Jump to content

Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)


DoctorB

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HoosierBilliken said:

Ha ha.  Ortiz, who goes by the screen name of Tilkowsky, is getting desperate.

If Ortiz's son was accused of sexually assaulting a white woman, he would be okay with him facing a jury of 12 biased white women, who happened to volunteer cause they want to right the wrongs in society.  This is exactly the situation that the four black men faced. 

Ortiz, aka Tilkowsky, would think that this would be fair not having due process, cause he wouldn't want to give his own son a pass.

Ortiz is a loser.

The only person Ortiz will give a pass to is apparently Bernard Law. 

His praising of Law is essentially condoning child rape. Funny that he then has the audacity to accuse Goodwin of sexual assault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours ago, kshoe said:

I have no desire to punish women that feel they were assaulted or make a criminal report if they do so in good faith. I presume that occurred here and considering one women continued with with this process she must have done it in somewhat good faith.

My only desire at this point is for SLU to dramatically refine its Title IX policies and to change the team that enforces those policies. I have absolutely no faith that the policy or people in charge of levying punishment do so in an unbiased manner. It is self-evident from the overnight bag story that men on SLU's campus aren't getting a fair shake. The ruling against these 4 players, in particular the initial ruling against Goodwin that is so far out of bounds for appropriateness for violation of school policy, is all the additional proof one should need.

People should focus on what can they do to improve the process, not whether a vindictive punishment against the women involved can be implemented.

I don't know how you could in  good faith feel you were sexually assaulted when you knew in advance of the sexual encounter, showed up and willingly participated. It's clear she even knew pics/video were being taken and didn't say no. Now, maybe she regrets the entire ordeal or not speaking up during the pics. Or she possibly and probably even rightfully feels wronged by the sharing of the pics. However, if she claimed she was sexually assaulted or raped she should be held accountable for making false claims. She should also be punished for breaking school/code of conduct rules. I agree with your first statement however, I don't believe this was done in good faith. 

TheBand likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I don't know how you could in  good faith feel you were sexually assaulted when you knew in advance of the sexual encounter, showed up and willingly participated. It's clear she even knew pics/video were being taken and didn't say no. Now, maybe she regrets the entire ordeal or not speaking up during the pics. Or she possibly and probably even rightfully feels wronged by the sharing of the pics. However, if she claimed she was sexually assaulted or raped she should be held accountable for making false claims. She should also be punished for breaking school/code of conduct rules. I agree with your first statement however, I don't believe this was done in good faith. 

There’s literally no psychologist in the world that could accurately diagnose what sort of disturbance those women have. Let’s just leave it at that. I regret buying a lottery ticket the other day, but I’m not going to accuse the QuikTrip of burglary. 

Tonka and dlarry like this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, kshoe said:

I have no desire to punish women that feel they were assaulted or make a criminal report if they do so in good faith. I presume that occurred here and considering one women continued with with this process she must have done it in somewhat good faith.

As you noted, this is totally presumptuous and not backed by anything. Good faith is not a given in these situations. The reality is that a woman ruined the lives of three young men. If you want to give her benefit of the doubt despite all we have learned about the situation, so be it, but I will not do the same.

We could rant all day about the Title IX process and SLU’s ineptitude, however, none of that would matter if not for one woman’s false accusations.

Bobby Metzinger likes this
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brianstl said:

I don’t want to see anymore young lives ruined by this.  What the girl did was wrong, but the the real bad guys in this case are the supposed professionals at SLU.  SLU has duty to protect the students, not destroy the lives of students.

Brian, I agree with everything you’ve said up to this point, but your take here is swaddled in naïveté. Look at the handbook. If that (SLU being “protectors”) was true, it would be a guide to making a proper confession through penance out of the pages Baltimore Catechism, not a document with more layers of punishment than the laws of decent Society would dictate. It’s a double-edged sword and the SLU side of it is sharper than the city’s side. Why is that? 

While I agree that SLU needs to take a little walk down the compassionate side of things (see: practicing what one preaches), the fact that the accusers cried wolf because they regretted the actions they themselves committed is irreprehensible. For them, it was easier to identify as a victim than an equal accessory. And they knew they could be protected under IX. Shrewd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I don't know how you could in  good faith feel you were sexually assaulted when you knew in advance of the sexual encounter, showed up and willingly participated. It's clear she even knew pics/video were being taken and didn't say no. Now, maybe she regrets the entire ordeal or not speaking up during the pics. Or she possibly and probably even rightfully feels wronged by the sharing of the pics. However, if she claimed she was sexually assaulted or raped she should be held accountable for making false claims. She should also be punished for breaking school/code of conduct rules. I agree with your first statement however, I don't believe this was done in good faith. 

This may have been brought up in the 340+ pages of this thread, but here’s a link to an article describing changes to slu’s sexual assault policy in 2011. I don’t know if this policy has changed since, but if it has, I doubt it has become more lenient.

http://unewsonline.com/19410/news/slu-amends-campus-policy-on-sexual-assault/

In short, for a sexual act to be deemed consensual under this policy, consent must be given in the form of an affirmative and verbal “Yes” at all stages of the intimacy. There’s a comment at the bottom that points out some issues with this. 

My guess is that various offices at SLU have told SLU students of this policy and this definition of consent. Different people may interpret it different ways, but it’s conceivable that someone could take that by the book definition and conclude after the fact that any variable that she didn’t explicitly consent to (I.e. a camera), makes it non-consensual.

The elements of the offenses in the SLU policy and in criminal law are so different that the offenses shouldn’t be called by the same name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brianstl said:

I don’t want to see anymore young lives ruined by this.  What the girl did was wrong, but the the real bad guys in this case are the supposed professionals at SLU.  SLU has duty to protect the students, not destroy the lives of students.

