBA.
That rests now entirely on him being cleared of his felony charges in time for the draft, or at a later time and being able to sign as a FA if/when it is resolved in his favor.
Many of the guys in first round of draft are not even playing in college or in this country. The NBA doesn't give a fuck if he plays at Illinois. They know who he is. He can do workouts for them.
They do care if he still might be convicted of a felony rape charge, or if he actually is convicted.
UI did not create that problem for TSj, nor is there really any action they can take that will help him.
And I am also guessing that his NIL deals this year were not being rescinded.
You say it’s ludicrous, yet a federal judge agrees with him.
Until this happened he’d been playing himself up the draft chart because of his play on the court for Illinois. It plummeted as a result of the charges. It was a key part of what the judge used to side with Shannon.
Shannon’s attorneys presented enough evidence to a federal judge to convince that judge that his NIL earnings were in serious jeopardy as a result of the suspension. I’d wager you have zero knowledge of his NIL contract and the stipulations that govern his income.
I get what you’re trying to say, but think this post was a bit of a miss.
-
Guess I never really answered the question other than in the poll but it does feel wrong for him to be playing. I’d have preferred to wait a game or two and see if anything developed that may have changed things. Then, if not, bring him back in.
Was watching YouTube video with Parrish and such and he came down pretty hard on playing him today. I mostly agreed with his outside perspective.
The other dude said based on their actions either the UI admin is insanely idiotic or they firmly believe he’ll be found not guilty of these charges. Which I also agree with.
The university has acted in a manner that indicated they believe he’ll be cleared. With Whitman’s law background, the current political climate, and being the flagship institution of a large blue state, it’s really hard to believe they’d be so brazen if they didn’t think this was going to end well for Illinois and TSJ.
We’ll see.
-
You say it’s ludicrous, yet a federal judge agrees with him.
Until this happened he’d been playing himself up the draft chart because of his play on the court for Illinois. It plummeted as a result of the charges. It was a key part of what the judge used to side with Shannon.
Shannon’s attorneys presented enough evidence to a federal judge to convince that judge that his NIL earnings were in serious jeopardy as a result of the suspension. I’d wager you have zero knowledge of his NIL contract and the stipulations that govern his income.
I get what you’re trying to say, but think this post was a bit of a miss.
Its debatable.
I do not think it prevents the UI from revisting the issue or appealing the ruling. They will not as they appear to be unwilling to take a now embarrassing difficult path as their incompetency or errors were part of the TRO rationale, as well as looking punitive now, so will ride this out at this point and can conveniently blame the judge. They are hoping to get through a few news cycles past this, and hope for no protests by campus groups and at away venues, and limited media challenges.
I would be interested to know what you think the right thing is to do.
Not what has transpired in a perceived vacuum of standards now - one where core university oversight can be overuled now in the absence of new established rules involving the claimed multiple $ interests.
Florida just recently dismissed their arrested felon player last year before he was apparently convicted. He ended up having the felonies reduced to misdemeanors in July.
TSj draft status has plummeted more IMO because he might end up being convicted of a felony- not because he isn't playing a few games in a development league like the Big Ten with about five guys out of 200 who might actually play in the NBA someday.Most of these games are like playing the Washington Generals for him.
It is totally unlikely to set a precedent that all college programs will be bound to follow for athletes arrested for felonies anymore than there would ever be any new settled law for you or your employees to be protected from being suspended or fired upon an arrest for felony rape or any other behavior seen as detrimental to your firm.
If what you believe this will lead to- a formal NCAA Athlete Players Union with a contract with NCAA Institutions - players will not be immune from consequences for all kinds of behaviors. This ill advised TRO (IMO) was naively made in a vacuum of process and transition and speculation that the judge accepted. As I have already noted Podz was a nobody and the next summer a millionaire in the NBA. They all could make this argument now, however farfetched.
Ever really heard of Markuis Nowell before last March? He got a two way and even that has big bucks. The judge can no more accurately predict where a TSj is going to be drafted than a Podz a year out but they bought it. And no, nobody knows the stipulations of his NIL either but I am guessing he is doing OK.
And of course where does one draw the line now for any arrested athletes awaiting trial? They all get NIL and can claim aspirations for more NIL and pro careers afterwards.
In the NBA Leonard was suspended and fined for racial slurs. Morant was suspended twice without pay for flashing a gun on social media. Neither of those acts even involved a criminal arrest.
A full blown NCAA institution and Players Union Agreement contract agreement will have similar elements for any behavior detrimental to the institutions and NCAA.
A felony arrest has always been a behavior that institutions acted upon to suspend an athlete until resolution, and will do so in the future when this is all formalized as you predict. You are probably right.
I would welcome that as this is a definite negative for UI and the program, and to some, at least, an institutional supported affront to true victims of sexual assault. I do reserve judgement as to whether this alleged victim
will be found as having been assaulted as defined by law but the process will have to get played out.
TSj will get his day in court and I do hope it is resolved in his favor as he does seem like a great kid, but this isn't the right stance for UI or the program IMO. Others obviously disagree.
It all sucks but I am sure if he is exonerated he will find his way onto a roster, hopefully in time for the draft or as FA next year.
There will be rules and ability to suspend for acts detrimental to the NCAA and school when there is a Collective Bargaining Agreement. This will be one of them.
There is no winner here unfortunately.
I do appreciate your thoughtful and rational approach to this.
None of this is normal.
-
Guess I never really answered the question other than in the poll but it does feel wrong for him to be playing. I’d have preferred to wait a game or two and see if anything developed that may have changed things. Then, if not, bring him back in.
Was watching YouTube video with Parrish and such and he came down pretty hard on playing him today. I mostly agreed with his outside perspective.
The other dude said based on their actions either the UI admin is insanely idiotic or they firmly believe he’ll be found not guilty of these charges. Which I also agree with.
The university has acted in a manner that indicated they believe he’ll be cleared. With Whitman’s law background, the current political climate, and being the flagship institution of a large blue state, it’s really hard to believe they’d be so brazen if they didn’t think this was going to end well for Illinois and TSJ.
We’ll see.
LOL. Love that you casually dismiss by omission that they are incompetent despite the evidence.
For a guy who is cynical and dismissive of politicians and those in postions of power of all stripes, maybe deservedly so, you sure drink the DIA kool-aid.
Yeah, Guenther Jr. was playing 4 D Chess here. Given the inherent difficulties in investigating this particular case, the odds are he never would have been suspended at all if they had just followed the rules.
-
No action until resolution, which would probably be March at the soonest, of an OSCR hearing would most likely not sit well.
The university took a position on the matter with the suspension, tho they handled it incorrectly.
I don't know what a satisfactory path for a non-campus and non-university situation would have been to minimize the backlash.
OSCR appears to be the path that should have been taken. I haven't read the judge's opinion but I've read that it includes expedited discovery, which should streamline the OSCR investigation.
Did TSJ's lawyers request that because they have been given very little evidence ?
-
To review, the Judge ruled against Shannon on Count 1, Title 1. She ruled in his favor on COUNT VI
42 U.S.C. §1983
From Shannon's filing:
115. At all times relevant, Killeen, acted under color of state law, as President of the
University of Illinois system, has had oversight over the DIA including the Team and can direct his subordinates at the DIA.
116. Killeen, as President of Illinois, has deprived TJ of a constitutionally protected
property interest by suspending him from the Team, thereby depriving TJ of the right not to be suspended from the Team without good cause and due process, as required by Title IX, as set forth in the Scholarship Contract, and/or otherwise.
117. Killeen, as President of Illinois, also deprived TJ of a constitutionally protected
liberty interest to pursue a career of his choice without the stigma of the Suspension.
118. Killeen, as President of Illinois, also threatens to deprive TJ of a constitutionally
protected property interest by subjecting him to the
deficient OSCR Action.
119. Killeen, as President Illinois, has violated TJ’s procedural due process rights, as alleged herein. TJ was suspended under the DIA Policy that has the least amount of safeguards for him, as outlined above. Further, despite Illinois’ promises to the contrary, the DIA Action does not heed the presumption of innocence or other basic due process rights. Additionally, the
OSCR Policy process that is being applied to TJ does not provide sufficient fairness or due process.
120. Money damages cannot fully and adequately compensate TJ for the reasons alleged above.
-
An OSCR sexual misconduct investigation takes approximately 40 business days? Would that have started after winter break?
Could an OSCR panel even make any sort of finding of fact based on the evidence we have now?
Shannon's attorneys should have the DNA and any other physical evidence from the KS crime lab by January 31.
If there is nothing new, no DNA, new damning statements from witnesses, and no "me too's," it seems the preponderance of the evidence is in Shannon's favor.
-
Shannon's attorneys should have the DNA and any other physical evidence from the KS crime lab by January 31.
Is this from his attorneys, or an assumption that you are making ?
Does Ks have the DNA results ?
-
LOL. Love that you casually dismiss by omission that they are incompetent despite the evidence.
For a guy who is cynical and dismissive of politicians and those in postions of power of all stripes, maybe deservedly so, you sure drink the DIA kool-aid.
Yeah, Guenther Jr. was playing 4 D Chess here. Given the inherent difficulties in investigating this particular case, the odds are he never would have been suspended at all if they had just followed the rules.
I literally said I agreed with Norlander when he said that what the university is doing could be insanely idiotic. Not sure what you want from me. I highly doubt any athletic department at any big time college was fully prepared for this kind of legal challenge given the newness of NIL. You can bet they’re watching very closely.
-
When the university weighed the effects of possible outcomes, they only considered the potential harm to the University if they played TJ and he was eventually convicted; versus if they played him and he was exonerated.
They didn't really consider harm to TJ. To them, the loss of the privilege of playing a game was moot. They let him keep his scholarship. He could attend class. He could work out with trainers and so on. Plus, sny harm in their eyes was due to his actions of getting himself arrested for a felony sex crime.
That would have flown in the past, but not in the era of NIL and unlimited free penalty transfers.
-
I literally said I agreed with Norlander when he said that what the university is doing could be insanely idiotic. Not sure what you want from me. I highly doubt any athletic department at any big time college was fully prepared for this kind of legal challenge given the newness of NIL. You can bet they’re watching very closely.
The NIL was an issue here, yes. But a. there are still rights independent of NIL (MSU swimmer case the judge cited) and b. you don't get to NIL if the DIA/university simply applied the OSCR policy in conjunction with the DIA "policy" as Gunther Jr. claimed in his presser. Meaning, you don't get to "damages" until you determine there was a violation of policy/the law.
I call bullshit that other schools aren't prepared for shit like this. The focus is on the process. Everyone has the same damned processes in place because Title IX requires it for those cases. It is also some in-house counsel's job (not Guenther, Jr.'s) at UIUC to know about that Purdue case. It is a 7th Circuit case from 2019 that covers Illinois. Yet someone at UIUC signed off on the process actually employed here.
It is tough to lose these cases if you are the school. Hell, even a fake lawyer like me has been part of winning 3 or 4 plagiarism cases where the policy in place was not followed to a T, but the student still lost as the student was, at the end of the day, provided the details of the accusations and the ability to appear before a board to defend themselves regardless of any procedural missteps by the school.
-
Is this from his attorneys, or an assumption that you are making ?
Does Ks have the DNA results ?
His attorneys subpoenaed the KS crime lab for all tests etc. related to the case, iirc, early in January. They should have everything by the end of the month.
I dunno exactly what the DA has. I would guess she has all the reports by now.
-
When the university weighed the effects of possible outcomes, they only considered the potential harm to the University if they played TJ and he was eventually convicted; versus if they played him and he was exonerated.
They didn't really consider harm to TJ. To them, the loss of the privilege of playing a game was moot. They let him keep his scholarship. He could attend class. He could work out with trainers and so on. Plus, sny harm in their eyes was due to his actions of getting himself arrested for a felony sex crime.
That would have flown in the past, but not in the era of NIL and unlimited free penalty transfers.
No, it would not have flown in the past. The ROTC kid in the Purdue case was not getting NIL money and there was no "investigation" etc. there either.
There is fucking lawyer in Las Vegas who makes his money taking these student cases. He probably loses a lot of them.
-
His attorneys subpoenaed the KS crime lab for all tests etc. related to the case, iirc, early in January. They should have everything by the end of the month.
I dunno exactly what the DA has. I would guess she has all the reports by now.
Got it. We'll see if that happens.
-
The University of Illinois versus the University of Illinois. It's not a new story.
-
He probably should have been released on his own recognizance. Would a white businessman been required to post bail or even arrested in the same circumstances?
Oh for fuck's sake yes.
-
The NIL is new wrinkle when it comes to damages part of the analysis. The judge noted that in her opinion. But she also cited other pre-NIL cases where the student was deemed damaged because they were denied the right to participate in the sport they signed up to play.
The Hall case cited by the school didn't have to factor in NIL. Maybe that would have tipped that case towards the student, maybe not. As Calvin has noted though, the loss of cash as damages is generally insufficient for a TRO or preliminary injunction as you can be made "whole" by getting a money judgment against the university or whomever. The judge danced around that a little, but also focused on his draft status.
-
Got it. We'll see if that happens.
"On January 12, 2024, TSJ’s lawyers sent a subpoena to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI). The subpoena requests every swab, photograph, examination note, chain of custody note, all crime lab reports, and all DNA analysis performed (to name a few). From my review, TSJ’s lawyers are very strong with extensive trial experience. This subpoena is significantly detailed to secure the Laboratory Case File. It is due back within 14 days (depending when received, around Jan. 31, 2024) so nothing will happen until then. Be cautious about what you hear online, podcasts, on the streets, etc. Facts are important while opinions riddled with hearsay can become biased propaganda for both sides"
https://twitter.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1747653033213804592?t=pFRVP8b9GDAcH_DT6xhBtw&s=19
-
I call bullshit that other schools aren't prepared for shit like this. The focus is on the process. Everyone has the same damned processes in place because Title IX requires it for those cases. It is also some in-house counsel's job (not Guenther, Jr.'s) at UIUC to know about that Purdue case. It is a 7th Circuit case from 2019 that covers Illinois. Yet someone at UIUC signed off on the process actually employed here.
I doubt you can get hired at UI gen counsel without the education and admin law background to know this stuff like the back not your hand. Goes back to my observation that this isn't new because of the NIL. I think it's what happens when a kid hires lawyers to ramrod the school and his criminal defense attorney doesn't stop it. On that aspect of it, NIL would be new in that it's a source of litigation funding.
-
I doubt you can get hired at UI gen counsel without the education and admin law background to know this stuff like the back not your hand. Goes back to my observation that this isn't new because of the NIL. I think it's what happens when a kid hires lawyers to ramrod the school and his criminal defense attorney doesn't stop it. On that aspect of it, NIL would be new in that it's a source of litigation funding.
He's apparently got the cash now to hire decent lawyers. He had 4 sets of lawyers on his brief.
I disagree on him ramrodding the school. The school fucked up by not following OSCR when doing its DIA stuff. That is what opened the door to the lawsuit. His first argument was based on Title IX. Granted he lost that argument, but it sounds like OSCR applies in non-Title IX disciplinary instances while applying the same, or many of the same, Title IX processes (investigation, hearings, written findings, appeals, etc.).
Why didn't the school apply OSCR? They have had the time to do so. Maybe because they can't get the complainant to provide a statement or other info needed out of the Lawrence area? His criminal lawyer undoubtedly knows that is an issue for the school. It would be a reason to sign off on this, no?
-
This guy shreds Parrish:
"If, by his remarks, Parrish means that a court has no lawful authority to tell a coach what factors may not lawfully be considered by the coach in deciding whom to play, Parrish would be flatly wrong."
"Suppose Player A is suspended because the coach learns that Player A identifies as Black or as Muslim, and Player A sues over his suspension. The coach couldn’t very well respond to a judicial order finding the coach’s conduct illegal under the Fourteenth or First Amendments by saying, “OK, I’ll reinstate him, but I won’t play him.” In such a case the judicial order, faithfully understood and obeyed by the coach, would require that the coach not consider Player A’s race or religion in managing game minutes. The same would be true if a player were disciplined because of his political viewpoint. To say that a coach can decide not to play a player for many reasons is not to say that all reasons are permissible."
https://verdict.justia.com/2024/01/26/why-some-sports-journalists-may-want-to-go-to-law-school-before-they-opine-about-the-law
-
TSJ Update (KS): a subpoena was issued yesterday to a witness involved with the alleged victim demanding “all digital data contained in your phone.” Subpoenaed information is significant. For example: texts, social media data, emails, and any stored/deleted info is all RECOVERED.
5:13 PM · Jan 30, 2024
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1752470227072204968?s=20
Continued: The subpoena was issued by TSJ’s attorneys. One can only imagine what the information will reveal, but to speculate that the information favors one side is premature. However, if different versions of the story have been communicated by those around the alleged victim, the case could fall like a house of cards. It is just how criminal matters unfold: people cannot help from sharing too much, especially in the age of social media.
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1752476076620603710?s=20
-
Thanks for sharing
-
Why not ask for the phone itself and pay some forensic person to go on there to mine all the relevant info that is still there?
-
Why not ask for the phone itself and pay some forensic person to go on there to mine all the relevant info that is still there?
Cost. Maybe trying to be on better terms with the witness.
100% that the data on the actual phone from a forensic download is generally more expansive and more likely to get the best information on there.
-
Somebody’s gonna see her nudes
-
Cost. Maybe trying to be on better terms with the witness.
100% that the data on the actual phone from a forensic download is generally more expansive and more likely to get the best information on there.
Would think it was the complaining party's phone info that has been subpoenaed.
He, presumably, spent big bucks on 4 sets of lawyers for the case against Illinois. You'd think he would not spare the expense on his criminal case. Plus, forensics can pull off texts and crap that have been "deleted" on the phone, provided the area on the phone "hard drive" (for lack of my knowledge of the actual term) where it was stored has not been "written over."
-
I am under the impression that this means the phone of the woman who was with the alleged victim is the phone in question, and that the defense is wanting that phone for possible inconsistencies in the story.
-
I am under the impression that this means the phone of the woman who was with the alleged victim is the phone in question, and that the defense is wanting that phone for possible inconsistencies in the story.
Still a chance for deletions, which is why you would want the actual phone.
-
Still a chance for deletions, which is why you would want the actual phone.
From Gilfillan's post ....
"TSJ Update (KS): a subpoena was issued yesterday to a witness involved with the alleged victim demanding “all digital data contained in your phone.” Subpoenaed information is significant. For example: texts, social media data, emails, and any stored/deleted info is all RECOVERED."
