Charges will not be filed against SLU players

[joe_davola]

you have to be crazy to think biondi stays out of this. This is over Chris Mays head and he has no idea of what is going on and what is going to happen. Biondi will call the final shots no doubt and Majerus will have some input but this is all rev larry's call and that is scary

Try reading my post again...I said 'hopefully' he stays out of it...never said he was going to. Re-read if needed...

[For-DaLove]

It's going to be the same thing...their word against hers. Can they kick them out? Sure. But who are they going to believe? I agree that there may be some internal things going on, but I don't think they are getting kicked out. If it was clear cut, sure they would get tossed...but I think if it was clear cut these guys would be in jail right about now.

Exactly! If there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute them, then they most likely won't have enough evidence to do much through the school.

[jjray]

It's going to be the same thing...their word against hers. Can they kick them out? Sure. But who are they going to believe? I agree that there may be some internal things going on, but I don't think they are getting kicked out. If it was clear cut, sure they would get tossed...but I think if it was clear cut these guys would be in jail right about now.

The only point I made is that it ain't over. No one knows whether it is just a "he said, she said" situation. The fact that there was no prosecution does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There could be additional circumstantial evidence against the players but not enough for the prosecutors to believe they could have run the gauntlet of a St Louis city jury. Further, the standard that the university discipline board will apply shall be much lower than the prosecutors would have faced. Without a criminal conviction, the matter may end up in a grey area left total up to the discretion of the SLU administration. You have to know Larry ain't happy. How he deals with it is anyone's guess.

[P.B.]

Try reading my post again...I said 'hopefully' he stays out of it...never said he was going to. Re-read if needed...

Sorry about that davols. I misspoke there. Let me rephrase. You have to be crazy to hope Biondi stays out of this

[TheChosenOne]

The only point I made is that it ain't over. No one knows whether it is just a "he said, she said" situation. The fact that there was no prosecution does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There could be additional circumstantial evidence against the players but not enough for the prosecutors to believe they could have run the gauntlet of a St Louis city jury. Further, the standard that the university discipline board will apply shall be much lower than the prosecutors would have faced. Without a criminal conviction, the matter may end up in a grey area left total up to the discretion of the SLU administration. You have to know Larry ain't happy. How he deals with it is anyone's guess.

The University's policy concerning consent when I was a student a handful of years ago and the inability of a female to give consent if she is intoxicated is what concerns me based on knowing an individual expelled from the University because of it and what has been said about the incident namely the time of the incident and Lacledes being mentioned. This would make me believe alcohol was involved. Obviously it will be a he said she said, but the only thing that will really matter in the end is whether or not there was consent. We will see what happens, but I certainly am not dismissing this just yet. From the start I did not think anything would come of the criminal charges (see Big Ben or the University of Arkansas basketball players), but was extremely concerned about how the University's judicial system would handle it.

[Hawk]

The University's policy concerning consent when I was a student a handful of years ago and the inability of a female to give consent if she is intoxicated is what concerns me based on knowing an individual expelled from the University because of it and what has been said about the incident namely the time of the incident and Lacledes being mentioned. This would make me believe alcohol was involved. Obviously it will be a he said she said, but the only thing that will really matter in the end is whether or not there was consent. We will see what happens, but I certainly am not dismissing this just yet. From the start I did not think anything would come of the criminal charges (see Big Ben or the University of Arkansas basketball players), but was extremely concerned about how the University's judicial system would handle it.

We have to see how this gets played out in the University judicial system. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of suspension handed down. I'd say worst case scenario though would probably be missing one or more of the alleged players for first semester. So many unknowns in this situation though that is obviously pure speculation. Best case would be no (external) suspensions and dealing with 'classy' opponents fans with signs that say 'no means no.'

