STLMPD Police Report

[BillikenDoc]

Like BillikenDoc, this is my first post to the forum. Unlike BillikenDoc, I read the have read the boards several times a day for years. For some reason, I have never had the inclnation to comment. Also unlike BillikenDoc, BillikenRoy, CheeseyCow, etc., I am not an idiot. It is because of the attitudes and so called "morality" and character of individuals such as the aforementioned we are even faced with this entire BS situation. Wake up people, the world is not as squeaky clean as you would all like to imagine. It never has been and it will never be. If we do not welcome back KM and WR with open arms, it will make this disaster even more pathetic.

Funny you should mention that you have read the boards several times a day for years. So have I. So if that's your criteria for establishing credibility, then I'm right there with you. Again, I take these personal attacks on me as evidence that my points are on target. If that's all you got . . .

[BillikenDoc]

Where have you been. Thank god you finally showed up. We have been waiting on an "expert" to distill for us exactly happened. Seriously, your "expert" judgment is absurd. Thankfully the hacks in the STL Prosecutor's office got this one right and chose not to ruin these men's lives based on the allegations of this "victim." At no point does the she provide facts to support a rape or a sexual assault. It's evident she regretted her actions but her statement as to her own actions suggest she was a willing participant. She was not restrained, threatened, drugged, etc. There is no disputing she was capable of consent. And when she withheld that consent when JJ tried to climb aboard, the train came to an abrupt halt.

I seriously doubt the prosecutor's office based their decision on that. It's simply if they have strong enough evidence to go to court - not should we "ruin these men's lives." And honestly, everyone's lives are ruined here, hers too. I really feel bad for the guys - not out to get them in any way. But their own actions ruined their lives and no one else's. It is not evident that she regretted her actions. Either you have ESP and can read people's internal emotions and thoughts or you are just talking BS. Her actions suggest she did not give consent. Funny that rape to you only can happen when there is physical force, a weapon, a drug. If you know anything about sexual violence you would know that the overwhelming majority of cases do not invovle any of those things. Oh and one last thing, being capable of giving consent does not mean that it was given.

[billikenbilly]

BillikenDoc - I have a problem with what you are saying. As an attorney who has handled sexual assault cases before, I will tell you that the lawyers who handle these cases would NOT view this as assault. Neither would the judges involved. I will also say that almost every attorney who needs a medical expert to say an incident constituted assault can find one. Your opinion is completely subjective. You hold a very lax view of what constitutes assault. And, in a lot of ways, it is very dangerous. This girl never said no. Sure, at some point, she expressed some hesitation. That was before people started getting naked and before she put a condom on people. You are taking the minority view - a feminist view - that if a girl expressed uneasiness at any point during an encounter, then anything that happens after that is assault so long as she regrets it. This is the kind of view that allows women to exculpate themselves from blame. It is also the kind of view that most of the world, including most doctors, view as ridiculous.

So when you come on the board and pound your chest about your opinion as a physician, please put a disclaimer on it. Most doctors would not agree with your opinion.

Funny you should mention that you have read the boards several times a day for years. So have I. So if that's your criteria for establishing credibility, then I'm right there with you. Again, I take these personal attacks on me as evidence that my points are on target. If that's all you got . . .

[ACE]

This is my first post on the forum; have to say that I joined just to reply to these threads and issues but have been a Billiken fan since the mid-1980's and became season ticket holder last year. I am a loyal fan and have supported the program, players and coaches for a long time.

I am appalled by what is in the police report. I am an expert in sexual violence and a clinical psychologist who has worked with rape survivors and with persons who have assaulted others. I can say in my professional opinion that it was sexual assault; both by KM and JS. Although WR did not sexually assault her, he was a witness to a crime and did nothing to help the victim; he watched her be assaulted. That does justify the university action against him. How would you feel about a person who stood by and enjoyed watching you be assaulted by someone else?

It does not matter that she willingly kissed or got into bed with KM or flirted with him earlier in the night. A person can say stop at any time or point which she did. It's clear from the police report that she was afraid and intimidated. Putting on a condom does not equal consent. This is not a case of her regretting things afterwards. So what if she made bad decisions - does that justify raping a person if they make stupid decisions? Come on people where is your humanity!

Doc, I'm sure you can understand the skepticism by some on the board. To help alleviate that, can you share with us your background? Where you have worked, your education, training, etc... a little more about your professional qualifications. Thanks

[Bizziken]

I did not offer any diagnosis. It does not require an interview to make a determination if a person was sexually assaulted. Granted I am relying only upon the information in the police report, so if that information is wrong, then I would reconsider my conclusion. But it's not necessary for me to speak with her to identify the fact that she did not give consent.