I assume TSJ's defense has a better chance of getting the subpoena satisfied than a forensic audit. If it appears that deleted info is not turned over it wouldn't look good for the witness and I would think a request for a forensic audit might cause for a stink to be raised by the attorney(s) for the witness that might not go too far. At the prospect for a forensic audit the witness would probably talk even if it causes the loss of a 'friendship'.
-
From Gilfillan's post ....
"TSJ Update (KS): a subpoena was issued yesterday to a witness involved with the alleged victim demanding “all digital data contained in your phone.” Subpoenaed information is significant. For example: texts, social media data, emails, and any stored/deleted info is all RECOVERED."
I assume TSJ's defense has a better chance of getting the subpoena satisfied than a forensic audit. If it appears that deleted info is not turned over it wouldn't look good for the witness and I would think a request for a forensic audit might cause for a stink to be raised by the attorney(s) for the witness that might not go too far. At the prospect for a forensic audit the witness would probably talk even if it causes the loss of a 'friendship'.
Whenever you ask for people to turn over stuff stored electronically it is obviously a crap shoot. Granted, the costs of forensic is high. Generally, the forensic audit part is worked out with the witness/lawyers for the witness/parties as part of turning over the phone/computer/whatever. Sometimes the party responding to the subpoena wants a role so the "nudes," as Custard mentioned, that have no part of this, are not produced to the party issuing the subpoena.
-
Shannon got final mention as 3rd team All American??
Kid got screwed in part due to this hanging over his head imo. I would certainly say he is better than for sure Sears, maybe the UConn guard as well.
Oh well, take us to the FF TSJ, screw em, and prove to them who you really are!!
-
Shannon got final mention as 3rd team All American??
Kid got screwed in part due to this hanging over his head imo. I would certainly say he is better than for sure Sears, maybe the UConn guard as well.
Oh well, take us to the FF TSJ, screw em, and prove to them who you really are!!
Agreed. Use it as motivation! Fuck those voters. He’s easily in the top-3 players in the country.
-
Fuck it. He’s playing with a chip on his shoulder and climbing up the draft board.
-
Tbought I had watching the game yesterday is that Shannon's attorneys should get a banner at SFC because they had to have put the fear of God in the media because it's not even a narrative on these broadcasts.
-
Tbought I had watching the game yesterday is that Shannon's attorneys should get a banner at SFC because they had to have put the fear of God in the media because it's not even a narrative on these broadcasts.
Yeah, I’m shocked at how little it’s been talked about. Last year the kid with the gun at Alabama was all you heard about.
-
Yeah, I’m shocked at how little it’s been talked about. Last year the kid with the gun at Alabama was all you heard about.
They mentioned it every game until the last two
-
They mentioned it every game until the last two
Even then, once a game isn’t much. Last year I heard about the Alabama kid constantly. Radio shows, etc.
-
Even then, once a game isn’t much. Last year I heard about the Alabama kid constantly. Radio shows, etc.
Maybe there's a reason for that
-
Maybe there's a reason for that
Just guessing but, there was a murder involved is his case.
-
Maybe there's a reason for that
Maybe…
-
Maybe there's a reason for that
I think the inference is that his attorneys are launching letters every time threatening a slander suit when he wins his crim trial.
-
I think the inference is that his attorneys are launching letters every time threatening a slander suit when he wins his crim trial.
Yeah I understood that
-
(https://i.ibb.co/N230BZD/Screenshot-20240411-203246-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7tz3m2M)
-
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39970530/title-ix-rules-athletes-sexual-misconduct
New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.
-
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39970530/title-ix-rules-athletes-sexual-misconduct
New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.
" .... where he was charged with rape."
Ahem.
I believe the charge was rape or in the alternative, sexual battery. The alternative sexual battery count is listed as a misdemeanor.
Not mentioned was that Arterio Morris was suspended from KU basketball, yet his felony rape case was recently dropped by the Douglas County District Attorney's office due to insufficient evidence.
-
This crack whore tried to ruin this dudes life and should be locked up!!! The whole Kansas DA’s office should be convicted and sent to prison as well!!! I see no reason people accusing others of shit shouldn’t get the same punishment the person they’re accusing if found to be making shit up.
https://x.com/kedprince4/status/1786036530886185222?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
-
This crack whore tried to ruin this dudes life and should be locked up!!! The whole Kansas DA’s office should be convicted and sent to prison as well!!! I see no reason people accusing others of shit shouldn’t get the same punishment the person they’re accusing if found to be making shit up.
https://x.com/kedprince4/status/1786036530886185222?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
Judge Judy, you have to understand that Due Process means zilch to people like Tempo and Spark.
-
Ah yes, the due process of taking a motion made by his attorneys and posting it publicly to slut shame his accuser.
The vaginal swab will be the key evidence, if there is any. It’s interesting that it wasn’t mentioned in this motion to dismiss testimony. If there isn’t a match on that then I can’t imagine it’ll go to trial, as it’ll be nearly impossible to prove him guilty without that.
A lot of people are pretending this exonerates him somehow, but it doesn’t.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZXRcP3y/IMG-5452.png) (https://ibb.co/zxWPY1K)
-
DNA from 5 dudes that aren’t TSJ, but no slut shaming allowed!
-
Obviously not going to stop you from slut shaming.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/QNK5yKs/IMG-5454.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0MGwHGP)
-
Ah yes, the due process of taking a motion made by his attorneys and posting it publicly to slut shame his accuser.
The vaginal swab will be the key evidence, if there is any. It’s interesting that it wasn’t mentioned in this motion to dismiss testimony. If there isn’t a match on that then I can’t imagine it’ll go to trial, as it’ll be nearly impossible to prove him guilty without that.
A lot of people are pretending this exonerates him somehow, but it doesn’t.
A. You wanted him suspended and did not care one bit about Due Process.
B. A reporter posting portions of the motion has what to do with Due Process? Especially your supporting suspending him pending an investigation (that never got very far).
C. The lack of swab evidence may make a conviction harder, but there are issues on swab timing, etc. and there is still her word versus his (at a minimum).
-
(https://i.ibb.co/QNK5yKs/IMG-5454.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0MGwHGP)
Oh look, bad faith bullshit from Custard!
A true shocker
-
A. You wanted him suspended and did not care one bit about Due Process.
B. A reporter posting portions of the motion has what to do with Due Process? Especially your supporting suspending him pending an investigation (that never got very far).
C. The lack of swab evidence may make a conviction harder, but there are issues on swab timing, etc. and there is still her word versus his (at a minimum).
A. Yes, I think the University and the AD should have the right to suspend someone without a criminal conviction. Everyone agreed with that last year, but now that it’s us suddenly it’s a minority opinion among Illini fans. A judge said they don’t have that right, so obviously that needs to be abided by. I don’t remember Pierre Pierce or Brandon Miller or any other number of players for other teams getting the “they can’t suspend him, he hasn’t been convicted!” treatment from Illini fans - in fact, most Illini fans vocally wanted Miller suspended despite not even being charged with a crime.
B. A “reporter” (being generous there, Kedric is an absolute moron) posting an excerpt from a motion from his lawyer with the obvious intent to slut shame the accuser is going to sit wrong with me, yeah. Remember this isn’t the first time he posted something like this from Shannon’s lawyers and last time it was extremely misleading. That isn’t a coincidence.
C. The vaginal swab will be important, and if they knew he was excluded by that evidence it’d obviously have been included here. That doesn’t mean it matches, I’d guess it means his lawyers don’t know if it matches yet. But he wasn’t even accused as far as I know of anal penetration so the anal swab doesn’t move the needle really.
I agree that it’s her word against his, I certainly haven’t seen evidence that’d cause me to think he should be convicted. But this evidence is by no means exculpatory. A DNA match from the vaginal swab would make me think a plea or trial is likely though, and no match on that swab would lead me to believe a trial/plea is unlikely.
This was made public to get the exact “this crack whore!” reaction from Illini fans that JJ and so many others gave it. But it’s pretty obviously not exonerating evidence as so many Illini fans are pretending it is.
-
Also, for the record, even if he did exactly what he was accused of doing I don’t think someone should go to prison for a decade for it. It’s certainly not what I imagined when I saw his charge originally. It obviously still isn’t right but it’s materially different than I expected before I’d read the affidavit.
-
A. Yes, I think the University and the AD should have the right to suspend someone without a criminal conviction. Everyone agreed with that last year, but now that it’s us suddenly it’s a minority opinion among Illini fans. A judge said they don’t have that right, so obviously that needs to be abided by. I don’t remember Pierre Pierce or Brandon Miller or any other number of players for other teams getting the “they can’t suspend him, he hasn’t been convicted!” treatment from Illini fans - in fact, most Illini fans vocally wanted Miller suspended despite not even being charged with a crime.
B. A “reporter” (being generous there, Kedric is an absolute moron) posting an excerpt from a motion from his lawyer with the obvious intent to slut shame the accuser is going to sit wrong with me, yeah. Remember this isn’t the first time he posted something like this from Shannon’s lawyers and last time it was extremely misleading. That isn’t a coincidence.
C. The vaginal swab will be important, and if they knew he was excluded by that evidence it’d obviously have been included here. That doesn’t mean it matches, I’d guess it means his lawyers don’t know if it matches yet. But he wasn’t even accused as far as I know of anal penetration so the anal swab doesn’t move the needle really.
I agree that it’s her word against his, I certainly haven’t seen evidence that’d cause me to think he should be convicted. But this evidence is by no means exculpatory. A DNA match from the vaginal swab would make me think a plea or trial is likely though, and no match on that swab would lead me to believe a trial/plea is unlikely.
This was made public to get the exact “this crack whore!” reaction from Illini fans that JJ and so many others gave it. But it’s pretty obviously not exonerating evidence as so many Illini fans are pretending it is.
A. The school is a state actor. The laws apply to it, as we see with the current campus protests, regardless of your (or my) opinion.
B. What he does has zilch to do with Due Process.
C. Certainly is an interesting factoid, if it is even accurate.
-
Also, for the record, even if he did exactly what he was accused of doing I don’t think someone should go to prison for a decade for it. It’s certainly not what I imagined when I saw his charge originally. It obviously still isn’t right but it’s materially different than I expected before I’d read the affidavit.
We still have not really heard her full side of the story. It should be sorted out in court at some point.
What the prosecutors put together is not necessarily her fault.
-
A. The school is a state actor. The laws apply to it, as we see with the current campus protests, regardless of your (or my) opinion.
B. What he does has zilch to do with Due Process.
C. Certainly is an interesting factoid, if it is even accurate.
Yes, the state laws apply to it. But the state law never stated that you couldn’t suspend a kid from basketball barring a criminal conviction, obviously. A judge made that ruling just a few months ago. As far as I could find every player anywhere who was charged with a crime was at minimum suspended indefinitely when the charge came in.
I agree what Kedric Prince posts has nothing to do with due process, which is why I mocked you for bringing up due process because of something he posted.
What about C could be inaccurate? Obviously if they had the vaginal swab and knew it excluded their client they’d have included that.
The anal swab isn’t really relevant at all. He wasn’t even alleged to have penetrated her anus. It’s being posted by Illini guys and Shannon’s lawyer specifically to slut shame, one of the oldest tricks in the sexual assault case playbook. Even if he did exactly what he was accused of, a DNA match from an anal swab wouldn’t be expected.
-
So Spark, why does only his character/lack there of matter?! Should hers be made public like his if in fact she is a fucking sluts making shit up?! Have prior accusations?! Etc?! He should lose his livelihood in the meantime? She should be able to walk around and not have any consequences through the process?! Boy, doesn’t seem right to me. She’s got 5 other individuals’ inside of her and none match him. 5!!!! Yeah, ok. Tell us your self-righteous opinion and how “wrong” and “stupid” we are…
-
Yes, the state laws apply to it. But the state law never stated that you couldn’t suspend a kid from basketball barring a criminal conviction, obviously. A judge made that ruling just a few months ago. As far as I could find every player anywhere who was charged with a crime was at minimum suspended indefinitely when the charge came in.
I agree what Kedric Prince posts has nothing to do with due process, which is why I mocked you for bringing up due process because of something he posted.
What about C could be inaccurate? Obviously if they had the vaginal swab and knew it excluded their client they’d have included that.
The anal swab isn’t really relevant at all. He wasn’t even alleged to have penetrated her anus. It’s being posted by Illini guys and Shannon’s lawyer specifically to slut shame, one of the oldest tricks in the sexual assault case playbook. Even if he did exactly what he was accused of, a DNA match from an anal swab wouldn’t be expected.
I thought we were talking about federal law, since that is what was applied and allowed him to play. State law was irrelevant to the whole situation with Illinois suspending him. So why even bring up state law? As to what occurred with other players, maybe they should have hired better lawyers?
We know you do not care about Due Process unless it fits your needs. You are not alone in this thought.
Well, they tested her back region for a reason. If the allegation is his hand went down her backside on the way to insertion, the swab of that area could show something. It did show something. It just was not that it showed him but 5 other dudes. Obviously, if the allegation is the hand went down the front, yeah, it is wholly irrelevant to the claim here.
I do not know what the vaginal swab shows. I think we will find out one way or another.
-
So Spark, why does only his character/lack there of matter?! Should hers be made public like his if in fact she is a fucking sluts making shit up?! Have prior accusations?! Etc?! He should lose his livelihood in the meantime? She should be able to walk around and not have any consequences through the process?! Boy, doesn’t seem right to me. She’s got 5 other individuals’ inside of her and none match him. 5!!!! Yeah, ok. Tell us your self-righteous opinion and how “wrong” and “stupid” we are…
Who said a damn word about his lack of character? If people were assassinating his character for things that are totally irrelevant to the case I'd say the same thing. I haven't seen anything short of this allegation that'd lead me to question his character at all - hell, even if he did exactly what he was accused of here I don't think I'd go so far as to say it makes him some terrible irredeemable person. At the absolute worst case possibility it seems like a case where he thought he had consent and did not.
You're slut shaming her, pretty blatantly and openly, because of the basketball team he played for. Which obviously isn't surprising, but is extremely gross. It doesn't matter if she had sex with 2 or 5 or 25 other men. None of that is remotely relevant to the case in question, in fact right now it's exclusively being used to make people react emotionally like you are.
Why would there be consequences for her right now? We have zero of the information we'd need to conclude that she made the whole thing up - in fact, most of the actual evidence we have supports parts of her story (but notably not the actual allegation against Shannon). You're here acting like an anal swab that didn't match exonerates him when he literally wasn't even accused of penetrating her anus. You're ignoring that he IS accused of penetrating her vagina, and the vaginal swab results are not mentioned in this motion from his lawyers. Those results will hold much more weight in terms of where the case goes from here.
Yes, the DNA indicates she had contact with up to 5 other men (at least 2). If you think that means he's exonerated or has any relevance whatsoever to the allegation then yes, you're wrong and stupid. It doesn't.
-
I thought we were talking about federal law, since that is what was applied and allowed him to play. State law was irrelevant to the whole situation with Illinois suspending him. So why even bring up state law? As to what occurred with other players, maybe they should have hired better lawyers?
We know you do not care about Due Process unless it fits your needs. You are not alone in this thought.
Well, they tested her back region for a reason. If the allegation is his hand went down her backside on the way to insertion, the swab of that area could show something. It did show something. It just was not that it showed him but 5 other dudes. Obviously, if the allegation is the hand went down the front, yeah, it is wholly irrelevant to the claim here.
I do not know what the vaginal swab shows. I think we will find out one way or another.
Pretty ironic to accuse me of not caring about due process unless it 'fits my needs'. The actual objective reality is that more or less no Illini fan including you gave one shit about "due process" in the cases of any of the hundreds of kids suspended for being charged with a crime - including multiple from our own program - until it put our basketball season in jeopardy. It literally was never a thing until it affected your favorite team. Not one single Illini fan that I saw pushed back on the Brandon Miller stuff by talking about due process and how he wasn't convicted of a crime, not one - in fact, nearly every comment I saw about it went the exact opposite direction, a principle which those people have now mostly abandoned once it affected THEIR favorite team.
They tested her anus because it's standard procedure when performing a rape screening. As is a vaginal swab. He was not accused of penetrating her anus, so the anal swab doesn't matter all that much. He was accused of touching her inner-thigh from the back, and the inner-thigh swab was inconclusive.
This motion was posted by Kedric for exactly one reason, and obviously a lot of people obliged.
-
https://x.com/ReesIsMe/status/1786057147895234833
Here's the full motion. Obviously still written by Shannon's lawyers but it claims that no male DNA was found in the vaginal or external genital swab, citing a KBI report.
If that's true, I can't imagine the case will get to trial barring some other evidence we haven't heard anything about yet. It's possible that evidence exists, of course, but I can't imagine what it would be if it isn't video or DNA.
-
Spark- “Because we weren’t publicly outraged and speaking out against world hunger, we can’t possibly say anything when we’re starving!!”
And as to your reply to me above, obviously plenty of people are questioning his character. He’s accused of rape. Why can’t he defend himself and have his lawyers publicly shame her too?! Her character IS relevant to the charges. 5 fucking dudes!! Yes, that’s relevant! Again why should his livelihood be lost if the allegations are in fact false?! You use other examples like Brandon Miller (somebody died) which are way different circumstances. I wasn’t outraged at other situations because I didn’t care. Those people didn’t play for a team I rooted for. I never defended anybody in the Brian Carwell incident. Who cares if they played for my favorite team.
-
Pretty ironic to accuse me of not caring about due process unless it 'fits my needs'. The actual objective reality is that more or less no Illini fan including you gave one shit about "due process" in the cases of any of the hundreds of kids suspended for being charged with a crime - including multiple from our own program - until it put our basketball season in jeopardy. It literally was never a thing until it affected your favorite team. Not one single Illini fan that I saw pushed back on the Brandon Miller stuff by talking about due process and how he wasn't convicted of a crime, not one - in fact, nearly every comment I saw about it went the exact opposite direction, a principle which those people have now mostly abandoned once it affected THEIR favorite team.
They tested her anus because it's standard procedure when performing a rape screening. As is a vaginal swab. He was not accused of penetrating her anus, so the anal swab doesn't matter all that much. He was accused of touching her inner-thigh from the back, and the inner-thigh swab was inconclusive.
This motion was posted by Kedric for exactly one reason, and obviously a lot of people obliged.
I do not recall getting on my own high horse about the Alabama kid. But, yeah, there were those who did. I guess we can thank TSJ and Whitman for providing a good lesson to Illini fans about Due Process and the school disciplinary process.