[TheChosenOne]

We have to see how this gets played out in the University judicial system. I wouldn't be surprised to see some kind of suspension handed down. I'd say worst case scenario though would probably be missing one or more of the alleged players for first semester. So many unknowns in this situation though that is obviously pure speculation. Best case would be no (external) suspensions and dealing with 'classy' opponents fans with signs that say 'no means no.'

Yeah, I guess it all depends on the University's ruling, but unless they have some kind of punishment I don't see why there would be any punishment from Majerus as far as suspensions since there were no charges.

[cheeseman]

I was referring to the actual crime that would be committed. To be charged with sexual assault there must be intercourse. And you are correct, intercourse does require penetration. If charged with a crime for squeezing a butt or a feel of the breast, the crime would be sexual abuse. Of course this is not the same in every state, but that's how it is in good ole MO.

OK - I understand your points - the question I have is if there was penetration then why would there not have DNA to test?

[cheeseman]

I have to believe these players will be sitting in front of the University's judicial board in the near future. Just because no criminal charges were brought does not mean this issue is dead. A female student still believes she was raped and I would think the case will go through the University's judicial system. At least the case is dead for now from the criminal side and will be out of the public.

Why would this Judicial Board even get involved. They surely do not hear every complaint a student makes against another student. Also, once she went to the police then did she not get her chance at justice? so the Board would be putting themselves in a very bad place. I would think they would choose not hear it.

[cheeseman]

The University's policy concerning consent when I was a student a handful of years ago and the inability of a female to give consent if she is intoxicated is what concerns me based on knowing an individual expelled from the University because of it and what has been said about the incident namely the time of the incident and Lacledes being mentioned. This would make me believe alcohol was involved. Obviously it will be a he said she said, but the only thing that will really matter in the end is whether or not there was consent. We will see what happens, but I certainly am not dismissing this just yet. From the start I did not think anything would come of the criminal charges (see Big Ben or the University of Arkansas basketball players), but was extremely concerned about how the University's judicial system would handle it.

First of all you are assuming something actually happened and for now there is not any proof that anything did happen. So, to assume that the idea of "consent" is even relevant here is not known - as I said for all we know nothing happened. Now truth be told I am not that naive to think that absolutely nothing happened but who says she is anymore right then them?

[jjray]

Obviously it will be a he said she said,

Agree with your post except for that one line. Nobody knows that, period. We don't know what was in the police report. We don't know what came back from the medical exam at the hospital (i.e., whether there were marks on her body indicating a struggle). We don't know if anyone in the building heard yelling through the walls. All we know is that a female student made an allegation, the police investigated, forwarded it to the prosecutor, and they declined to prosecute. Prosecutors in the city decline to prosecute cases every day with much better evidence than "he said, she said". The prospect of a city jury (and the quality of the defense team) can loom large in these decisions. All we know is that the case was not strong when viewed against a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. I only bring the issue up to dampen the sentiment that the players are now in the clear with the university. No, we should still be holding our breadth.

p.s. I acknowledge that it is still possible the players are exonerated.

[jjray]

OK - I understand your points - the question I have is if there was penetration then why would there not have DNA to test?

Possible answer, condom.

[saluki762]

Why would this Judicial Board even get involved. They surely do not hear every complaint a student makes against another student. Also, once she went to the police then did she not get her chance at justice? so the Board would be putting themselves in a very bad place. I would think they would choose not hear it.

This is far from over. I would expect J Board at a minimum and if the victim really wants to pursue this, expect a civil trial. This quote from KMOV should tell you she feels it isn't over. This probably will not end quickly.

http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Police-inve...e-92920699.html

"After the St. Louis prosecutor said there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against a group of St. Louis University atheletes in an alleged sexual assault on campus, the victim's attorney said they will pursue the matter through the university's Office of Conduct."

[davidnark]

I would be really, really surprised if the university took action against these players--who have adamantly denied wrongdoing--when the prosecutors elected not to take action. None of us know the facts, but if they were wrongfully accused, they may be the victims. Now, I surmise it is likely that Majerus may penalize the players for violating his team rules, but there is a good chance we will never know about it.