 

4 hours ago, Bobby Metzinger said:

Brian, I agree with everything you’ve said up to this point, but your take here is swaddled in naïveté. Look at the handbook. If that (SLU being “protectors”) was true, it would be a guide to making a proper confession through penance out of the pages Baltimore Catechism, not a document with more layers of punishment than the laws of decent Society would dictate. It’s a double-edged sword and the SLU side of it is sharper than the city’s side. Why is that? 

While I agree that SLU needs to take a little walk down the compassionate side of things (see: practicing what one preaches), the fact that the accusers cried wolf because they regretted the actions they themselves committed is irreprehensible. For them, it was easier to identify as a victim than an equal accessory. And they knew they could be protected under IX. Shrewd. 

 

I agree with both Brian and Bobby. This is a very complex situation which is made worse by the current frenzy about sexual misconduct being displayed by the media. This stuff is literally everywhere. There is nothing that SLU can do about the way the country is portraying itself. The current culture facilitates the lack of compassion and the power being used by people like the title IX officials in this situation. A lot of the pieces in this situation acted in concert to make the punishment worse that it could have been. Delays were everywhere, the lawyers did their thing, the officials did their thing, the parents on both sides were both angry and depressed by what was happening to their kids. The suspension from play done before the rulings were finished was a major piece. No one explained the reason for this suspension which clearly was not done as a way to demonstrate good will and the desire to cooperate from the part of the players in exchange for some degree of leniency. The players may have demonstrated good will and desire to cooperate, but it did not result in leniency. Everyone wants revenge, heads rolling, people being fired, students lives crushed. Who and what you want to take revenge upon depends upon the side of the fence you are at. The anger and desire for revenge is uniformly present. Compassion and the ability to be lenient has been forgotten. The thing to be remembered is that as the attitudes and points of view of all involved (and many not directly involved parties as well) changed into an open desire for revenge rather than a desire for leniency and a just solution, the likelihood of any solution with a semblance of compassion disappeared. 

The free love of the '60s and '70s has gone away, and it has been replaced by this. We might as well make sure our kids understand this before they head to College. SLU is not the only place doing this kind of thing, and most likely it is not he worst either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On February 16, 2018 at 9:25 AM, cgeldmacher said:

I agree.  Tilky is right for once.  This is not the type of behavior that SLU students should be engaged in.  Whoever organized the orgy in the first place should be disciplined, because that's not the type of activity we should expect of SLU students.  Pestello should suspend the parties to this encounter that set it all up, brought the condoms, and then made false allegations after the fact.  We need to expect more of SLU students.

I am ok if you want to investigate what the girls did. For that to happen all the players just have to go to a Saint Louis City Precinct and say they have been sexually assaulted. Then the City cops can investigate (why is the criminal investigation still open for the players?) and there can be a Title IX investigation at SLU as well into the girls' behavior.

The difference between the two investigations will be that the girls participated in an orgy which is obviously questionable morally. Potentially a violation of student conduct.

Howver does that set a precedent of charging alleged victims of crimes? Something I don't think SLU wants to do.

The guys participated (except for Goodwin) I believe. The players though filmed the encounter and posted it online.

That is where the players made the HUGE mistake.

How they ever thought that filming the encounter and posting it online would ever be a good idea is beyond me.

As long as the girls get their day in court just like the guys did (which will require the guys charging the girls with sexual assault (which honestly seems vindictive to me)) I am good.

By the way I am not Jesus Ortiz. I graduated from SLU.

Hate to disappoint you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2018 at 7:36 AM, brianstl said:

I don’t want to see anymore young lives ruined by this.  What the girl did was wrong, but the the real bad guys in this case are the supposed professionals at SLU.  SLU has duty to protect the students, not destroy the lives of students.

The players are responsible for "ruining" their lives.

 

No one else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Spoon-Balls said:

Looks like a nice payday for the lawyer:

The magistrate judge has recommended the court give John Doe a total of $849,231 -- roughly $795,691 in attorney’s fees and about $53,539 in litigation costs -- a surprisingly large payment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spoon-Balls said:

I don’t think the law that applied here would apply to SLU because SLU isn’t a state university.  Interesting that this case happened at James Madison University since James Madison wrote the 5th Amendment’s due process clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, juniorbill76 said:

Looks like a nice payday for the lawyer:

The magistrate judge has recommended the court give John Doe a total of $849,231 -- roughly $795,691 in attorney’s fees and about $53,539 in litigation costs -- a surprisingly large payment.

I think all the student asked for in this case was to be reinstated, have his record expunged and his legal fees covered.  He won his case and the fight since then has been over what his legal fees should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I don’t think the law that applied here would apply to SLU because SLU isn’t a state university.  Interesting that this case happened at James Madison University since Jame Madison wrote the 5th Amendment’s due process clause.

I agree with this comment. 

Slu being a private school does shield them from a fair amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going perfectly for SLU. Stu has disappeared with comments about the situation. Fredrickson hasn't written anything even though they were "working on it". This is going to suck when SLU gets away with this borderline criminal activity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, slufan13 said:

This is going perfectly for SLU. Stu has disappeared with comments about the situation. Fredrickson hasn't written anything even though they were "working on it". This is going to suck when SLU gets away with this borderline criminal activity. 

I was told that tomorrow will be interesting with regards to the PD and SLU,  was given the ol wait and see when I pressed for more details. (Helpful I know) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LindellWest said:

I was told that tomorrow will be interesting with regards to the PD and SLU,  was given the ol wait and see when I pressed for more details. (Helpful I know) 

Let's hope it's actually something good. My guess would just be a token column criticizing SLU for not answering questions but where the author gives SLU an out by saying it's a sensitive situation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...