It would not be the first time a story testified to in court changed from what the prosecutors claimed the story was so the swab certainly ruled out his touching her there. It also certainly provides some ammo for other defenses.
-
If he has/had to lose schooling or his job through the process, she should too (barring she even has one).
If she can destroy his character with accusations (whether true or not) he should be able to do the same to her through the process.
-
https://x.com/ReesIsMe/status/1786057147895234833
Here's the full motion. Obviously still written by Shannon's lawyers but it claims that no male DNA was found in the vaginal or external genital swab, citing a KBI report.
If that's true, I can't imagine the case will get to trial barring some other evidence we haven't heard anything about yet. It's possible that evidence exists, of course, but I can't imagine what it would be if it isn't video or DNA.
That was an interesting read.
-
Spark- “Because we weren’t publicly outraged and speaking out against world hunger, we can’t possibly say anything when we’re starving!!”
And as to your reply to me above, obviously plenty of people are questioning his character. He’s accused of rape. Why can’t he defend himself and have his lawyers publicly shame her too?! Her character IS relevant to the charges. 5 fucking dudes!! Yes, that’s relevant! Again why should his livelihood be lost if the allegations are in fact false?! You use other examples like Brandon Miller (somebody died) which are way different circumstances. I wasn’t outraged at other situations because I didn’t care. Those people didn’t play for a team I rooted for. I never defended anybody in the Brian Carwell incident. Who cares if they played for my favorite team.
What the fuck are you talking about?
His lawyers CAN and SHOULD defend him. Slut shaming the accuser is a disgusting tactic and in fact not a defense of him at all. Do I need to explain why?
Yes, Brandon Miller is a different circumstance - he wasn't even accused of a crime. By the logic you're using here, Jamar Smith should've been able to play basketball for Illinois after that incident for the three months until he pled guilty. That we suspended him violated his right to due process. Personally, I think that's crazy - but that's what the judge said, so it doesn't matter what I think.
-
What the fuck are you talking about?
His lawyers CAN and SHOULD defend him. Slut shaming the accuser is a disgusting tactic and in fact not a defense of him at all. Do I need to explain why?
How do you know it is not relevant to his defense?
Doesn't the motion anticipate that the prosecution will present testimony as to the discovery of "male DNA" in her underwear that cannot be traced to any one person and claim it could be TSJ's? Doesn't the appearance of DNA of 5 other males elsewhere on her body mean that the "male DNA" discovered in the underwear could have come from one of those 5 males and not TSJ?
-
That’s easy enough to knock down in court or a dismissal motion if the evidence shows that.
Kedric pulling that line and tweeting it as red meat for Illini fans was the most obvious slut shaming imaginable. And look, the reaction to it from Illini fans is to do the same thing.
Whether she has sex with 2 or 5 or 25 men isn’t relevant to the question of whether Shannon did what he was accused of. It’s put out to impugn her character, nothing more. The lack of a vaginal match is FAR more relevant.
-
Wait she's had sex with 25 dudes and is in college? Lol.
-
That’s easy enough to knock down in court or a dismissal motion if the evidence shows that.
Seems like the defense prefers to address the issue now before such evidence even reaches the finder of fact.
-
5 dudes? Damn she was busy that night.
Wait sorry is that slut shaming?
-
Sluts should be shamed. Disgusting degenerate behavior shouldn't be encouraged.
-
I didn't necessarily view this as slut shaming. My 1st thoughts were directed at the DA.
Were these results available April 24 ? Or before ?
-
Sluts should be shamed. Disgusting degenerate behavior shouldn't be encouraged.
Ironic
-
5 dudes? Damn she was busy that night.
Wait sorry is that slut shaming?
No that's slut training...I know where the door is....LOL
-
I never defended anybody in the Brian Carwell incident.
Did you accept the approved Internet version that Jamar left Carlwell for dead at the scene of the accident and drove to Chester's apartment?
Some are struggling with with the Shannon case. They have to reconcile beliefs that Shannon is innocent and the 18 year old accuser didn't lie.
-
If he has/had to lose schooling or his job through the process, she should too (barring she even has one).
If she can destroy his character with accusations (whether true or not) he should be able to do the same to her through the process.
She isn't the one who did anything to him. It's the State of Kansas, if anyone.
-
Judge Judy, you have to understand that Due Process means zilch to people like Tempo and Spark.
This literally is due process playing itself out.
I don't like that prosecutors can ruin your life on whims and crap evidence, but it's the reality.
-
This Motion is not necessarily good for TSJ in that it tells me the state has an expert who intends on testifying that there was male DNA on her underwear that they couldn't rule out as being TSJ, although the motion should be granted if what his attorneys say is true about the thresholds.
I hate to tell you this about the "five other guys" part but it's presumably inadmissible even if it means what you think (it doesn't - see below). It's a thorny issue in evidence law because it's baseline legally relevant but of minimal weight to a rational person. So most states passed statutes to exclude the evidence for exactly the reasons we've seen in this thread. That includes Kansas (which says you're not supposed to file it publicly although this is with a Daubert motion rather than an in limine motion):
https://kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_055_0000_article/021_055_0002_section/021_055_0002_k/
And fuck Ked Prince for posting those excerpts only. You can access the whole motion here:
https://www.wcia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2024/05/DG-2023-CR-300181-Terrance-Shannons-Motion-for-Daubert-Hearing-and-to-Exclude-Expert-Testimony.pdf
As to the "five other guys" part the report itself debunks that idea rather clearly:
"The level of DNA detected could be from virtually anything - including but not limited to the
gloves of the SANE nurse, the swabs themselves, the swab boxes, the gloves of the analyst at
the KBI, the cutting tool used by the analyst, any tweezers or forceps used by the analyst, or
any of the tubes/wells used during the extraction process. This level of DNA could also be
from several different forms of transfer - primary, secondary and tertiary transfer events could
all explain a transfer of these levels of DNA...
Primary, secondary and tertiary transfer are all possibilities given that the complaining witness
was in a crowded bar and in close contact with several individuals throughout the night. DNA
could have been inadvertently transferred to her body through her own hands, from a male(s)
coughing, sneezing, or even talking around her depending upon which parts of her body were
exposed."
Let us not be so droolingly eager to slut-shame that we don't read the fine print.
-
This literally is due process playing itself out.
I don't like that prosecutors can ruin your life on whims and crap evidence, but it's the reality.
Due Process certainly played out after he sued Illinois
-
This Motion is not necessarily good for TSJ in that it tells me the state has an expert who intends on testifying that there was male DNA on her underwear that they couldn't rule out as being TSJ, although the motion should be granted if what his attorneys say is true about the thresholds.
I hate to tell you this about the "five other guys" part but it's presumably inadmissible even if it means what you think (it doesn't - see below). It's a thorny issue in evidence law because it's baseline legally relevant but of minimal weight to a rational person. So most states passed statutes to exclude the evidence for exactly the reasons we've seen in this thread. That includes Kansas (which says you're not supposed to file it publicly although this is with a Daubert motion rather than an in limine motion):
https://kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/021_000_0000_chapter/021_055_0000_article/021_055_0002_section/021_055_0002_k/
And fuck Ked Prince for posting those excerpts only. You can access the whole motion here:
https://www.wcia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/44/2024/05/DG-2023-CR-300181-Terrance-Shannons-Motion-for-Daubert-Hearing-and-to-Exclude-Expert-Testimony.pdf
As to the "five other guys" part the report itself debunks that idea rather clearly:
"The level of DNA detected could be from virtually anything - including but not limited to the
gloves of the SANE nurse, the swabs themselves, the swab boxes, the gloves of the analyst at
the KBI, the cutting tool used by the analyst, any tweezers or forceps used by the analyst, or
any of the tubes/wells used during the extraction process. This level of DNA could also be
from several different forms of transfer - primary, secondary and tertiary transfer events could
all explain a transfer of these levels of DNA...
Primary, secondary and tertiary transfer are all possibilities given that the complaining witness
was in a crowded bar and in close contact with several individuals throughout the night. DNA
could have been inadvertently transferred to her body through her own hands, from a male(s)
coughing, sneezing, or even talking around her depending upon which parts of her body were
exposed."
Let us not be so droolingly eager to slut-shame that we don't read the fine print.
We shall see if the judge deems it relevant for purposes of the motion at hand.
-
It's going to trial. Damn it.
https://twitter.com/JakeBedellTV/status/1788967348390539629
-
It's going to trial. Damn it.
https://twitter.com/JakeBedellTV/status/1788967348390539629
Her word versus his. Will see what other witnesses there are.
-
Of course it's still going to trial? The only hope was and remains the prosecution voluntarily dismissing.
-
This is certainly interesting....
https://twitter.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1791206240942522792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
-
The prosecution admits to having exculpatory evidence, but refuses to share it with the defense?
-
It was Arterio Morris.
-
It was Arterio Morris.
Now that would be something.
-
The prosecution admits to having exculpatory evidence, but refuses to share it with the defense?
Possibly exculpatory.
-
This is certainly interesting....
https://twitter.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1791206240942522792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Illini homerism but with legal analysis.
If she really was looking straight ahead, should have a directed verdict granted. But hearsay about the speculated acts of a third party in the same room ain't going to do much. Not a person on that reply thread would find that exculpatory if the victim were an Illinois fan and the defendant was a Michigan football player.
-
Now that would be something.
Morris is the person who was accused of a similar act in the same bar.
-
"9. It has recently come to the attention of the defense that a female patron at the same bar involved in Mr. Shannon’s Complaint alleges that she was present at the bar on August 26, 2023, when a black male (“3rd party”) sexually assaulted her in the “corner” of a room at the bar by grabbing her vagina. (Counsel for the State has confirmed the date and general location of the alleged assault by the 3rd party. Counsel for Mr. Shannon inquired of the State if the August assault took place in the “corner” of the Martini room. Counsel for the State refused to provide this information.) Unlike M.N., the victim was wearing pants at the time, such that the perpetrator was not able to touch her under her clothing.
10. This victim reported the allegations to University of Kansas Police and ultimately—after September 9, 2023--the 3rd party was charged with raping the victim at different location on the same night as the alleged assault in the bar. Those charges were subsequently dismissed.
11. Counsel has recently determined that the 3rd party identified as responsible for the August sexual assault (less than 2 weeks prior to incident in which Mr. Shannon is allegedly involved) was present at the bar, in the room, and in the same vicinity around the time that M.N. was allegedly assaulted."
Arterio Morris is the 3rd party .
-
Illini homerism but with legal analysis.
If she really was looking straight ahead, should have a directed verdict granted. But hearsay about the speculated acts of a third party in the same room ain't going to do much. Not a person on that reply thread would find that exculpatory if the victim were an Illinois fan and the defendant was a Michigan football player.
They can always try and call him as a witness... Also could give them an avenue when questioning the cops and her
-
They can always try and call him as a witness... Also could give them an avenue when questioning the cops and her
The best case scenario is that other guy pleaing the 5th and refusing to testify.
The cops are the best avenue probably but could backfire spectacularly. For example: "Of course we looked into him. There are only two black guys on the footage and he had multiple alibi witnesses. TSJ didn't"
-
The best case scenario is that other guy pleaing the 5th and refusing to testify.
The cops are the best avenue probably but could backfire spectacularly. For example: "Of course we looked into him. There are only two black guys on the footage and he had multiple alibi witnesses. TSJ didn't"
Sure it could. Would think they would be savvy enough to prevent that from happening though.
All they have to do is create reasonable doubt in one person
-
Do we know the alleged sequence of events? I find it implausible Morris would be focused on another girl assault a second, and then go back to the first to assault somewhere else. But if the alleged TSJ assault occurred earlier and then Morris hooked up with/assaulted the other woman, that has potential legs, although it would require the police and prosecution to be startlingly incompetent (not a hard sell)
-
Have we shifted from "she's a slut and a liar who made it all up and they should throw her in jail" to "she's a victim of a sexual assault but she accused the wrong guy"?
-
Have we shifted from "she's a slut and a liar who made it all up and they should throw her in jail" to "she's a victim of a sexual assault but she accused the wrong guy"?
For all we know, both could be true....or false.
-
So maybe it was pretty gross to go after the accuser for months, attack her personally, say she should be jailed, and slut shame her, given that no one here has any way to know.
-
Have we shifted from "she's a slut and a liar who made it all up and they should throw her in jail" to "she's a victim of a sexual assault but she accused the wrong guy"?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/65/38/55/6538553c6b637ce47c4f1afdcfba76a8.gif)
-
August 26: Morris allegedly sexually assaulted a woman at the JayHawk Cafe by grabbing her vagina. Later the same day, he allegedly raped the same victim.
Morris was charged Sept 9, but the case was dismissed w/o prejudice Apr 9, 2024
Sept 8: Shannon allegedly digitally raped a woman from behind while she was standing against a wall at JayHawk Cafe. The accuser apparently assumed the perp was the man standing to her her left. She later used the Internet to identify him as Shannon.
Morris was present in the JayHawk Cafe that night.
-
So maybe it was pretty gross to go after the accuser for months, attack her personally, say she should be jailed, and slut shame her, given that no one here has any way to know.
We may find out if these people were AOTC or not.
-
August 26: Morris allegedly sexually assaulted a woman at the JayHawk Cafe by grabbing her vagina. Later the same day, he allegedly raped the same victim.
Morris was charged Sept 9, but the case was dismissed w/o prejudice Apr 9, 2024
Sept 8: Shannon allegedly digitally raped a woman from behind while she was standing against a wall at JayHawk Cafe. The accuser apparently assumed the perp was the man standing to her her left. She later used the Internet to identify him as Shannon.
Morris was present in the JayHawk Cafe that night.
But that lady on Loyalty who is married to a black man says they don’t look anything alike.
-
So maybe it was pretty gross to go after the accuser for months, attack her personally, say she should be jailed, and slut shame her, given that no one here has any way to know.
She doesn’t even know who did it. Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty big deal when she blames someone…
-
So maybe it was pretty gross to go after the accuser for months, attack her personally, say she should be jailed, and slut shame her, given that no one here has any way to know.
Blame anybody even if they did it or not and ruin their life! Just not her or hers! 😂 get the fuck outta here!
-
August 26: Morris allegedly sexually assaulted a woman at the JayHawk Cafe by grabbing her vagina. Later the same day, he allegedly raped the same victim.
Morris was charged Sept 9, but the case was dismissed w/o prejudice Apr 9, 2024
Sept 8: Shannon allegedly digitally raped a woman from behind while she was standing against a wall at JayHawk Cafe. The accuser apparently assumed the perp was the man standing to her her left. She later used the Internet to identify him as Shannon.
Morris was present in the JayHawk Cafe that night.
Certainly sounds like an avenue to investigate under these circumstances. Especially since she allegedly had unidentifiable male DNA in her undies, per the report.
-
But that lady on Loyalty who is married to a black man says they don’t look anything alike.
Doesn't wonky have that avatar of the generic dude that people always claim to see in their dreams or some stuff like that?
-
She doesn’t even know who did it. Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty big deal when she blames someone…
You called her a slut and a crack whore and were convinced she made the whole thing up like one week ago. You've said multiple times that this woman, who you now seem to think was actually the victim of a sexual assault, should go to jail and be sued for making it all up. Really gross, awful behavior (and obviously you are not alone).
I wish that someday you'd self-reflect on that, maybe try to be better next time. But I think we both know that is not going to happen.
-
Blame anybody even if they did it or not and ruin their life! Just not her or hers! 😂 get the fuck outta here!
You've so thoroughly shown your ass about this. You look like an absolute abject moron, and an awful person. Nothing anybody who'd interacted with you before didn't already know, obviously, but man have your wild narrative shifts made you look like a total jackass here.
You called her a crack whore. You said she should be put in jail and sued. Now you think she was the victim of a sexual assault, but see no need for self reflection.
An awful, awful person. I sincerely hope no one you ever love is sexually assaulted and then attacked personally. No one deserves that.
-
Have we shifted from "she's a slut and a liar who made it all up and they should throw her in jail" to "she's a victim of a sexual assault but she accused the wrong guy"?
Either / or both.
It's also possible Shannon ignored her advances and she is out for revenge.
It slso sounds like her identification is weak.
There seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt from where I sit.
-
You called her a slut and a crack whore and were convinced she made the whole thing up like one week ago. You've said multiple times that this woman, who you now seem to think was actually the victim of a sexual assault, should go to jail and be sued for making it all up. Really gross, awful behavior (and obviously you are not alone).
I wish that someday you'd self-reflect on that, maybe try to be better next time. But I think we both know that is not going to happen.
I do not read it as Judge Judy believing she is a victim of sexual assault. I read it as his saying she cannot identify the person who she claims assaulted her.
-
Either / or both.
It's also possible Shannon ignored her advances and she is out for revenge.
It slso sounds like her identification is weak.
There seems to be a lot of reasonable doubt from where I sit.
Looks like they will all get their day in court. Cross examination and the defense case looks like it can have a lot to work with.
-
You've so thoroughly shown your ass about this. You look like an absolute abject moron, and an awful person. Nothing anybody who'd interacted with you before didn't already know, obviously, but man have your wild narrative shifts made you look like a total jackass here.
You called her a crack whore. You said she should be put in jail and sued. Now you think she was the victim of a sexual assault, but see no need for self reflection.
An awful, awful person. I sincerely hope no one you ever love is sexually assaulted and then attacked personally. No one deserves that.
On the flip side, hopefully no one you ever lose is falsely accused of sexual assault and then attacked personally. It works both ways, Spark.
-
I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that would lead me to vote to convict. Of course like everyone else here I’ve seen extremely little of the evidence. That evidence might exist, or it very very well might not.
Thats obviously an extremely different discussion. I’ve never proclaimed that TSJ was guilty, that’s for sure - but others here have proclaimed that he’s definitely innocent, and that she’s definitely a lying crack whore who made it up to extort him. Those people obviously have not come off very well.
-
I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that would lead me to vote to convict. Of course like everyone else here I’ve seen extremely little of the evidence. That evidence might exist, or it very very well might not.
Thats obviously an extremely different discussion. I’ve never proclaimed that TSJ was guilty, that’s for sure - but others here have proclaimed that he’s definitely innocent, and that she’s definitely a lying crack whore who made it up to extort him. Those people obviously have not come off very well.
True, but you did say he should not play because he was accused of a crime.
We shall see who comes over well and who does not. Odds are, everyone loses here.