[davidnark]

"After the St. Louis prosecutor said there wasn't enough evidence to warrant charges against a group of St. Louis University atheletes in an alleged sexual assault on campus, the victim's attorney said they will pursue the matter through the university's Office of Conduct."

As an alleged victim, I am not entirely clear why she has an attorney in the matter. Regardless, her attorney can threaten whatever he wants, but it doesn't mean anything. If the players want, they can hire an attorney who can respond by publicly threatening to bring a claim for false charges and/or defamation. This is standard grandstanding for trial attorneys. A civil suit would get really, really ugly for all sides, particularly the alleged victim.

[saluki762]

As an alleged victim, I am not entirely clear why she has an attorney in the matter. Regardless, her attorney can threaten whatever he wants, but it doesn't mean anything. If the players want, they can hire an attorney who can respond by publicly threatening to bring a claim for false charges and/or defamation. This is standard grandstanding for trial attorneys. A civil suit would get really, really ugly for all sides, particularly the alleged victim.

I didn't say I think a civil trial will happen. "If" the alleged female victim really believes she was assaulted she should stick to her guns and make sure this doesn't end. The fact that she is having an attorney comment leaves me to believe that she thinks this is far from over.

[joe_davola]

I would be really, really surprised if the university took action against these players--who have adamantly denied wrongdoing--when the prosecutors elected not to take action. None of us know the facts, but if they were wrongfully accused, they may be the victims. Now, I surmise it is likely that Majerus may penalize the players for violating his team rules, but there is a good chance we will never know about it.

+1

I'm sure there may be some internal 'case' going on, but like I said earlier, I don't think anything will come of it. In all honesty, I don't know how this 'SLU Judicial Board' does their business. Do they do any investigating? Do they talk to witnesses? Bottom line...I don't think they will do anywhere near the amount of investigating compared to what has already been done, so it is their word against hers. How is this group supposed to know who is telling the truth and who is not?

[AB34]

The only point I made is that it ain't over. No one knows whether it is just a "he said, she said" situation. The fact that there was no prosecution does not necessarily lead to that conclusion. There could be additional circumstantial evidence against the players but not enough for the prosecutors to believe they could have run the gauntlet of a St Louis city jury. Further, the standard that the university discipline board will apply shall be much lower than the prosecutors would have faced. Without a criminal conviction, the matter may end up in a grey area left total up to the discretion of the SLU administration. You have to know Larry ain't happy. How he deals with it is anyone's guess.

+1

[AlumniFan]

How does one call the police if one is too intoxicated to provide consent? Serious question.

[kmbilliken]

Doesn't anyone consider it possible the DA determined the players were telling the truth?

If the DA thought the alleged victim was right and just couldn't prove it, she wouldn't have issued that statement. She would have let this sit for a while to see if one of them gets nervous and decides to flip. She thinks the players are telling the truth. Thats why the statement was issued. To lay this to rest.

[Clock_Tower]

Everyone is free to have their own opinions. I admit that I have no inside info either. With that said, I do NOT think this is just a "he said" "she said" case.

Where's the physical evidence?

1. Blood alcohol reports? Was the victim as drunk or possibly more drunk?

2. Toxicology reports about what drugs, if any, were in the victim's blood. Any date rape drugs?

3. Rape kit results?

4. DNA test results? Hair fibers?

Condoms don't explain all of the above. Heck, David Caruso and CSI Miami could get a confession/conviction based upon anyone of these.

Who corroborates each side's story?

Yes, the victim usually will have no witness. That's what makes physical evidence so important.

What was the physical condition/state of mind of the victim at the time?

If drunk, passed-out, high BAC, poor memory, foggy of no real recollection, then physical evidence and witness corroboration are all that's left.

Basically, physical evidence, or the lack thereof, speaks volumes. Good attorneys, and it sounds like good ones were representing the boys, know how to spin this.