The victim in this case was transported to St. Mary's Hospital via ambulance. This strongly implies she was examined by some type of professional. Again, I believe some sort of examination/interview is required before you can make an informed and accurate determination that a sexual assault occurred. As this board so aptly proves, the police report isn't as black and white as you make it seem. (No pun intended)

[Pistol]

Just to interject with something here, people are throwing the term 'feminist' around inaccurate in several posts. A feminist is someone who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. It's that simple.

The feminist stance is not automatically to defend a female in every male vs. female situation, and a reasonable feminist would look at this entire case before passing judgment. Problem is, there are unreasonable people on both sides- those who have rushed to this girl's defense and reacted against Mitchell and Reed harshly with no knowledge of the details, and those who have painted those people and all reasonable people who have expressed concer, discomfort, disappointment, or anger over the situation and the players' behavior as feminists in a euphemistic manner.

That's completely unfair, as people have every right to be upset, disappointed, and confused about what happened May 1st. It's also completely understandable that people rushed to this girl's defense based on what she said and how potentially frightening it could be as a woman helpless against four men. It's also understandable that feminist groups on SLU's campus are particularly outspoken about this, given that they have not been allowed to even perform a certain play on campus where 100% of proceeds are donated to women's charities. I just wish they would have talked to the players and girl and waited to see all details before rushing to judgment (past Una members I've known would have handled it better).

That said, let me be clear that I do not think rape occurred that night, nor do I think charges should have been pressed, nor do I think the judicial board handled this case properly, though I do think the remaining players should have been punished in some way because of their extremely poor judgment.

But please stop using 'feminist' as a euphemism against everyone you disagree with in this case. 'Feminazi' is even worse; you might find certain feminists to be self-righteous, abrasive, or disagreeable, but I'm pretty sure that people advocating women's rights aren't Nazis. I don't know where the calling-opponents-Nazis trend started, but that's really ugly, dangerous language.

[jbizzle09]

Just to interject with something here, people are throwing the term 'feminist' around inaccurate in several posts. A feminist is someone who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. It's that simple.

The feminist stance is not automatically to defend a female in every male vs. female situation, and a reasonable feminist would look at this entire case before passing judgment. Problem is, there are unreasonable people on both sides- those who have rushed to this girl's defense and reacted against Mitchell and Reed harshly with no knowledge of the details, and those who have painted those people and all reasonable people who have expressed concer, discomfort, disappointment, or anger over the situation and the players' behavior as feminists in a euphemistic manner.

That's completely unfair, as people have every right to be upset, disappointed, and confused about what happened May 1st. It's also completely understandable that people rushed to this girl's defense based on what she said and how potentially frightening it could be as a woman helpless against four men. It's also understandable that feminist groups on SLU's campus are particularly outspoken about this, given that they have not been allowed to even perform a certain play on campus where 100% of proceeds are donated to women's charities. I just wish they would have talked to the players and girl and waited to see all details before rushing to judgment (past Una members I've known would have handled it better).

That said, let me be clear that I do not think rape occurred that night, nor do I think charges should have been pressed, nor do I think the judicial board handled this case properly, though I do think the remaining players should have been punished in some way because of their extremely poor judgment.

But please stop using 'feminist' as a euphemism against everyone you disagree with in this case. 'Feminazi' is even worse; you might find certain feminists to be self-righteous, abrasive, or disagreeable, but I'm pretty sure that people advocating women's rights aren't Nazis. I don't know where the calling-opponents-Nazis trend started, but that's really ugly, dangerous language.

Well said, Pistol. Well f'n said!

[BillikenDoc]

First of all, clinical psychologists don't determine whether or not a crime has been committed. That's a legal issue and the prosecutors determined no crime had been committed. I know you feel compelled to defend the girl after other posters claim no crime was committed but rendering a medical opinion in this case based on the police report crosses the line. Medical opinions should not be issued third-hand by reading a police report without personally interviewing the alleged victim and gathering further evidence.

American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Section 9.01 b. Bases for Assessments--

[P]sychologists provide opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals only after they have conducted an examination of the individuals adequate to support their statements or conclusions.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=5#204

>>does that justify raping a person if they make stupid decisions? Come on people where is your humanity!<<

Both sides made stupid decisions. That's the point. She bares part of the blame. The list of bad decisions she made that night is long starting with approaching a player she didn't really know at 3:00 a.m. outside a bar and going back to his apartment. Her actions appear in the report to be quite consensual up to the point JS entered the room and he's gone from the university. I think everyone would have been fine after reading the report if JS had been suspended or expelled. I would think most people after reading the report are fine with KM getting suspended for a semester. That said, I will personally welcome Kwamain back with open arms after he serves his suspension. I think he made a bad choice. He's served his punishment and it will be time for him to continue life in January.