-
On the flip side, hopefully no one you ever lose is falsely accused of sexual assault and then attacked personally. It works both ways, Spark.
I have never attacked TSJ or proclaimed that he’s guilty. I have no idea and no way to know. Obviously I hope he is innocent.
On the other hand, the accuser has been called all kinds of names, attacked personally, people have said she should go to jail.
So no, this one only goes one way. I did not make an ass out of myself insisting he was guilty, changing my story weekly, attacking him personally, etc.
-
True, but you did say he should not play because he was accused of a crime.
We shall see who comes over well and who does not. Odds are, everyone loses here.
Yes, I think the athletic department - not a judge - should be able to choose who represents their program. That was literally never even remotely controversial, not even a little, until it affected our best basketball player. If a guy on our team is arrested for murder I think the AD should be able to suspend him from the team.
As we’ve seen here, the people who have consistently insisted they know the truth despite objectively having no way to know are the ones who are going to (and already do) look terrible.
Theres not really a way the people who have been saying “we don’t have nearly enough information to know, the evidence is totally opaque to us, don’t rush to judgment because of the basketball team he plays for, don’t attack the accuser who you know nothing about” are going to come out of this looking bad.
-
But that lady on Loyalty who is married to a black man says they don’t look anything alike.
It sounds like she was not actually looking at the perp when she was allegedly digitally raped. She figured it was the man standing to her left. Ponder that.
-
On the flip side, hopefully no one you ever lose is falsely accused of sexual assault and then attacked personally. It works both ways, Spark.
How dare you tell Righteous Spark this!
-
I have never attacked TSJ or proclaimed that he’s guilty. I have no idea and no way to know. Obviously I hope he is innocent.
On the other hand, the accuser has been called all kinds of names, attacked personally, people have said she should go to jail.
So no, this one only goes one way. I did not make an ass out of myself insisting he was innocent, changing my story weekly, attacking him personally, etc.
She’s calling him a rapist! He’s been called all kinds of names, etc… and she doesn’t even know if it’s him! Yes, I’d say that’s a problem!
-
She’s calling him a rapist! He’s been called all kinds of names, etc… and she doesn’t even know if it’s him! Yes, I’d say that’s a problem!
She has never said she doesn’t know if it’s him. You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
If she was a victim of sexual assault (which still is not a given by any means!) you obviously owe her an apology for all the awful stuff you said about her. You called her a slut and said she should be put in jail. I know you won’t apologize - when you look awful you lash out and attack me instead of reflecting on how your own behavior resulted in you looking like a moron and an awful person - but you should.
It’s just not that hard or that much to ask not to jump to conclusions, not to pretend you know shit you have no way of knowing, not to attack people personally that you know nothing whatsoever about. At least, it’s not that hard for intelligent, decent people.
-
Yes, I think the athletic department - not a judge - should be able to choose who represents their program. That was literally never even remotely controversial, not even a little, until it affected our best basketball player. If a guy on our team is arrested for murder I think the AD should be able to suspend him from the team.
As we’ve seen here, the people who have consistently insisted they know the truth despite objectively having no way to know are the ones who are going to (and already do) look terrible.
Theres not really a way the people who have been saying “we don’t have nearly enough information to know, the evidence is totally opaque to us, don’t rush to judgment because of the basketball team he plays for, don’t attack the accuser who you know nothing about” are going to come out of this looking bad.
A judge merely applied the law. Blame the US Constitution, your legislators, and the AD Department (for failing to follow its own rules) for him playing.
-
The law didn’t change though.
What changed is that this judge interpreted it in a way that means a college athletic department cannot suspend a kid anymore. Which is obviously an extremely different scenario than literally every other instance of a college athlete being arrested in history. Every one of them has been suspended on arrest, and not one single time has anyone thought that’s unfair or unreasonable or a violation of his rights, not once - until it was OUR best player.
One year ago lots of Illini fans were angry that Alabama didn’t suspend a player who wasn’t even arrested or charged with anything. We mocked Iowa for years over the Pierre Pierce thing, but now you’re telling me we should’ve been angry about the violation of his rights.
It’s pretty ugly stuff IMO, but doesn’t matter what I think about it.
-
Yes, I think the athletic department - not a judge - should be able to choose who represents their program. That was literally never even remotely controversial, not even a little, until it affected our best basketball player. If a guy on our team is arrested for murder I think the AD should be able to suspend him from the team.
As we’ve seen here, the people who have consistently insisted they know the truth despite objectively having no way to know are the ones who are going to (and already do) look terrible.
Theres not really a way the people who have been saying “we don’t have nearly enough information to know, the evidence is totally opaque to us, don’t rush to judgment because of the basketball team he plays for, don’t attack the accuser who you know nothing about” are going to come out of this looking bad.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here, BUT only YOU can! Amirite?!
-
A judge merely applied the law. Blame the US Constitution, your legislators, and the AD Department (for failing to follow its own rules) for him playing.
Bingo.
-
You’re making a lot of assumptions here, BUT only YOU can! Amirite?!
Which assumptions did I make?
-
Prediction: the “assumptions” Judy is about to accuse me of making are things I never came close to saying or implying. Something like “you’re assuming he did it” or “you’re assuming she was assaulted”
-
She has never said she doesn’t know if it’s him. You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
5. M.N. testified that she was assaulted from behind as she stared straight ahead. She testified that the hand she believed touched her came from the man standing to her left. She testified as to her belief that the man next to her was Mr. Shannon.
6. DNA analysis conducted by the State and reviewed by a defense expert does not reveal evidence that Mr. Shannon ever had physical contact with M.N., though male DNA is present in some samples taken from her person.
7. M.N. decided that the man standing next to her was Terrence Shannon because she went home that evening and searched the internet for photos of athletes from the University of Kansas and University of Illinois and found that Mr. Shannon’s roster photo looked like a man she saw in the bar and who she believed—though she did not see--was attached to the hand that touched her.
8. Other than M.N.’s statement that she believed Mr. Shannon was the person who touched her, there is no evidence supporting this contention.
source: TERRENCE SHANNON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
-
The law didn’t change though.
What changed is that this judge interpreted it in a way that means a college athletic department cannot suspend a kid anymore. Which is obviously an extremely different scenario than literally every other instance of a college athlete being arrested in history. Every one of them has been suspended on arrest, and not one single time has anyone thought that’s unfair or unreasonable or a violation of his rights, not once - until it was OUR best player.
One year ago lots of Illini fans were angry that Alabama didn’t suspend a player who wasn’t even arrested or charged with anything.
It’s pretty ugly stuff IMO, but doesn’t matter what I think about it.
The kid in Alabama was not suspended because they claimed they did not have enough information to deem it suspension worthy. He was not even criminally charged.
Plus, this is what you got out of this? That is an extremely poor, I'll say it, lazy reading of the decision and the law. The judge relied on a 7th Circuit case involving a guy out of Purdue who sued after he felt he got railroaded in the process. So it is not like suspensions have never been overturned before.
They had a policy. Due Process required them to follow it. They did not follow it. Blame your guy Guenther Jr. for fucking it up (which is understandable given the logistical issues here), not the judge.
-
5. M.N. testified that she was assaulted from behind as she stared straight ahead. She testified that the hand she believed touched her came from the man standing to her left. She testified as to her belief that the man next to her was Mr. Shannon.
6. DNA analysis conducted by the State and reviewed by a defense expert does not reveal evidence that Mr. Shannon ever had physical contact with M.N., though male DNA is present in some samples taken from her person.
7. M.N. decided that the man standing next to her was Terrence Shannon because she went home that evening and searched the internet for photos of athletes from the University of Kansas and University of Illinois and found that Mr. Shannon’s roster photo looked like a man she saw in the bar and who she believed—though she did not see--was attached to the hand that touched her.
8. Other than M.N.’s statement that she believed Mr. Shannon was the person who touched her, there is no evidence supporting this contention.
source: TERRENCE SHANNON’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
So she's never said she didn't know if it was him, even in his own lawyers' motion?
Obviously their job is to create doubt in a jury (and, in the case of this extremely public case, in the Illini fanbase). There is no claim at least to this point from her that she doesn't know whether it was him.
-
You’re just really, really, really bad at understanding what you read.
Said without a hint of irony....you may want to re-read the judge's opinion. The law has not changed and schools can still suspend students (as long as they follow the processes and procedures they have put in place).
-
The kid in Alabama was not suspended because they claimed they did not have enough information to deem it suspension worthy. He was not even criminally charged.
Plus, this is what you got out of this? That is an extremely poor, I'll say it, lazy reading of the decision and the law. The judge relied on a 7th Circuit case involving a guy out of Purdue who sued after he felt he got railroaded in the process. So it is not like suspensions have never been overturned before.
They had a policy. Due Process required them to follow it. They did not follow it. Blame your guy Guenther Jr. for fucking it up (which is understandable given the logistical issues here), not the judge.
Yep. And many Illini fans were angry about that, even though he wasn't charged with a crime. They thought he should've been suspended, even without a criminal charge.
It was only when it was OUR best player that Illini fans became such staunch believers that suspending someone without a criminal conviction is such an egregious violation of his civil rights.
They found a way to 'suspend him' and save face, but still allow him to play so our basketball team didn't suffer. You can thank Josh Whitman for figuring out a way for Shannon to not miss this season. Let's not pretend that isn't what happened, you're not that dumb.
It required a strange reading of the law from a judge that pretty much every lawyer I know was kind of in awe of, citing Shannon's NBA draft prospects and his loss of income. It doesn't matter that I think that's nuts, that's what the judge said and that's what needed to be abided by - but the idea that you cannot suspend a kid from an extracurricular activity before giving him some sham 'trial' in front of some University panel who has none of the evidence whatsoever to make a determination of his guilt, is a new one. Certainly no Illini fans have applied that logic to any previous athlete who was charged with a crime to my knowledge.
-
Said without a hint of irony....you may want to re-read the judge's opinion. The law has not changed and schools can still suspend students (as long as they follow the processes and procedures they have put in place).
Nope, they can't - not without a determination of guilt made by a Title IX panel (who out of absolute necessity has none of the evidence that'd be in front of a court). A sham process with no hope of actually making a firm determination of guilt or innocence (the same thing the Shannon judge said about the OSCR, who later dropped the case because of course they have no evidence to determine his guilt or innocence before a court does). It's against the rules now to suspend or remove a kid from a sports team during an investigation unless you can prove immediate risk in court.
https://twitter.com/pinepaula/status/1781286951653437654
You knew that though, well-informed as you are.
-
Yep. And many Illini fans were angry about that, even though he wasn't charged with a crime. They thought he should've been suspended, even without a criminal charge.
It was only when it was OUR best player that Illini fans became such staunch believers that suspending someone without a criminal conviction is such an egregious violation of his civil rights.
They found a way to 'suspend him' and save face, but still allow him to play so our basketball team didn't suffer. You can thank Josh Whitman for figuring out a way for Shannon to not miss this season. Let's not pretend that isn't what happened, you're not that dumb.
It required a strange reading of the law from a judge that pretty much every lawyer I know was kind of in awe of, citing Shannon's NBA draft prospects and his loss of income. It doesn't matter that I think that's nuts, that's what the judge said and that's what needed to be abided by - but the idea that you cannot suspend a kid from an extracurricular activity before giving him some sham 'trial' in front of some University panel who has none of the evidence whatsoever to make a determination of his guilt, is a new one. Certainly no Illini fans have applied that logic to any previous athlete who was charged with a crime to my knowledge.
This is laughable. They had a fucking policy in place specifically when Title IX would not apply (which it did not here, as the University argued). They did not follow the policy, which the law requires.
Now you are saying they did it on purpose? They knew Shannon would sue AND would win? (Despite what you argue is the novelty of basing part of the decision on the loss of draft position and NIL income.) GMAFB with this bullshit.
-
Nope, they can't - not without a determination of guilt made by a Title IX panel (who out of absolute necessity has none of the evidence that'd be in front of a court). A sham process with no hope of actually making a firm determination of guilt or innocence (the same thing the Shannon judge said about the OSCR, who later dropped the case because of course they have no evidence to determine his guilt or innocence before a court does). It's against the rules now to suspend or remove a kid from a sports team during an investigation unless you can prove immediate risk in court.
https://twitter.com/pinepaula/status/1781286951653437654
You knew that though, well-informed as you are.
Tell me where the law has changed, Spark. It has not, in this instance. Illinois set up this process, they did not follow it. It is an administrative University proceeding; not a court proceeding. Title IX did not apply because this was an off-campus incident involving a non-student. How much Illinois incorporated Title IX processes in its policy was up to Illinois. I would think some of the same processes would apply for Due Process reasons. But, we did see people complain that Obama's changes to Title IX (which were revoked by Trump) allowed these proceedings to become "Star Chamber"-like.
There were extreme logistical issues here. She was not a student and she was out-of-state. Was she willing to cooperate with Illinois in its investigation? Was she even asked?
You are just talking out of your ass at this point.
Read her opinion again. She walks through it all.
-
This is laughable. They had a fucking policy in place specifically when Title IX would not apply (which it did not here, as the University argued). They did not follow the policy, which the law requires.
Now you are saying they did it on purpose? They knew Shannon would sue AND would win? (Despite what you argue is the novelty of basing part of the decision on the loss of draft position and NIL income.) GMAFB with this bullshit.
I mean, yes of course they did it on purpose.
There’s no way you really thought that the athletic department were fighting to suspend him the rest of the year, right?
They pretty clearly handled this in a way that would get him back on the court quickly, and quickly and quietly dropped the “investigation” a week after the season was over because - surprise surprise! - their University investigation, as was obviously going to be the case from the beginning, has none of the evidence from the criminal trial and no way of knowing whether he’s guilty or not. Which is also why the requirement that he be found guilty by that university panel to suspend him from basketball is an absurd standard to set to begin with.
Not sure what to even say in reply to the idea that Whitman actually wanted Shannon suspended all year. He did what he was required to by department policy and suspended him. Then he let a judge tell him that he couldn’t suspend him, didn’t fight to get the case in front of an OSCR panel at all, let him play the whole season and then the investigation was dropped shortly after the season ended.
I guess I’ve been giving you too much credit.
-
Tell me where the law has changed, Spark. It has not, in this instance. Illinois set up this process, they did not follow it. It is an administrative University proceeding; not a court proceeding. Title IX did not apply because this was an off-campus incident involving a non-student. How much Illinois incorporated Title IX processes in its policy was up to Illinois. I would think some of the same processes would apply for Due Process reasons. But, we did see people complain that Obama's changes to Title IX (which were revoked by Trump) allowed these proceedings to become "Star Chamber"-like.
There were extreme logistical issues here. She was not a student and she was out-of-state. Was she willing to cooperate with Illinois in its investigation? Was she even asked?
You are just talking out of your ass at this point.
Read her opinion again. She walks through it all.
It’s quite literally the very first sentence of the link.
“New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.”
No, of course she did not cooperate with the University panel investigation. Of course she didn’t - which is why that investigation was such an obvious sham, why it was quickly shuttered as soon as the season was over for that exact reason, and why requiring that investigation find a player guilty to suspend him from basketball is such an insane precedent. No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board. Those panels will never be able to make a determination of guilt without that evidence. A rule saying those boards need to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence before suspending them are actually rules saying you can’t suspend them, because those boards are never going to be in a position to determine that.
-
😂 oh Spark 😂
-
I mean, yes of course they did it on purpose.
There’s no way you really thought that the athletic department were fighting to suspend him the rest of the year, right?
They pretty clearly handled this in a way that would get him back on the court quickly, and quickly and quietly dropped the “investigation” a week after the season was over because - surprise surprise! - their University investigation, as was obviously going to be the case from the beginning, has none of the evidence from the criminal trial and no way of knowing whether he’s guilty or not. Which is also why the requirement that he be found guilty by that university panel to suspend him from basketball is an absurd standard to set to begin with.
Not sure what to even say in reply to the idea that Whitman actually wanted Shannon suspended all year. He did what he was required to by department policy and suspended him. Then he let a judge tell him that he couldn’t suspend him, didn’t fight to get the case in front of an OSCR panel at all, let him play the whole season and then the investigation was dropped shortly after the season ended.
I guess I’ve been giving you too much credit.
Yes, they all knew the federal court judge was going to buy the draft and NIL argument, which you claim was a stretch. Unbelievable.
If she came forward and cooperated, they would not have proceeded? Seriously?
Didn't they drop the administrative proceeding after the season was over because it was moot?
Their administrative proceeding does not have to be a criminal proceeding requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
No, Illinois did not do what was required of it by department policy when suspending him. Read the opinion. That was the point of it.
Remember when people were spooging all over Guenther Jr. for his explanation of the process blah blah blah. It came back to bite him in the ass because the judge specifically cited his press conference and how Illinois did not live up to what he said the process was.
Spark = Custard is a match. Who knew?
-
Yes, they all knew the federal court judge was going to buy the draft and NIL argument, which you claim was a stretch. Unbelievable.
If she came forward and cooperated, they would not have proceeded? Seriously?
Didn't they drop the administrative proceeding after the season was over because it was moot?
Their administrative proceeding does not have to be a criminal proceeding requiring "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
No, Illinois did not do what was required of it by department policy when suspending him. Read the opinion. That was the point of it.
Remember when people were spooging all over Guenther Jr. for his explanation of the process blah blah blah. It came back to bite him in the ass because the judge specifically cited his press conference and how Illinois did not live up to what he said the process was.
Spark = Custard is a match. Who knew?
I think they had a good idea that the judge would 'make them' let him play, yeah. I'm surprised you find that even remotely hard to believe.
Of course the accuser was not going to present her evidence to a UIUC OSCR panel. No accuser is ever going to present their evidence in an upcoming criminal trial to some university's OSCR or Title IX board. Any requirement that those boards determine the accused's guilt or innocence is a non-starter, because those boards are never, ever going to have the evidence to make that determination.
And THAT is why the investigation was dropped - not because the season was over (nominally, anyway), but because the OSCR board wrote that they did not have 'access to the complainant, the complainant's witness', or 'the complete Lawrence Police Department file'. And OF COURSE they didn't. No OSCR or Title IX board is ever going to have access to those things. A regulation stating that those boards need to determine the guilt or innocence of a player is, in practicality, a regulation stating that those players cannot be suspended pre-conviction because those entities will never have access to the complainant's evidence or the police file or any of the other evidence from the upcoming trial.