[For-DaLove]

Everyone is free to have their own opinions. I admit that I have no inside info either. With that said, I do NOT think this is just a "he said" "she said" case.

Where's the physical evidence?

1. Blood alcohol reports? Was the victim as drunk or possibly more drunk?

2. Toxicology reports about what drugs, if any, were in the victim's blood. Any date rape drugs?

3. Rape kit results?

4. DNA test results? Hair fibers?

Condoms don't explain all of the above. Heck, David Caruso and CSI Miami could get a confession/conviction based upon anyone of these.

Who corroborates each side's story?

Yes, the victim usually will have no witness. That's what makes physical evidence so important.

What was the physical condition/state of mind of the victim at the time?

If drunk, passed-out, high BAC, poor memory, foggy of no real recollection, then physical evidence and witness corroboration are all that's left.

Basically, physical evidence, or the lack thereof, speaks volumes. Good attorneys, and it sounds like good ones were representing the boys, know how to spin this.

What you posted is all true and I'm sure came into play.

There may be no physical evidence because nothing happened.

[Clock_Tower]

What you posted is all true and I'm sure came into play.

There may be no physical evidence because nothing happened.

You're right. How do you prove a negative?

[jjray]

Basically, physical evidence, or the lack thereof, speaks volumes. Good attorneys, and it sounds like good ones were representing the boys, know how to spin this.

Solid points. Good attorneys obviously did spin it well as there were no charges filed. But throw all that out the window when you are talking about a college disciplinary board. There are no rules of evidence nor even standards of proof. Stop thinking about a legal proceeding. That's not what is going to be the next phase of this matter. It's an internal school decision over which the school possesses an immense amount of discretion. There will be no burden of proof. There will be no appeal outside of the university. A panel of administrators will sit as judge and jury guided only by some vague rules in a student handbook or school bylaws. The decision will be made behind closed doors. That said, the lack of evidentiary rules can cut both ways. The players may have reasons why they thought consent was present and will be free to spill whatever dirt can be dredged up. This is going to get ugly but only privately (although a civil suit would blow the whole thing into the media).

Perhaps you on the board arguing that the school will give the players only a slap on the wrist have heard rumors that I'm not privy to. Hope so.

[joe_davola]

Solid points. Good attorneys obviously did spin it well as there were no charges filed. But throw all that out the window when you are talking about a college disciplinary board. There are no rules of evidence nor even standards of proof. Stop thinking about a legal proceeding. That's not what is going to be the next phase of this matter. It's an internal school decision over which the school possesses an immense amount of discretion. There will be no burden of proof. There will be no appeal outside of the university. A panel of administrators will sit as judge and jury guided only by some vague rules in a student handbook or school bylaws. The decision will be made behind closed doors. That said, the lack of evidentiary rules can cut both ways. The players may have reasons why they thought consent was present and will be free to spill whatever dirt can be dredged up. This is going to get ugly but only privately (although a civil suit would blow the whole thing into the media).

Perhaps you on the board arguing that the school will give the players only a slap on the wrist have heard rumors that I'm not privy to. Hope so.

You may be right. I was thinking more in terms of physical evidence, and as someone mentioned above, lack thereof. But I would say you could be right about them throwing all that out the window. No one really knows what these people are going to think. It is a very very sensitive issue. How can you take the chance of kicking students out of a school if they are truly innocent? You are destroying their future for no reason at all other than the fact that someone said something happened. At the same time, how can you ignore a girl that very well could be a victim (God forbid I hope that isn't the case) of a disgusting and dispicable act? All I know is that I would hate to be on that panel I'll tell you that. I honestly think though, at the end of the day, nothing will happen as far as the 'assault' charges are concerned. Now, I don't know about curfews and guys being in a girl's apt after a certain time, but I'm sure they will get nailed for that and who knows what that will entail.