No, the TRO did not say that UIUC DIA didn't follow its own policies. It said they did, in fact, but that the policies as-written violated Shannon's right to due process and harmed his ability to make NIL money, and that that outweighs the harm done to UIUC by not allowing them to enforce their disciplinary policies. The judge wrote:
"While the Court recognizes the strong interest the University has in acting pursuant to its policies, the court concludes that the irreparable harm to [Shannon] by application of the DIA Policy outweighs the harm to Illinois."
She did NOT say that Illinois DIA didn't follow their policies. She said their DIA policy (the same one every AD has everywhere) violated Shannon's right to make money via NIL, because he wasn't granted a sham OSCR 'trial'. The OSCR later dropped their investigation entirely because, as anyone paying attention knew would be the case, they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt.
-
It’s quite literally the very first sentence of the link.
“New federal regulations released Friday will prevent colleges and coaches from suspending athletes accused of sexual misconduct while school officials investigate complaints against them.”
No, of course she did not cooperate with the University panel investigation. Of course she didn’t - which is why that investigation was such an obvious sham, why it was quickly shuttered as soon as the season was over for that exact reason, and why requiring that investigation find a player guilty to suspend him from basketball is such an insane precedent. No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board. Those panels will never be able to make a determination of guilt without that evidence. A rule saying those boards need to determine the accused’s guilt or innocence before suspending them are actually rules saying you can’t suspend them, because those boards are never going to be in a position to determine that.
It was just April, 2024 the feds issued new Title IX regs. They did not apply to Shannon's case.
No accuser’s lawyer (or accused’s lawyer for that matter) is ever going to let them give evidence to the University Title IX or OSCR board.
That is quite the broad brush you are painting with there. I do not think it is true in all cases.
-
It was just April, 2024 the feds issued new Title IX regs. They did not apply to Shannon's case.
That is quite the broad brush you are painting with there. I do not think it is true in all cases.
Yes, so the law HAS changed to be, practically, that you can't suspend someone pre-conviction. You were arguing the law hadn't changed in that way, but it has. The regulation states they need to be given a hearing with a University panel to determine their guilt or innocence. That University panel, just like the OSCR panel, is simply never going to be in a position to make that determination. And the last thing any University will want is for that board to determine a kid is guilty, the kid to be suspended or booted, and then exonerated in court (or vice versa). The Title IX board or OSCR board is never going to be able to make that call - for the law to state they need to make that call or the kid can't be suspended, the practical implication of that is that you can't suspend a kid without a conviction (or proving the kid is an immediate danger in court) anymore.
No halfway decent lawyer is going to let their client provide their evidence for an upcoming criminal trial to a random university's Title IX board, obviously.
-
I think they had a good idea that the judge would 'make them' let him play, yeah. I'm surprised you find that even remotely hard to believe.
Of course the accuser was not going to present her evidence to a UIUC OSCR panel. No accuser is ever going to present their evidence in an upcoming criminal trial to some university's OSCR or Title IX board. Any requirement that those boards determine the accused's guilt or innocence is a non-starter, because those boards are never, ever going to have the evidence to make that determination.
And THAT is why the investigation was dropped - not because the season was over (nominally, anyway), but because the OSCR board wrote that they did not have 'access to the complainant, the complainant's witness', or 'the complete Lawrence Police Department file'. And OF COURSE they didn't. No OSCR or Title IX board is ever going to have access to those things. A regulation stating that those boards need to determine the guilt or innocence of a player is, in practicality, a regulation stating that those players cannot be suspended pre-conviction because those entities will never have access to the complainant's evidence or the police file or any of the other evidence from the upcoming trial.
No, the TRO did not say that UIUC DIA didn't follow its own policies. It said they did, in fact, but that the policies as-written violated Shannon's right to due process and harmed his ability to make NIL money, and that that outweighs the harm done to UIUC by not allowing them to enforce their disciplinary policies. The judge wrote:
"While the Court recognizes the strong interest the University has in acting pursuant to its policies, the court concludes that the irreparable harm to [Shannon] by application of the DIA Policy outweighs the harm to Illinois."
She did NOT say that Illinois DIA didn't follow their policies. She said their DIA policy (the same one every AD has everywhere) violated Shannon's right to make money via NIL, because he wasn't granted a sham OSCR 'trial'. The OSCR later dropped their investigation entirely because, as anyone paying attention knew would be the case, they had none of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt.
That was quite the gamble that a federal judge would follow the 7th Circuit's ruling in the Purdue case and would have to, probably in a case of first impression, rule that NIL money and draft positioning gave him a protectable interest here. Hindsight is 20/20.
If anything, don't you think an accused would be very wary of participating in these administrative proceedings?
As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies.
It certainly sounds like you think they should have different policies for cases with different levels of alleged misconduct occurring off campus with a non-student. If that is the case, call your guy Gunether Jr. and propose that.
You could also complain to Biden's DOE, since it just issued new Title IX regs (which go into effect in August) which now provide that you cannot be suspended merely based on allegations while an investigation is proceeding.
-
*posts direct quote from the TRO stating the UIUC DIA followed its own policies*
PAMan: "As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies".
-
Yes, so the law HAS changed to be, practically, that you can't suspend someone pre-conviction. You were arguing the law hadn't changed in that way, but it has. The regulation states they need to be given a hearing with a University panel to determine their guilt or innocence. That University panel, just like the OSCR panel, is simply never going to be in a position to make that determination. And the last thing any University will want is for that board to determine a kid is guilty, the kid to be suspended or booted, and then exonerated in court (or vice versa). The Title IX board or OSCR board is never going to be able to make that call - for the law to state they need to make that call or the kid can't be suspended, the practical implication of that is that you can't suspend a kid without a conviction (or proving the kid is an immediate danger in court) anymore.
No halfway decent lawyer is going to let their client provide their evidence for an upcoming criminal trial to a random university's Title IX board, obviously.
Tell me where the change in the regulations (after the ruling was issued and which are not in effect for another 3 months) impacted this case.
The fact is accusers making sexual harassment and assault claims have participated in these school proceedings in the past. Understandable why she may not want to participate here in this instance. Why should Shannon, or any other student, be penalized for the accuser's decision not to cooperate?
Sounds like ultimately your bitch is with the US Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, Illinois' processes and procedures, and the DOE regulations effective in August, 2024. Maybe you should talk to your legislative and university representatives.
-
*posts direct quote from the TRO stating the UIUC DIA followed its own policies*
PAMan: "As you admit, Illinois did not follow its own policies".
Yep, Illinois followed its policies in this instance....
One of those applicable polices is the OSCR Policy wherein students accused of
sexual misconduct at the University have a right to notice of the proceedings,
participation in the administrative hearings, an investigative process, and an ability to
review and respond to the evidence. The policy ensures a measure of objectivity and
notes: “All disciplinary decisions will be based on an objective evaluation of evidence.”
The policy also requires that violations must be proven by a preponderance of evidence.
If formal sanctions are imposed against the student, the Case Coordinator or Panel
provides the student with a rationale for the decision and any imposed sanctions.
When explaining the intersection of policies at play for Plaintiff during a
December 29, 2023 press conference, Whitman stated that Plaintiff was subject to three
actions which ran “in parallel” and could intersect: the criminal prosecution, the DIA
Policy action that led to his suspension, and the OSCR policy action. Whitman specifically
noted that the University “respects due process” when the allegations are criminal in
nature and that Plaintiff’s “presumption of innocence” continues to apply. According to
Whitman, while the criminal prosecution is ongoing, the OSCR policy is designed to
determine what should occur “in that intermediate period of time” and that “we have to
make sure that we are sending the appropriate message in terms of how we will approach
sexual misconduct as an athletic program as a university, while at the same time honoring
Terrence’s due process rights, his presumption of innocence, and so it’s a delicate balance
…”
...The DIA policy states that any interim suspension would be done in compliance with all applicable University policies and regulations. The sensible reading of this means that the OSCR policy—which outlines the University’s regulations for handling allegations of student sexual misconduct—would apply prior to the DIA’s interim suspension. Plaintiff has, therefore, demonstrated some likelihood of success that his reliance on these contractual terms created a legitimate claim of entitlement to not be suspended from the team without good cause.
In Purdue, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff adequately alleged the process
was deficient when he was given notice of the allegations against him, but the university
did not disclose its evidence to him. 928 F.3d at 663. This proved fatal to the process, as
“withholding the evidence on which it relied in adjudicating his guilt was itself sufficient
to render the process fundamentally unfair.” Id. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that the
hearing must be “a real one, not a sham or pretense.” Of particular concern to the Court
was the fact that the committee found the complainant more credible than the plaintiff in
a case that “boiled down to a he said/she said” without ever receiving a statement written
by the complainant herself, much less a sworn statement, or asking the complainant any
questions during the investigation. Id. at 664. The Seventh Circuit reasonably questioned
how the committee could have conducted an evaluation of credibility under those
circumstances.
The same holds true in this case. Plaintiff received notice of the temporary
suspension and the process of evaluation under the DIA Policy on December 28, 2023.
After Plaintiff asked DIA to delay convening the conduct panel, Squire informed Plaintiff
the panel would meet on January 3, 2024. Before the conduct panel convened, Plaintiff
submitted information for consideration, including his personal statement, an 11-page
supporting letter from his attorneys, and nearly 50 pages of exhibits to the attorneys’
supporting letter. The panel was told Plaintiff might receive “discovery” from the
Lawrence criminal prosecution in late January or February 2024.
The conduct panel convened during the afternoon of January 3, 2024, and Squire
provided Plaintiff with written notification of the panel’s decision on that same day,
without any findings of fact or reasoning for the decision. The written notice informed
Plaintiff that the conduct panel determined that the interim action to withhold him from
organized team activities should remain in place pending resolution of the criminal
charges in Kansas.
Just as in Purdue, Plaintiff was given notice and the opportunity to submit evidence
but only in the form of a written statement and documents. He was unaware of the
alleged victim’s identity and there is no indication that he was given an opportunity to
view the evidence against him. In reliance on the DIA policy, the conduct panel did not
investigate the alleged offense, consider a written statement by the complainant, or have
the ability to weigh the credibility of evidence in light of the nature of the allegation.
Plaintiff was not allowed in the hearing and no recording or transcript of the proceeding
was provided to him. The conduct panel is not required to submit a written decision or
findings of fact for Plaintiff to ascertain the basis for the interim decision, and there is no
avenue to appeal an interim decision.
Conversely, the procedural safeguards awarded to Plaintiff under the OSCR
policy do not appear fundamentally unfair as written. The policy provides adequate
safeguards through detailed notice, levels of review, an actual investigation, disclosure
of evidence, witness participation, a defined burden of proof, and a written decision.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success as to the
inadequate procedural safeguards afforded to him during the DIA disciplinary process.
-
I did not say that these new regulations affected this case, you just are trying to move the goalposts because you were proven wrong about the new regs.
Show me an example, then, of a criminally-charged athlete or student having their accuser provide their evidence from the upcoming court trial, and the arresting police department provide their evidence and police report, to a University OSCR or Title IX board. My guess is there aren't any, because no lawyer worth a dollar is going to let their client do that and no police department is going to turn over their reports and collected evidence to a legally unconcerned party.
My only real bitch is that this new regulation in practicality means that it violates an athlete's right to suspend him from a sport unless he's been convicted of a crime, and I don't think that is a reasonable standard. That is completely illogical to me. I recognize, obviously, that it doesn't matter that it's illogical to me or how obviously it's a sham of a standard, that's the law - but it's obviously going to be pretty ugly and contentious in the future as more and more schools are told they're not allowed to suspend kids from sports for 6-12 months until there's a criminal conviction. The Shannon case is to a large degree he-said she-said based on what we know so far, but other more clear/worse cases will have the same standards applied to them. By this standard, even if Brandon Miller had been charged with accessory to murder Alabama would've had to let him play the rest of the season. Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.
I'm under no delusions here though. All these principles Illinois fans have been arguing about will be abandoned just as quickly and for the same reason as soon as they're applied to a rival's best player, and the fans of that rival school who were chanting "No Means No" at Shannon all year will argue that there's no way a kid should be suspended without a conviction.
-
Yep, Illinois followed its policies in this instance....
Yep. The DIA policy as-written did not provide adequate safeguards for his civil rights. Literally exactly the thing I said that you just argued against. The judge did NOT find that the DIA didn't apply its own policies correctly. She found that the DIA DID apply the policies correctly, but that the policies as-written violated his civil rights by not allowing him a hearing in front of an OSCR panel without the means to make a determination of his guilt or innocence before he was suspended.
It's literally exactly, to a T, what I said and you argued against. The judge really explicitly says that the DIA followed its policies, but that the policies (which surely are boilerplate and similar to every other AD in the country) as-written did not afford him due process.
-
I did not say that these new regulations affected this case, you just are trying to move the goalposts because you were proven wrong about the new regs.
Show me an example, then, of a criminally-charged athlete or student having their accuser provide their evidence from the upcoming court trial, and the arresting police department provide their evidence and police report, to a University OSCR or Title IX board. My guess is there aren't any, because no lawyer worth a dollar is going to let their client do that and no police department is going to turn over their reports and collected evidence to a legally unconcerned party.
My only real bitch is that this new regulation in practicality means that it violates an athlete's right to suspend him from a sport unless he's been convicted of a crime, and I don't think that is a reasonable standard. That is completely illogical to me. I recognize, obviously, that it doesn't matter that it's illogical to me or how obviously it's a sham of a standard, that's the law - but it's obviously going to be pretty ugly and contentious in the future as more and more schools are told they're not allowed to suspend kids from sports for 6-12 months until there's a criminal conviction. The Shannon case is to a large degree he-said she-said based on what we know so far, but other more clear/worse cases will have the same standards applied to them. By this standard, even if Brandon Miller had been charged with accessory to murder Alabama would've had to let him play the rest of the season. Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.
I'm under no delusions here though. All these principles Illinois fans have been arguing about will be abandoned just as quickly and for the same reason as soon as they're applied to a rival's best player, and the fans of that rival school who were chanting "No Means No" at Shannon all year will argue that there's no way a kid should be suspended without a conviction.
No, you accused the judge of making it law that colleges could not suspend an athlete. That was completely untrue. The regs you cited are not even effective for another 2.5 months.
Does anyone actually compile those statistics? How are we supposed to find that out? No one hears about any of these cases unless there is a civil lawsuit contesting the school's decision. If people do not want to cooperate, how is that fair to the alleged perpetrator? What is your solution?
Even if there's video evidence of someone committing a crime, you gotta let them play.
I do not believe that is true.
Can you name me a fanbase that is "principled?"
-
Nope, I said the judge ruled that Shannon couldn’t be suspended without a conviction because he wasn’t granted an OSCR hearing - which would by necessity be a sham. Which is true. I also mentioned the updated regulation codifying that. Which is also true. You argued against those things, but those things were still true.
My solution would be to give the athletic departments control over who represents them, allow them to suspend kids absent a criminal conviction and not put it on some University board with none of the evidence to determine someone’s guilt in an upcoming criminal trial, which they are uniformly unqualified to do. Not like that’s some crazy notion, that’s how this has always worked until now. If I had posted on this board in October that it’s a violation of a kid’s civil rights to suspend him from a sport absent a criminal conviction or a determination of guilt by a University panel without all the evidence I’d have been laughed at. This idea is brand new. No one here thought that was some egregious civil rights violation until it affected our basketball team’s best player.
Unless you can prove to a court that a kid is an imminent danger, it IS true that you can’t suspend them even with video evidence. You’re violating their rights unless you hold a Title IX hearing, and no board like that is ever going to have the evidence they need to make that kind of determination before a court does.
No, again, I’m under no delusions. A lot of people in every fanbase are willing to sacrifice what they know is right to win at sports. That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable or positive though - in fact it’s extremely gross.
-
Yep. The DIA policy as-written did not provide adequate safeguards for his civil rights. Literally exactly the thing I said that you just argued against. The judge did NOT find that the DIA didn't apply its own policies correctly. She found that the DIA DID apply the policies correctly, but that the policies as-written violated his civil rights by not allowing him a hearing in front of an OSCR panel without the means to make a determination of his guilt or innocence before he was suspended.
It's literally exactly, to a T, what I said and you argued against. The judge really explicitly says that the DIA followed its policies, but that the policies (which surely are boilerplate and similar to every other AD in the country) as-written did not afford him due process.
Au contraire. I said Illinois.
She ruled that the DIA policies incorporated all of the applicable University policies and regulations, which meant the OSCR policy applied prior to the DIA’s interim suspension. She ruled that the OSCR policy was fair as written. She ruled that the DIA suspension process in this instance did not conform to the OSCR policy processes and therefore lacked the procedural safeguards.
-
So she's never said she didn't know if it was him, even in his own lawyers' motion?
Obviously their job is to create doubt in a jury (and, in the case of this extremely public case, in the Illini fanbase). There is no claim at least to this point from her that she doesn't know whether it was him.
She said she believed it was him. She never said she knew it was him.
She testified under oath she didn't actually see who touched her. She believed it was the man standing against the wall to her left. She believes that man was Shannon.
I believe she didn't realize Shannon is left handed. I don't know this. I believe it.
Picture both of them standing against a wall. Shannon allegedly on her left. It would be hard for a 6-7 man to do what was alleged. Pretty much impossible to do with his left hand.
If the man on her left did it; I believe he was more likely right handed.
-
She said she believed it was him. She never said she knew it was him.
She testified underoath she didn't actually see who touched her. She believed it was the man standing against the wall to her left. She believes that man was Shannon.
I believe she didn't realize Shannon is left handed. I don't know this. I believe it.
Picture both of them standing against a wall. Shannon allegedly on her left. It would be hard for a 6-7 man to do what was alleged. Pretty much impossible to do with his left hand.
If the man on her left did it; I believe he was more likely right handed.
She never said she didn’t know it was him, which was the claim. His lawyers are saying that. She, based on the information that we have, has not.
-
Nope, I said the judge ruled that Shannon couldn’t be suspended without a conviction because he wasn’t granted an OSCR hearing - which would by necessity be a sham. Which is true. I also mentioned the updated regulation codifying that. Which is also true. You argued against those things, but those things were still true.
My solution would be to give the athletic departments control over who represents them, allow them to suspend kids absent a criminal conviction and not put it on some University board with none of the evidence to determine someone’s guilt in an upcoming criminal trial, which they are uniformly unqualified to do. Not like that’s some crazy notion, that’s how this has always worked until now. If I had posted on this board in October that it’s a violation of a kid’s civil rights to suspend him from a sport absent a criminal conviction or a determination of guilt by a University panel without all the evidence I’d have been laughed at. This idea is brand new. No one here thought that was some egregious civil rights violation until it affected our basketball team’s best player.
Unless you can prove to a court that a kid is an imminent danger, it IS true that you can’t suspend them even with video evidence. You’re violating their rights unless you hold a Title IX hearing, and no board like that is ever going to have the evidence they need to make that kind of determination before a court does.
No, again, I’m under no delusions. A lot of people in every fanbase are willing to sacrifice what they know is right to win at sports. That doesn’t mean it’s justifiable or positive though - in fact it’s extremely gross.
No, it isn't true. That is not what she ruled.
Ok, you do not believe in Due Process. You are not alone there.
I think you underestimate what university boards have done. The standard applied is not a criminal standard. These have been around for sometime; these proceedings are not new. They just are not as public as this one was.
You are painting with quite the broad brush. Depends on who is cooperating and what video evidence they have whether they have the evidence necessary to make that kind of determination. It is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in these proceedings. Decisions made by a school are given deference (unless they fail to follow their policies).
-
I suppose his lawyers could be lying about her testimony in motions before the court. I believe they are telling the truth. I don't know that.
-
No, it isn't true. That is not what she ruled.
Ok, you do not believe in Due Process. You are not alone there.
I think you underestimate what university boards have done. The standard applied is not a criminal standard. These have been around for sometime; these proceedings are not new. They just are not as public as this one was.
You are painting with quite the broad brush. Depends on who is cooperating and what video evidence they have whether they have the evidence necessary to make that kind of determination. It is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in these proceedings. Decisions made by a school are given deference (unless they fail to follow their policies).
I assume this is a tacit admission that you could not find an instance where an accuser provided their evidence and testimony, and the police provided their evidence and reports, to a university board regarding an ongoing criminal trial.
I think we both knew you wouldn't.
No school is going to put it on their Title IX board or OSCR board to determine the likelihood of guilt of an athlete - and thus whether he can represent the university - sans the evidence before a court does. That's just begging for problems. No one is going to do that.
-
I suppose his lawyers could be lying about her testimony in motions before the court. I believe they are telling the truth. I don't know that.
They don't need to lie. They just did not make the claim that you're trying to use their motion as evidence of.
The claim was that the accuser does not know who did it. The evidence you provided from his lawyer's motion does not make or support that claim. It is trying to introduce some reasonable doubt about who did it, but it nowhere claims that she says "I don't know if it was him or who it was" - which was the claim being made.
-
I think it does. I believe I am right. You believe I am mistaken. She believes she knows who it was.
-
I think it does. I believe I am right. You believe I am mistaken. She believes she knows who it was.
Every accuser believes she knows who it was, and every defense attorney does whatever they can to inject reasonable doubt in the minds of others (literally their job). The claim that she doesn't know who it was that assaulted her - even totally ignoring that this is like the 6th time you idiots were so sure about something and then changed the narrative on a dime and mere days ago you were among the chorus of people confident she was lying about the whole thing - isn't supported by the current evidence we have regardless of what you "think".
-
I assume this is a tacit admission that you could not find an instance where an accuser provided their evidence and testimony, and the police provided their evidence and reports, to a university board regarding an ongoing criminal trial.
I think we both knew you wouldn't.
No school is going to put it on their Title IX board or OSCR board to determine the likelihood of guilt of an athlete - and thus whether he can represent the university - sans the evidence before a court does. That's just begging for problems. No one is going to do that.
I am not going to spend time on Westlaw looking for cases. If I come across something, will let you know.
Bullshit. You ignore what was happening under Obama. Which is why the DeVore DOE changed the Obama policy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/obama-era-school-sexual-assault-policy-rescinded-243016
-
I am not going to spend time on Westlaw looking for cases. If I come across something, will let you know.
Bullshit. You ignore what was happening under Obama. Which is why the DeVore DOE changed the Obama policy.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/22/obama-era-school-sexual-assault-policy-rescinded-243016
You'd be wasting time anyway. It's just not a thing that happens, obviously. You're supposedly a lawyer, right? Would you support your client providing their evidence to a University Title IX board, even ignoring the police report being a non-starter, before they have presented it in an upcoming criminal trial? Either as an accuser or as a defendant?
Your link about DeVos overturning the Obama era standard certainly doesn't support your claim. But that makes sense, because I think we both know you are not going to find support for your claim. The notion that a criminal defendant and their accuser are going to go to a university OSCR or Title IX board and provide their evidence and testimony before a criminal trial, or that a police department is going to provide their evidence and reporting to those boards, simply isn't reality. No lawyer is going to allow their client to provide evidence that has not yet been presented in their criminal trial to a UIUC Title IX board, which is why you cannot find any evidence of that happening. To put it on that board to determine their guilt based on "clear and convincing evidence" when, by necessity, they have little-to-none of the evidence that will be used at the actual criminal trial is not a realistic ask. If there aren't criminal charges filed, that could be different - but the idea that a Title IX board needs to make a determination on someone's guilt BEFORE the case is tried in criminal court in order to suspend a college athlete is self-evidently absurd.
-
Every accuser believes she knows who it was, and every defense attorney does whatever they can to inject reasonable doubt in the minds of others (literally their job). The claim that she doesn't know who it was that assaulted her - even totally ignoring that this is like the 6th time you idiots were so sure about something and then changed the narrative on a dime and mere days ago you were among the chorus of people confident she was lying about the whole thing - isn't supported by the current evidence we have regardless of what you "think".
Calling people idiots and telling lies about their opinions is not making your case.
In many cases, accusers actually know who the perp is.
In this case, we don't even know if a crime was committed.
It's entirely possible Shannon ignored her advances and she is seeking revenge.
It's also possible a crime was committed and she misidentified the perp.
In her own words, she didn't see who fingered her. She believes it was Shannon. By implication, she doesn't actually know for sure.
-
Calling people idiots and telling lies about their opinions is not making your case.
In many cases, accusers actually know who the perp is.
In this case, we don't even know if a crime was committed.
It's entirely possible Shannon ignored her advances and she is seeking revenge.
It's also possible a crime was committed and she misidentified the perp.
In her own words, she didn't see who fingered her. She believes it was Shannon. By implication, she doesn't actually know for sure.
In the same way that by implication, no accuser ever knows for sure.
You're trying to use evidence that doesn't support a claim to support it.
You said "in her own words". Show me those words. The police report says she stated "once she got close to him, the male started 'grabbing' on her and 'grabbing my butt' to pull her towards him". She stated "he pulled her to him and nearly immediately placed his finger under her underwear and inserted it into her vagina". She stated "because of how crowded the room was, and her position next to the male and the wall, she couldn't move or 'do anything' while this happened". She stated "this also caught her by surprise and she was in shock." She stated "the physical contact lasted only approximately 30 seconds before she was able to get away from the male and exit the room". She stated "the male used one hand to pull her towards him". She stated "the male's hand was around behind her buttocks and entered her vagina from behind". She stated "she guessed the entire encounter was approximately one minute long". She stated "the male's finger was inside her vagina approximately five to ten seconds".
The notion that "in her own words, she didn't see who fingered her" is something you drew from the motion filed by TSJ's attorneys. None of the statements she made that are public stated any such thing. The only place that language can be found from what I have seen is in a tweet from an Illini fan lawyer, and in TSJ's lawyer's motion.
Remember, these lawyers posted the DNA stuff to slut shame the accuser even though they knew the DNA found on the accuser didn't exclude their client. They leaked the stuff about her Googling KU and Illinois athletes to make it seem like she was picking a target, even though Googling athletes to figure out who it was was perfectly reasonable for someone in the situation she claimed she was in. Their literal job is to present things in a way that creates reasonable doubt, and that's what they're doing.
-
You'd be wasting time anyway. It's just not a thing that happens, obviously. You're supposedly a lawyer, right? Would you support your client providing their evidence to a University Title IX board, even ignoring the police report being a non-starter, before they have presented it in an upcoming criminal trial? Either as an accuser or as a defendant?
Your link about DeVos overturning the Obama era standard certainly doesn't support your claim. But that makes sense, because I think we both know you are not going to find support for your claim. The notion that a criminal defendant and their accuser are going to go to a university OSCR or Title IX board and provide their evidence and testimony before a criminal trial, or that a police department is going to provide their evidence and reporting to those boards, simply isn't reality. No lawyer is going to allow their client to provide evidence that has not yet been presented in their criminal trial to a UIUC Title IX board, which is why you cannot find any evidence of that happening. To put it on that board to determine their guilt based on "clear and convincing evidence" when, by necessity, they have little-to-none of the evidence that will be used at the actual criminal trial is not a realistic ask. If there aren't criminal charges filed, that could be different - but the idea that a Title IX board needs to make a determination on someone's guilt BEFORE the case is tried in criminal court in order to suspend a college athlete is self-evidently absurd.
I had not looked for anything. I just tried to find some statistics on overlapping criminal and student admin proceedings without luck. But I would never say "never" (like you said he would never play for Illinois again and were wrong) because schools are required to report sexual assault to the police....
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title-ix-rights-201104.html
(the whole document has since been withdrawn)
A criminal investigation into allegations of sexual harassment or sexual violence does not relieve the school of its duty under Title IX to resolve complaints promptly and equitably.
Then there are lawyers advertising the need for representation because there can be overlapping proceedings...
https://pricebenowitz.com/maryland-criminal/student-defense-lawyer/title-ix/criminal-vs-campus-proceedings/
It is true that schools have a requirement under Title IX to investigate and punish any supposed acts of sex discrimination that affect their students. At the same time, these schools have an obligation to report any incidents of apparent criminal activity to local law enforcement.
This could result in you facing simultaneous criminal charges and school disciplinary board hearings resulting from the same alleged behavior. It is extremely important that you understand the key differences in criminal proceedings vs. Maryland campus Title IX proceedings. Knowing how to defend yourself in each setting could serve to protect your academic future as well as your freedom.
Then there are quite a few cases where the feds are handling the mishandling of claims by colleges...seems odd that there are no overlapping proceedings given the number of cases....
https://projects.chronicle.com/titleix/
Then there are suggestions on how schools should handle overlapping proceedings
https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/how-to-comply-with-the-dept-of-ed-s-title-ix-s-sexual-violence-guidance/3/
A school, however, “may need to delay temporarily the fact-finding portion of a Title IX investigation while the police are gathering evidence,” writes Ali. “Once notified that the police department has completed its gathering of evidence (not the ultimate outcome of the investigation or the filing of any charges), the school must promptly resume and complete its fact-finding for the Title IX investigation.” OCR notes that this delay may normally range from three to 10 calendar days but may be longer in some cases depending upon the complexity of the matter. During this time, schools should notify victims of their rights to pursue disciplinary action or obtain other assistance.
Schools should also still take any interim action – such as a no-contact order or interim suspension of the accused – needed to protect the victim and or the rest of the campus community. As some of these steps may be outside the scope of law enforcement, it is critical that there be coordination with appropriate officials at the school who are empowered to take these steps. This would include working with student judicial officials and academic departments.
I know I could find no statistics, but saying it never happens, or will never happen, seems a bit much.
-
Calling people idiots and telling lies about their opinions is not making your case.
In many cases, accusers actually know who the perp is.
In this case, we don't even know if a crime was committed.
It's entirely possible Shannon ignored her advances and she is seeking revenge.
It's also possible a crime was committed and she misidentified the perp.
In her own words, she didn't see who fingered her. She believes it was Shannon. By implication, she doesn't actually know for sure.
It is as if you are unfamiliar with Spark's posting history....just ask Tempo!
-
I believe if Shannon's lawyers quoted her sworn testimony from a hearing in a motion; they did so accurately.
If that testimony was inconsistent with statements she gave police previously; that doesn't exactly help the prosecution's case.
-
I believe if Shannon's lawyers quoted her sworn testimony from a hearing in a motion; they did so accurately.
If that testimony was inconsistent with statements she gave police previously; that doesn't exactly help the prosecution's case.
Where did his lawyers quote her saying she didn't know who fingered her?
Here's their motion: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.illinoisloyalty.com/attachments/motion-to-compel-discovery-pdf.34807/&ved=2ahUKEwiFoJWA45WGAxX1MjQIHdQeANsQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw05JV5ER29zN_i6xn8VT85f
No direct quotes from her testimony that I see. And certainly no direct quotes of her saying "I don't know who fingered me" or anything similar - what you claimed was 'in her own words'.
It says she "testified that she was assaulted from behind as she stared straight ahead, and that the hand she believed touched her came from the man standing to her left. She testified as to her belief that the man next to her was Mr. Shannon."
Far from "I don't know who fingered me", which is what you claimed they 'quoted (from) her sworn testimony' she said the hand she believed touched her came from the man standing to her left, and that she believed the man standing to her left was Shannon.
This conclusion that she's unsure or saying like "I think it was him but I'm not sure!" is being floated by his attorneys, who repeatedly emphasized that she believed she was touched, and that she believed the man to her left was Shannon (after she looked up photos of him). No quotes on any of it. Emphasis theirs, not hers.
-
There is a difference between "I believe" and "I know." If you don't grasp that; then you shouldn't call others idiots.
-
Instead of quoted, I should have written referenced, represented, paraphrased ...
-
There is a difference between "I believe" and "I know." If you don't grasp that; then you shouldn't call others idiots.
Is there a difference between "I believe it was this person" and "I don't know who it was"?
-
Is there a difference between "I believe it was this person" and "I don't know who it was"?
There is shade of difference and a similarity. Belief is not the same as knowing. "I believe it was this person" is suspicion with some degree of uncertainty.
-
They don't quote her testimony at all in the motion. They don't really need to for a discovery motion IMO, but you can't take it as a verbatim representation.
""I believe it was this person" is suspicion with some degree of uncertainty" is not accurate. The criminal law uses "reasonably believes" as a standard for self-defense force and reads out conscious uncertainty.
More generally, the law permits reasonable inferences and circumstantial evidence, so there's not a distinction between knowledge and belief when it comes to what is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you wake up and you walk outside and the ground is wet and there are puddles in the road, you can reasonably infer it rained from circumstantial evidence. You have no real knowledge that it rained and nothing based on direct evidence. You believe it rained the same way a woman at a bar can put a, b, and c together and believe the identity of who assaulted her based on circumstantial evidence.
-
She’s calling him a rapist! He’s been called all kinds of names, etc… and she doesn’t even know if it’s him! Yes, I’d say that’s a problem!
It's not. She obviously had some reason to believe it was him, went home, and identified him that night. Eyewitness testimony isn't foolproof, but it's admissible evidence and could support a conviction.
-
If you wake up and you walk outside and the ground is wet and there are puddles in the road, you can reasonably infer it rained from circumstantial evidence. You have no real knowledge that it rained and nothing based on direct evidence. You believe it rained the same way a woman at a bar can put a, b, and c together and believe the identity of who assaulted her based on circumstantial evidence.
Reasonably is the key word there. Is her alleged belief reasonable?
-
I’m not a match for spark but I agree with elements of both sides of this argument. PAMan may not agree, but I totally believe the entire thing was orchestrated.
I do take a bit of umbrage though when spark paints a big chunk of the fanbase as slut shaming morons because some of them came to the defense of a player that is, by most all available evidence, an exemplary human being.
Tempo has to be jealous of the amount of fence sitting spark has done throughout this whole ordeal.
-
I’m not a match for spark but I agree with elements of both sides of this argument. PAMan may not agree, but I totally believe the entire thing was orchestrated.
I do take a bit of umbrage though when spark paints a big chunk of the fanbase as slut shaming morons because some of them came to the defense of a player that is, by most all available evidence, an exemplary human being.
Tempo has to be jealous of the amount of fence sitting spark has done throughout this whole ordeal.
Well said…
-
Reasonably is the key word there. Is her alleged belief reasonable?
I have no fucking idea and neither does anyone else who hasn't had access to her actual testimony on the matter.
-
I do take a bit of umbrage though when spark paints a big chunk of the fanbase as slut shaming morons because some of them came to the defense of a player that is, by most all available evidence, an exemplary human being.
You can defend the guy (whom I feel bad for almost regardless) without the slut-shaming. It's totally immaterial and as far as I'm aware, we don't have any useful evidence to even support the idea.
-
I have seen a lot of ire directed at the DA's office, very little at the alleged victim.
The consensus view
seems to be something happened, but the alleged victim (a) misidentified the perp (b) exaggerated the incident..
I have suggested it could possibly be a false charge motivated by revenge for rejection. Is that slut shaming? I don't think do. Still hardly anyone wants to go there.
To me, slut shaming is blaming the victim for getting raped due to seductive conduct, sexy attire, and so on. I haven't seen that.
There is a strong consensus that the available evidence doesn't reasonably support the charges. Some think the prosecution must have an ace up their sleeve we don't know about.
-
"9. It has recently come to the attention of the defense that a female patron at the same bar involved in Mr. Shannon’s Complaint alleges that she was present at the bar on August 26, 2023, when a black male (“3rd party”) sexually assaulted her in the “corner” of a room at the bar by grabbing her vagina. (Counsel for the State has confirmed the date and general location of the alleged assault by the 3rd party. Counsel for Mr. Shannon inquired of the State if the August assault took place in the “corner” of the Martini room. Counsel for the State refused to provide this information.) Unlike M.N., the victim was wearing pants at the time, such that the perpetrator was not able to touch her under her clothing.
10. This victim reported the allegations to University of Kansas Police and ultimately—after September 9, 2023--the 3rd party was charged with raping the victim at different location on the same night as the alleged assault in the bar. Those charges were subsequently dismissed.
11. Counsel has recently determined that the 3rd party identified as responsible for the August sexual assault (less than 2 weeks prior to incident in which Mr. Shannon is allegedly involved) was present at the bar, in the room, and in the same vicinity around the time that M.N. was allegedly assaulted."
Arterio Morris is the 3rd party .
And the defense filed a motion today to include that information.
(https://i.ibb.co/txLXSqr/Screenshot-20240606-143820-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wwcsTSm)
Also, the defense withdrew its motion to exclude DNA evidence and the expert report.
The prosecution filed for a delay due to double booking their workload but the judge said 'nope'.
The prosecution then refiled under their assertion that the denial may be due to the NBA status of TSJ. No word yet on how the judge will address this one. .
Trial is still set for Monday.
Also from Mitch Gilfillan
"It is undeniable + undisputed an open investigation is ongoing against the Chief District Attorney, Suzanne Valdez, for alleged unprofessional behavior towards Douglas County judges. Four professional rules of misconduct were taken before a judiciary panel December 18, 2023."
-
The best case scenario is that other guy pleaing the 5th and refusing to testify.
The cops are the best avenue probably but could backfire spectacularly. For example: "Of course we looked into him. There are only two black guys on the footage and he had multiple alibi witnesses. TSJ didn't"
Allegedly there is video....
Chump edit: granted apparently from a different day where the same thing happened....
-
Sounds like a complete clusterfuck
-
Sounds like a complete clusterfuck
We shall see starting Monday, apparently.
-
I'm not an attorney but I might have questions whether or not the preferential treatment suggestion with the upcoming draft might be #5.
(https://i.ibb.co/fxkhrHm/Screenshot-20240606-191422-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wzS9p4D)
(https://i.ibb.co/3sTLMvX/Screenshot-20240606-191923-Samsung-Internet.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hMgtZc5)
-
Prosecutors think due process is special treatment. Fuck that.
If there's actual video of a different tall black guy standing where the altercation happened and the victim actually testified/-s that she didn't see the person, that's a big problem.
-
Per ESPN...
Former Illinois G Terrence Shannon Jr.'s legal team can show video evidence at rape trial to support mistaken-identity claim
-
Certainly looks like they are going to be able to point the (stink) finger at someone else....including the 5 DNA guys...
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40298754/terrence-shannon-jr-legal-team-show-video-evidence-trial
Wow (if all true).
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40298754/terrence-shannon-jr-legal-team-show-video-evidence-trial
Wow (if all true).
"A different judge had initially called the video evidence of the third-party defendant "unfettered speculation" and blocked an earlier motion by Shannon's legal team to admit it."
Not true. The prosecutor used those words in his earlier motion to block release of the Morris file to the defense. The different judge disagreed and released the file.
-
bunch of hack lawyers out in kansas!
-
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/40298754/terrence-shannon-jr-legal-team-show-video-evidence-trial
Wow (if all true).
The charges against Morris were apparently dropped due to "lack of evidence".
-
"A different judge had initially called the video evidence of the third-party defendant "unfettered speculation" and blocked an earlier motion by Shannon's legal team to admit it."
Not true. The prosecutor used those words in his earlier motion to block release of the Morris file to the defense. The different judge disagreed and released the file.
Right, you generally wouldn't have a judge overturning a prior in limine ruling. There's really no reason to because you have to revisit at trial anyway.
-
According to the Peoria lawyer who is Tweeting the testimony, the lady and her friend were back at the same bar the next night after the incident.....There is some red meat...
https://twitter.com/mitchgilfillan/with_replies
-
He deleted his tweet that quickly what a wuss.
-
Lock her up! Lock her up!
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1801004228753731858?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
-
He deleted his tweet that quickly what a wuss.
What are you babbling about?
-
The first link went to a deleted tweet initially.
Holy shit that's crazy and hilarious. Innocent!!
-
Lock her up! Lock her up!
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1801004228753731858?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
There is punishment for lying about this sort of thing, haven't seen it happen very often though.
-
Lock her up! Lock her up!
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1801004228753731858?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
Not gonna celebrate yet but that is very damning.
-
Any pics of the accuser floating around? I still haven't seen anything like not even sure what nationality she is, etc.
-
She’s white, and, apparently, a real cunt. Hope this isn’t slut shaming.
-
She’s white, and, apparently, a real cunt. Hope this isn’t slut shaming.
I think that's fair game. We'll see how she testifies but this looks like a prosecution bringing a case it shouldn't have.
-
This had the makings of a case that maybe shouldn't have been brought to begin with. If that is the case, I'm more concerned with the prosecutors and investigators than the woman.
-
I think that's fair game. We'll see how she testifies but this looks like a prosecution bringing a case it shouldn't have.
She has already testified. Her story, from reports of it, differed from her initial story to the police investigating the case.
-
https://lawrencekstimes.com/2024/06/12/shannon-trial-day-3/
Expert did a nice job MF'ing the State's DNA expert.
-
She has already testified. Her story, from reports of it, differed from her initial story to the police investigating the case.
Yeah I thought they were saving her but they ahd to bat leadoff it looks like. The discrepancies about how much she had to drink and the alleged assailant pulling her should weigh against her credibility. Chance he gets convicted but this is absolutely not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
So much for Sparky's arguments.... TSJ not only testified today, but testified that he cooperated with the U of I investigation and answered every question asked of him in it.
Stick to whatever it is you do in real life, Spark.
-
They didn't even bother to recall the alleged victim..... Ouch
-
How this even got to this point and trial is beyond comprehension. Just complete waste of time and resources. I’ll go back to shaming this slut. Sorry Spark, you can fuck off. Clearly from her actions and messages she was looking for a payday and was no “victim” at all. Sickening.
-
How this even got to this point and trial is beyond comprehension. Just complete waste of time and resources. I’ll go back to shaming this slut. Sorry Spark, you can fuck off. Clearly from her actions and messages she was looking for a payday and was no “victim” at all. Sickening.
To be fair, it was her friend with the dollar sign emoji. That being said, once Shannon testified, the prosecution's alleged plans to recall her (undoubtedly in part, to try and negate that text) went by the wayside.
-
Still no picture of the slut
-
Still no picture of the slut
Which is complete and utter bullshit. Lock her ass up and make her go through all the harassment TSJ had to endure. She should get the same punishment he would’ve gotten if found guilty. I stand by my statements.
Come preach to me Spark…
-
@mitchgilfillan
TSJ Attorney: Detective Leitner filed the probable cause affidavit without even looking at DNA report. Says that was Completely negligent + won’t even refer to him as a real detective anymore and neither should the citizens of Douglas County.
“Instead, you make my client get abused, ridiculed and forced to stand trial.”
Says: “There is no male DNA found in vagina. You should all walk into the jury room, we all know he’s not guilty and everyone leave right now.” An absolute dagger by TSJ’s attorney
-
Mitch Gilfillan
@mitchgilfillan
·
13m
“No DNA in vaginal vault. Ladies + gentlemen, look at the science before you move forward. There’s no TSJ DNA near buttocks, but certainly is of other men."
So much for the DNA of the 5 other guys not mattering in this case. Stick to picking up garbage, or whatever your day job is, Sparky.
-
“Survivors feel they can’t be safe because of the lack of compassion, the lack of follow-through in investigation and the poor treatment by calling them liars,” Valdez said during the forum.
In 2018, Branson charged a KU student with three counts of false sexual assault reporting. He dropped the charges in 2019 for fear that the case, which accumulated national coverage, would discourage survivors from coming forward. Valdez taught the student charged by Branson, which in part motivated her to run as district attorney.
Valdez pledged to overhaul the handling of sexual assault cases in the office “to ensure sensitivity to the survivors as well as fairness to the defendants,” according to her campaign website.
https://www.kansan.com/news/ku-law-professor-wins-douglas-county-district-attorney-race-ousting-longtime-incumbent/article_4ca2b7f0-d6d2-11ea-91d3-9f8e95228aac.html
-
Verdict is in.
-
NOT GUILTY! FUCK YES!
-
TSJ should sue the people who brought the case if he can.
He probably won't tho. Nothing indicates that's who he is.
-
So she just gets to walk out of the courtroom free as well?! Ridiculous!
-
So she just gets to walk out of the courtroom free as well?! Ridiculous!
Yeah the lying ass bitch and her friend, the detective who conducted the amateur hour investigation and the DA’s office can all go fuck themselves for A) trying to ruin a young innocent man’s life and b) for trying to derail our season.
As a matter of fact, how about a big fuck you to Kansas overall?
-
TSJ should sue the people who brought the case if he can.
He probably won't tho. Nothing indicates that's who he is.
Dude has undoubtedly paid a shit load in attorneys fees....DNA experts not cheap either.
-
So she just gets to walk out of the courtroom free as well?! Ridiculous!
#BelieveWomen
-
Terrence suing Illinois to force them to reinstate him a thing if beauty. His lawyers, bravo. That's why they get paid the big bucks.
-
Which is complete and utter bullshit. Lock her ass up and make her go through all the harassment TSJ had to endure. She should get the same punishment he would’ve gotten if found guilty. I stand by my statements.
Come preach to me Spark…
How do you preach to a person who screamed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY when it benefitted them, and LOCK HER UP when it didn’t? That kind of idiot has never listened to anyone in their life or they’d make some sense occasionally.
-
Great news for Shannon. And the right decision based on the evidence that was presented. Hope he can move on with his life now.
-
So she just gets to walk out of the courtroom free as well?! Ridiculous!
Perfect post. Just a complete abandonment of the logic you’ve been using for months. Never change, Judy - I know you won’t.
-
He should sue the nerds in northwestern fan club too
-
How do you preach to a person who screamed INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY when it benefitted them, and LOCK HER UP when it didn’t? That kind of idiot has never listened to anyone in their life or they’d make some sense occasionally.
Similar to those who said no one charged with a crime would ever, ever allow themselves to be interviewed in a simultaneously running campus investigation?
-
Similar to those who said no one charged with a crime would ever, ever allow themselves to be interviewed in a simultaneously running campus investigation?
Uh, what?
Yeah, of course no one is going to present their evidence in an ongoing criminal case to some university board. Which is also specifically why the board investigation was dropped right after the season ended - because they didn't have access to any of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt or innocence. Of course they didn't. That kind of board never will have access to the evidence they'll need to make that determination, nor should they be put in a position to do that.
I love that you said that though. It's like you're in a race to see who can say the dumbest thing.
-
Uh, what?
Yeah, of course no one is going to present their evidence in an ongoing criminal case to some university board. Which is also specifically why the board investigation was dropped right after the season ended - because they didn't have access to any of the evidence they'd need to determine his guilt or innocence. Of course they didn't. That kind of board never will have access to the evidence they'll need to make that determination, nor should they be put in a position to do that.
I love that you said that though. It's like you're in a race to see who can say the dumbest thing.
LOL. You were off by quite a bit in this thread. But cannot admit it. Typical progressive jackass.
-
Here's what they said when they dropped the university investigation:
"In a letter to Shannon dated April 5, Robert Wilczynski, the director of the Office for Student Conflict Resolution at Illinois, wrote that the school had insufficient evidence to find Shannon in violation of the student code. Wilczynski wrote that the school's investigator did not have "access to the complainant, the complainant's witness" and that "the complete Lawrence Police Department file was not available to the investigator," according to the letter."
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39921917/illinois-drops-investigation-terrence-shannon-jr
It went without saying though. Of course they didn't have access to that evidence.
-
LOL. You were off by quite a bit in this thread. But cannot admit it. Typical progressive jackass.
Off about what in particular?
One thing I was definitely wrong about is that I never in a million years thought they'd grant him the TRO. I can't think of anything else I was notably wrong about though. The thing you're trying to pretend I was wrong about, I wasn't. They did, in fact, drop the university investigation for the exact, explicit reasons I pointed out.
-
Here's what they said when they dropped the university investigation:
"In a letter to Shannon dated April 5, Robert Wilczynski, the director of the Office for Student Conflict Resolution at Illinois, wrote that the school had insufficient evidence to find Shannon in violation of the student code. Wilczynski wrote that the school's investigator did not have "access to the complainant, the complainant's witness" and that "the complete Lawrence Police Department file was not available to the investigator," according to the letter."
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39921917/illinois-drops-investigation-terrence-shannon-jr
It went without saying though. Of course they didn't have access to that evidence.
They had access to him. Which he admitted. Which you made a point no one would ever do. Jackass.
-
Off about what in particular?
One thing I was definitely wrong about is that I never in a million years thought they'd grant him the TRO. I can't think of anything else I was notably wrong about though. The thing you're trying to pretend I was wrong about, I wasn't. They did, in fact, drop the university investigation for the exact, explicit reasons I pointed out.
Playing the Tempo "about what" routine when caught being wrong. LOL.
Stick to your day job, jackass.
-
They had access to him. Which he admitted. Which you made a point no one would ever do. Jackass.
They did not have access to the evidence he presented in the court room. They interviewed him.
They didn't see the video, they didn't have the DNA report, they didn't interview the accuser, they didn't have the police report. And again, of course they didn't - that was evidence in an ongoing criminal trial. Didn't take a genius.
When you've gotta make some shit up and pretend to call someone else wrong, they probably weren't.
-
Playing the Tempo "about what" routine when caught being wrong. LOL.
Stick to your day job, jackass.
Pretty much what I thought - couldn't come up with anything. Neither the claim, nor the fact that it was totally baseless is at all surprising.
-
They did not have access to the evidence he presented in the court room. They interviewed him.
They didn't see the video, they didn't have the DNA report, they didn't interview the accuser, they didn't have the police report. And again, of course they didn't - that was evidence in an ongoing criminal trial. Didn't take a genius.
When you've gotta make some shit up and pretend to call someone else wrong, they probably weren't.
Which you said no one charged with a crime would ever, ever do. You were fucking wrong, Know It All Assmunch. LOL.
-
Pretty much what I thought - couldn't come up with anything. Neither the claim, nor the fact that it was totally baseless is at all surprising.
Go tell it to your therapist, Know It All Loser.
-
Anyway, not sticking around - just wanted to pop in to acknowledge Shannon's acquittal and wish him well, and laugh at the people who two hours ago were purists about the presumption of innocence but now are complaining that the accuser isn't in jail. This place is nothing if not extremely predictable.
-
Anyway, not sticking around - just wanted to pop in to acknowledge Shannon's acquittal and wish him well, and laugh at the people who two hours ago were purists about the presumption of innocence but now are complaining that the accuser isn't in jail. This place is nothing if not extremely predictable.
Good, you are a Know It All Progressive Jackass. Go fuck yourself, loser.
-
Which you said no one charged with a crime would ever, ever do. You were fucking wrong, Know It All Assmunch. LOL.
If you want to do the Truth "just pretend with me and I can be right" thing, have at it.
-
If you want to do the Truth "just pretend with me and I can be right" thing, have at it.
Bullshit. You were wrong and cannot admit it. How predictable of a Know It All.... Go cry to your therapist.
-
Still no picture of the slut
Here you go…
https://x.com/colemansburner/status/1801355494831100175?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
https://x.com/noahvhagen/status/1801359776288301227?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
https://x.com/ilovenemhard/status/1801367496404176913?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
-
Anyway, not sticking around - just wanted to pop in to acknowledge Shannon's acquittal and wish him well, and laugh at the people who two hours ago were purists about the presumption of innocence but now are complaining that the accuser isn't in jail. This place is nothing if not extremely predictable.
Uh they had the day in court today. She lied. Lock her up! Now… get the fuck outta here please! You’re a righteous blowhard!
-
Really quick jury verdict of they still had testimony this morning.
Prosecutor should be put through the wringer for continuing that dogshit of a case against a public figure. It's not unreasonable to acknowledge gaps in what one knows and assume there has to be something else there but the state really didn't have anything here that could support a conviction.
I repeat my hope that this radicalizes Illinois fans about how the criminal justice system can be abused because this stuff doesn't just happen when visiting basketball teams are in town.
Big congrats to TJS team as I think the only verdict permitted by law, but it seems the morally right one as well.
-
Uh they had the day in court today. She lied. Lock her up! Now… get the fuck outta here please! You’re a righteous blowhard!
No, you should not be charged criminally for being mistaken to the police.
The prosecutor should be sued civilly and immunity attacked for taking a case to verdict on unreasonable evidence.
Target the bad system, not the 18 year olds the system exploits.
-
Anyway, not sticking around - just wanted to pop in to acknowledge Shannon's acquittal and wish him well, and laugh at the people who two hours ago were purists about the presumption of innocence but now are complaining that the accuser isn't in jail. This place is nothing if not extremely predictable.
It's fucking ridiculous. We just watched the machine abuse what is likely an innocent person for months and risk him millions.
Now you want to turn that on an 18 year old because something bad happened to her, she probably identified the wrong guy, and the state pursued a case it shouldn't have?
They're both victims of the same damn thing. And who do you think the shithead state courts hurt more in the long run? Guys who look like TJS or her? So if you don't want this to happen to the next Terrence Shannon why the fuck would you not *fix the fucking broken machine*?
-
No, you should not be charged criminally for being mistaken to the police.
The prosecutor should be sued civilly and immunity attacked for taking a case to verdict on unreasonable evidence.
Target the bad system, not the 18 year olds the system exploits.
Will be interesting to see if he decides to assert his legal rights in this case. Seems like there are a few possible defendants here.
-
Uh they had the day in court today. She lied. Lock her up! Now… get the fuck outta here please! You’re a righteous blowhard!
We don't even know that she lied about anything from the jury verdict. She could telling the truth and it simply doesn't hit beyond reasonable doubt. How on Earth would you even convict her?
Pitchfork carrying dipshittery.
-
Will be interesting to see if he decides to assert his legal rights in this case. Seems like there are a few possible defendants here.
He seems to have gotten fucked by the police and they have only qualified immunity so here's hoping!
-
Uh they had the day in court today. She lied. Lock her up! Now… get the fuck outta here please! You’re a righteous blowhard!
Unsurprisingly, you make it clear immediately that you have no idea how this works whatsoever.
If she knowingly lied then put her on trial, but she has the same presumption of innocence you were so stringent about when it meant your favorite basketball team wouldn’t be as good.
-
We don't even know that she lied about anything from the jury verdict. She could telling the truth and it simply doesn't hit beyond reasonable doubt. How on Earth would you even convict her?
Pitchfork carrying dipshittery.
There were some inconsistencies between what she told the police and what she testified on direct that were highlighted on cross. The friend's testimony, as reported, was far more problematic in this regard.
The prosecution didn't even bring the complaining witness back on rebuttal for cleanup, as planned, after Shannon testified.
-
He seems to have gotten fucked by the police and they have only qualified immunity so here's hoping!
Well, when the cop cancels the interview with Shannon because the cop is going on vacation to Florida...
-
It's fucking ridiculous. We just watched the machine abuse what is likely an innocent person for months and risk him millions.
Now you want to turn that on an 18 year old because something bad happened to her, she probably identified the wrong guy, and the state pursued a case it shouldn't have?
They're both victims of the same damn thing. And who do you think the shithead state courts hurt more in the long run? Guys who look like TJS or her? So if you don't want this to happen to the next Terrence Shannon why the fuck would you not *fix the fucking broken machine*?
You’re thinking about this like an intelligent, well adjusted person and not a meathead Illini fan.
-
He should absolutely file a civil suit against the DA’s office. TSJ’s defense attorney said it best regarding them in court.
Edit- although he might have more class than that.
-
Really quick jury verdict of they still had testimony this morning.
Prosecutor should be put through the wringer for continuing that dogshit of a case against a public figure. It's not unreasonable to acknowledge gaps in what one knows and assume there has to be something else there but the state really didn't have anything here that could support a conviction.
I repeat my hope that this radicalizes Illinois fans about how the criminal justice system can be abused because this stuff doesn't just happen when visiting basketball teams are in town.
Big congrats to TJS team as I think the only verdict permitted by law, but it seems the morally right one as well.
No doubt in my mind the verdict is correct based on the evidence. There were any number of potential pieces of evidence that could’ve changed things - eyewitnesses, DNA matches, video - and they came up empty on all of them.
-
Here you go…
https://x.com/colemansburner/status/1801355494831100175?s=46&t=nLWTarDKWNHMqYhTVD-LQQ
Absolutely despicable behavior here. Just unbelievably gross.
The irony of talking about someone “having class” minutes after doxxing someone for saying they were sexually assaulted is immeasurable.
I know there’s nothing awful people hate more than others telling them to be better but Jesus Christ. Classless doesn’t begin to describe it.
-
Coleman Hawkins doxxing her after the trial (and her blaiming a guy based on the fact he was a basketball player) is Judge Judy's fault? Got it. Jobu was right. Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous, and unable to admit you were wrong, piece of shit.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/bLymjYS/Screenshot-20240614-070423-Chrome.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K7QhcBM)
True, I would agree and I'm not sure that I would disagree.
-
Coleman Hawkins doxxing her after the trial (and her blaiming a guy based on the fact he was a basketball player) is Judge Judy's fault? Got it. Jobu was right. Go fuck yourself, you self-righteous, and unable to admit you were wrong, piece of shit.
No, but JudgeJudy posting her name and photograph on this board is her fault obviously. And it wasn’t Coleman who doxxed her.
“You can never admit you were wrong!”
“What specifically was I wrong about, other than the TRO?”
“You just can never admit it!”
“Okay so what was it I was wrong about?”
“You self righteous blow hard! You never can admit to being wrong!”
You can only duck the “so what was I wrong about?” question so many times before it’s extremely clear you don’t have an answer. Yes, I know, I stated no defense attorney will let his client present the evidence in the ongoing trial to a university board, and even though they didn’t do that for the same obvious reasons I pointed out months ago, if I just pretend with you that they did then I was actually wrong.
-
No, but JudgeJudy posting her name and photograph on this board is her fault obviously. And it wasn’t Coleman who doxxed her.
“You can never admit you were wrong!”
“What specifically was I wrong about, other than the TRO?”
“You just can never admit it!”
“Okay so what was it I was wrong about?”
“You self righteous blow hard! You never can admit to being wrong!”
You can only duck the “so what was I wrong about?” question so many times before it’s extremely clear you don’t have an answer. Yes, I know, I stated no defense attorney will let his client present the evidence in the ongoing trial to a university board, and even though they didn’t do that for the same obvious reasons I pointed out months ago, if I just pretend with you that they did then I was actually wrong.
Fuck you, you disingenuous piece of shit. We spent an afternoon arguing about simultaneously proceeding Title IX and criminal investigations and you said no defendant/student would ever, ever, ever participate in an investigation while a criminal proceeding was going. You are a fucking piece of shit. Your fucking therapist may buy your act, but I doubt anyone here does. Fuck off, scumbag.
-
Absolutely despicable behavior here. Just unbelievably gross.
The irony of talking about someone “having class” minutes after doxxing someone for saying they were sexually assaulted is immeasurable.
I know there’s nothing awful people hate more than others telling them to be better but Jesus Christ. Classless doesn’t begin to describe it.
She’s not a victim. He is. Go fuck yourself. She literally tried to blame an innocent man and ruin his life. Hers is the one the should be ruined. Hell, call her employer and try to get her fired and never get a job again. That’s essentially what she did. Fuck her, and fuck you.
-
Fuck you, you disingenuous piece of shit. We spent an afternoon arguing about simultaneously proceeding Title IX and criminal investigations and you said no defendant/student would ever, ever, ever participate in an investigation while a criminal proceeding was going. You are a fucking piece of shit. Your fucking therapist may buy your act, but I doubt anyone here does. Fuck off, scumbag.
I said no defendant's attorney would ever, ever let them present the evidence from the ongoing criminal trial to a university panel.
Then, when they didn't do that, you called me wrong.
Disingenuous indeed. When you have to lie about what someone said to claim a victory, you probably don't have a winning point.
-
She’s not a victim. He is. Go fuck yourself. She literally tried to blame an innocent man and ruin his life. Hers is the one the should be ruined. Hell, call her employer and try to get her fired and never get a job again. That’s essentially what she did. Fuck her, and fuck you.
So much for the presumption of innocence. The second it no longer benefits your favorite basketball team, you throw it all the way out the window.
-
So much for the presumption of innocence. The second it no longer benefits your favorite basketball team, you throw it all the way out the window.
Uhhh presumption of innocence?! They had a trial dumbass…
-
Uhhh presumption of innocence?! They had a trial dumbass…
To determine whether TSJ was guilty of rape, yes.
The accuser has not been on trial. She hasn't even been charged with a crime, nor have I heard any whispers that she might be.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence, that principle demands that she has the same presumption of innocence TSJ did. I'm not an idiot, though. I know you only extend that strict adherence to the presumption of innocence to people whose guilt might personally affect you.
-
To determine whether TSJ was guilty of rape, yes.
The accuser has not been on trial. She hasn't even been charged with a crime, nor have I heard any whispers that she might be.
If you believe in the presumption of innocence, that principle demands that she has the same presumption of innocence TSJ did. I'm not an idiot, though. I know you only extend that strict adherence to the presumption of innocence to people whose guilt might personally affect you.
By him being innocent, her claim it was him and to blame him is false. She literally tried to ruin an innocent man’s life.
-
By him being innocent, her claim it was him and to blame him is false. She literally tried to ruin an innocent man’s life.
You think if someone is acquitted of a crime the person who accused them should go to jail? Again, just a total abandonment of the notion of presumption of innocence.
If they have the evidence to prove she made it up or lied to the same standard that was applied to TSJ's trial (beyond a reasonable doubt), then by all means charge and convict her. Until she is convicted, she's afforded the exact same presumption of innocence that he was.
Somewhere along the line, some civics teacher failed you absolutely horrendously. You just have no idea how any of this works, and are proud to prove it over and over.
-
You think if someone is acquitted of a crime the person who accused them should go to jail? Again, just a total abandonment of the notion of presumption of innocence.
If they have the evidence to prove she made it up or lied to the same standard that was applied to TSJ's trial (beyond a reasonable doubt), then by all means charge and convict her. Until she is convicted, she's afforded the exact same presumption of innocence that he was.
Somewhere along the line, some civics teacher failed you absolutely horrendously. You just have no idea how any of this works, and are proud to prove it over and over.
Again, fuck her, and fuck you. Good day…
-
Again, fuck her, and fuck you. Good day…
As calvin called it earlier, "pitchfork carrying dipshittery".
-
By him being innocent, her claim it was him and to blame him is false. She literally tried to ruin an innocent man’s life.
That's literally not how any of this works.
Hell, she could sue him in civil court and win like Ron Goldman's family. You think OJ was innocent?
Terrence Shannon would probably be dumb to sue her because it'd leave the door wide open for a counterclaim and he presumably has more money.
-
I said no defendant's attorney would ever, ever let them present the evidence from the ongoing criminal trial to a university panel.
Then, when they didn't do that, you called me wrong.
Disingenuous indeed. When you have to lie about what someone said to claim a victory, you probably don't have a winning point.
Bullshit. You are a fucking disingenuous piece of crap. Again , go tell your crap to your therapist. You are proven to be a lying sack of shit.
-
You think if someone is acquitted of a crime the person who accused them should go to jail? Again, just a total abandonment of the notion of presumption of innocence.
If they have the evidence to prove she made it up or lied to the same standard that was applied to TSJ's trial (beyond a reasonable doubt), then by all means charge and convict her. Until she is convicted, she's afforded the exact same presumption of innocence that he was.
Somewhere along the line, some civics teacher failed you absolutely horrendously. You just have no idea how any of this works, and are proud to prove it over and over.
You preaching about civics is really rich.... LOL. You are a disingenuous asshole. Go suck on a tailpipe.
-
That's literally not how any of this works.
Hell, she could sue him in civil court and win like Ron Goldman's family. You think OJ was innocent?
Terrence Shannon would probably be dumb to sue her because it'd leave the door wide open for a counterclaim and he presumably has more money.
Possible. However, his testifying, when there was really no need for it, is something.
Odds are the strumpet has no cash (but plenty of DNA from 5 other guys). The police department and DA's office on the other hand....
-
She’s not a victim.
I think the evidence we have shows it more likely than not that she was physically assaulted at the bar that night. Do you disagree and think she made it up entirely?
The things she wavered on go to her intoxication level and the credibility of her identification of TJS.
The friend's testimony suggests to me she was, in fact, assaulted, because there's no reason the complainant would tell the friend a fabricated story in the moment - if it was wholly concocted to go after an athlete she would've identified him to the friend immediately so the friend would also identify the athlete. And if the friend had done that, TSJ would've been toast.
-
And if the investigators ask a couple of the right questions maybe there are no charges, there is no trial and the woman is not a target
And this thread wouldn't exist.
If the investigators don't ask the right questions a shit show can occur.
-
And if the investigators ask a couple of the right questions maybe there are no charges, there is no trial and the woman is not a target
And this thread wouldn't exist.
If the investigators don't ask the right questions a shit show can occur.
100%.
-
Lots of doubling down on protecting this “victim” being sold as levelheadedness. The texts and the length of time they tried to get a settlement tells the whole story.
-
That's literally not how any of this works.
Hell, she could sue him in civil court and win like Ron Goldman's family. You think OJ was innocent?
Terrence Shannon would probably be dumb to sue her because it'd leave the door wide open for a counterclaim and he presumably has more money.
The Goldman family should be put in jail for lying and ruining OJ’s life!
There’s a situation where it’d make sense for TSJ to sue, IMO, or for her to be charged with a crime - just not based on the evidence we have available to us right now. My guess is there was no smoking gun on her phone or they’d have introduced it in court, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
-
Lots of doubling down on protecting this “victim” being sold as levelheadedness. The texts and the length of time they tried to get a settlement tells the whole story.
Eh, an assault can cross a lot of wires, particularly when close people know and are suggesting options. I wouldn't read too much into that stuff.
-
I fully grasp the problem with victim blaming and all that, but I also think there’s a problem with green lighting grifters that will take full advantage of this same sentiment. This looks a lot like a poorly thought out money grab that caused a lot of problems for innocent people. If that’s indeed the case, I see no reason to try and protect her.
-
What evidence is there that this is, in your words, "a poorly thought out money grab"? An emoji texted from an uninvolved party, and presented explicitly outside of the accuser's testimony (so she wasn't cross-examined about it)? If there was some actual compelling evidence of it being an extortion scheme on the phone, don't you think they'd have presented it instead of this emoji?
His defense attorneys also notably presented evidence (more compelling evidence than the emoji, but still not at all conclusive) showing that she might've simply identified the wrong person - in which case you guys have been slut shaming and now doxxing a sexual assault victim and particularly going after the people who point out how fucked up that is.
If it was just a money grab and they're lying about the whole thing, wouldn't you think the witness would also just lie and claim she saw it? You think they invented this story down to the point of having the accuser visibly upset and her friend consoling her on camera right after the alleged incident?
If there's compelling evidence that this was an extortion scheme no one will complain if they go after her for it - they absolutely should go after her in that circumstance. But if that evidence exists, we haven't seen it. They were smart to introduce the texts and let the jury draw their own inferences from the emoji, and they did a great job introducing reasonable doubt (of which there was a lot in this case), but that's in no way evidence of some scheme where they invented the assault to extort TSJ.
-
I think the evidence we have shows it more likely than not that she was physically assaulted at the bar that night. Do you disagree and think she made it up entirely?
The things she wavered on go to her intoxication level and the credibility of her identification of TJS.
The friend's testimony suggests to me she was, in fact, assaulted, because there's no reason the complainant would tell the friend a fabricated story in the moment - if it was wholly concocted to go after an athlete she would've identified him to the friend immediately so the friend would also identify the athlete. And if the friend had done that, TSJ would've been toast.
The prosecutors did not even bring any more witnesses back after the defense rested. That says a lot.
Apparently there was a lack of DNA in the, let's call it, assault areas.
Going clubbing the next night also didn't help her case.
We could sit here all day doing this, but TSJ's counsel already picked the case apart.
-
I fully grasp the problem with victim blaming and all that, but I also think there’s a problem with green lighting grifters that will take full advantage of this same sentiment. This looks a lot like a poorly thought out money grab that caused a lot of problems for innocent people. If that’s indeed the case, I see no reason to try and protect her.
This case was very difficult for liberal / progressive Illini fans.
Women never lie about sexual assault.
But, black men age 18-25 don't get a fair shake
But, high profile athletes often aren't held accessible
The misidentification theory is perfect for them.
-
This case was very difficult for liberal / progressive Illini fans.
Women never lie about sexual assault.
But, black men age 18-25 don't get a fair shake
But, high profile athletes often aren't held accessible
The misidentification theory is perfect for them.
(https://i.ibb.co/C9F5m1n/IMG-5454.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wQ1NB0K)
-
Coleman Hawkins doxxing her after the trial (and her blaiming a guy based on the fact he was a basketball player) is Judge Judy's fault?
Something that always bothered me. She was out bar hopping after the KU football game. She knew they had played Illinois. So in an effort to identify her assailant, she goes on line and checks the Illini basketball roster?
Some of our fans were displeased, but Sutter destroyed her credibility.
She hated drinking, but had a fake ID and been at that JayHawk bar dozens of times? She refused a blood test for alcohol and drugs.
Another thing that stood out. The detective, Leitner(?) said he didn't bother to investigate because M. N. seemed sincere.
If the girls had been there a lot, perhaps they knew some bouncers and knew where the blind spots in security cameras were? Yes, that is a big reach.
Here story fit what is expected. She said she thought her assailant was motivated by power. She told a friend immediately afterwards.
The DA's close -- convict him because he is a star athlete -- was bizarre.
-
This case was very difficult for liberal / progressive Illini fans.
Women never lie about sexual assault.
But, black men age 18-25 don't get a fair shake
But, high profile athletes often aren't held accessible
The misidentification theory is perfect for them.
Why does that make anything "very difficult" or any of those things inconsistent? Misidentification by an eyewitness is probably the top reason people are wrongfully convicted and was literally something the defense argued, and it seems to make sense. It's not some conspiracy. It also implies that Arterio Morris or someone else SHOULD be investigated, so the midentification theory means the state's choice has absolved an actually guilty 18-25 year old black male.
Like, yeah, we have a theory that explains multiple things at once. That's...how fact finding works.
One can concede women occasionally lie about sexual assault for whatever reason, but if she did here, she's a poor liar so to get there requires misogyny at two levels: (a) that a woman you know nothing about would lie about something like that to many people including her friends immediately, and (b) that she's so epically bad at scheming she couldn't get a male college athlete to get his DNA on her anywhere. That's a really narrow Venn diagram of hypothetical Jezebels you've wishcast into existence.
-
I'm not sure it's all that complicated.
Why do I get the feeling that she said 'it was him.'
And they went on 'That's good enough for us. Do you have any questions ?'
-
My sense of humor is on the dry side.
N.M. was so traumatized she and her best friend went bar hopping and returned to the JayHawk the very next night.
My initial thought was she tried to approach Shannon, he blew her off, and this might have been about rejection revenge.
Could have escalated into a shake down. Friend or friends could have been in on it or not.
I still the see the misidentification theory as perfect for those whose preconceptions made this an ethical dilemma. Or trilemma.
During the discussion at Loyalty, some insisted we had to defend Terrence without any hint of attacking the young woman. They were displeased parts of Sutter's closing.
-
I'm not sure it's all that complicated.
Why do I get the feeling that she said 'it was him.'
And they went on 'That's good enough for us. Do you have any questions ?'
The cops? They admitted it.
The DA? A little more subtle I think. They thought they could take down a high profile athlete with an eye witness and innuendo. They were out of their league against Shannon's defense team.
-
Definitely not sending my daughters to KU. Not that I would. But this just opened up the ability for star athletes to do what they want with the ladies wherever, whenever. Or not.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/gggwv2T/Screenshot-20240615-134756-Samsung-Internet.jpg)
If he takes the plea deal the DA's office can flaunt their efforts to bring justice for sexual assault survivors by charging an innocent man, but would that open TSJ to a civil suit ?
-
LeBron voicing his praise for TSJ now after the trial is over....
Where was the "King's" voice before and by King I mean sarcastically.
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/lebron-james-terrence-shannon-jr-comments-lakers-nba-draft/b0d45ae863d16508443a0018
If you are going to use your voice, think your voice should be heard, or think your voice is relevant, use it at all times, not just the best of times!!
-
TSJ getting his jersey hung in the rafters! Well deserved!
https://x.com/ALionEye/status/1803836183975280703
-
TSJ getting his jersey hung in the rafters! Well deserved!
https://x.com/ALionEye/status/1803836183975280703
Hell yeah! Best individual season in school history…
-
TSJ getting his jersey hung in the rafters! Well deserved!
https://x.com/ALionEye/status/1803836183975280703
That's great. I hope whoever comes in who didn't vote him 1st or 2nd team AA enjoys seeing the jersey.
-
TSJ and his mom are coming for the Douglas County DA and detective.
Go get their asses 🤑
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1834586441097044432
-
Spark is gonna be furious
-
Spark is gonna be furious
Came here to say this
-
TSJ and his mom are coming for the Douglas County DA and detective.
Go get their asses 🤑
https://x.com/mitchgilfillan/status/1834586441097044432
They will lose that unless the county insurer just wants to settle (QI/AI are a bitch) but they 100% should pursue it anyway.
-
Why would I be mad?
You guys need some new material.
-
Fuck off
-
Pretty much as expected. Good talk as always bud.
-
Pretty much as expected. Good talk as always bud.
Well, you are a weasel.
-
Nice to see this place is the same race to the bottom as usual.
-
Nice to see this place is the same race to the bottom as usual.
Now that a complete lying sack of shit like you are here. Go fuck yourself.