Finally a reasonable response to my post, so thank you. This is not a court of law or a medical consulting room, this is a discussion board. So my opinion is not given in any official professional role but as a private individual who has the education and experience to lend some insight into these matters. I have the same rights as everyone here to share that personal view. Yes, both sides made bad choices, but that does not mean she is to blame. Again, poor judgment is not a rapable offense. We agree on one thing; I would welcome Kwaimain back with open arms too. He will serve his punishment and hopefully comes out of this a better person and I wish him nothing but success.

[BillikenDoc]

This is my 910th post on the forum; have to say that I continue to reply to these threads and issues because I have been a Billiken fan since the late 1990's and became a season ticket holder this year. I am a loyal fan and have supported the program, players and coaches for a long time.

I am appalled by the punishments handed to the players after seeing that no criminal activity took place, although bad judgement did. I am an expert in sexual violence and clinical psychologist. I can say in my professional opinion that it wasn't criminal sexual assault and therefore Willie didn't witness a sexual assault.

I guess its one clinical psychologist against another.

Even if you think no crimes took place, getting a college degree is not a right but a priviledge; especially student athletes on scholarship. If the university decided they violated student code of conduct, then SLU has every right to punish them. I seriously doubt that you are an expert in sexual violence. You may be a psychologist, but that alone does not qualify you to be an expert.

[Bizziken]

Finally a reasonable response to my post, so thank you. This is not a court of law or a medical consulting room, this is a discussion board. So my opinion is not given in any official professional role but as a private individual who has the education and experience to lend some insight into these matters. I have the same rights as everyone here to share that personal view. Yes, both sides made bad choices, but that does not mean she is to blame. Again, poor judgment is not a rapable offense. We agree on one thing; I would welcome Kwaimain back with open arms too. He will serve his punishment and hopefully comes out of this a better person and I wish him nothing but success.

Your first post says: "in my professional opinion"

[ACE]

Your first post says: "in my professional opinion"

Exactly. I noticed the "Doc" sidestepped a request to provide a little more information about his "professional" background.

[BillikenDoc]

I have one simple question: Based on the transcript, why do you believe her, but not the guys? (After reading the transcript, I, in NO WAY, think there was anything illegal that happened at all.) What if she is lying and has nearly destroyed two people's lives in an attempt to make herself feel better about her reckless actions? Do we just accept what she said automatically? What if she is exaggerating what happened to make herself look like more like a victim? (I do not see her as a victim, just a young girl who is embarrassed and full of regret, not to mention remarkably immature in her decision making abilities.) Also, you claim to be an "expert" who has "worked with rape survivors" and you have an opinion that this was a sexual assault. What if Willie did not think it was an assault at all, but instead, two people having a good time? He is not an expert yet you somehow hold him to this higher plane where he is supposed to be able to discern what is and is not assault in a dark bedroom at 4:00 in the morning in what is, at most, an ambiguous situation. For someone who purports to be such an expert and so well educated, your comments do not seem to be particularly well thought out.

I want to be clear, I am not defending anyone regarding what happened that night. I am not naive - I know what goes on between college kids, young adults, middle aged adults, and old adults. It may not be what I would choose to do, but unless it is truly a unilaterally forcible action, it is to remain between the participants no matter how repulsive it may be to others.

Now, what the parents of this woman and the University did was well-calculated and highly intentional. If the University felt the actions of that night were truly equivalent to a sexual assault, they did not need to convene a student court 6 months later; they should have expelled those deemed responsible and done everything possible to bring charges against those they felt were responsible. They chose NOT to do so.

What the University did much later choose to do is to provide a forum for this woman and her parents to effectively present a case as to why the woman was not responsible for her actions. The University further constructed this forum in a manner that allowed the woman to have her parents present and a licensed, practicing attorney present for her. However, they lured the guys into this same forum, reportedly prevented their parents from being present, and prevented them from having adequate legal counsel present. What happened that night, happened between a bunch of kids who had ALL of their hormones raging and had been drinking; call it clouded judgement. What the University and the parents undertook, on the other hand, was a calculated, deliberate plan that is totally inconsistent with the idea of social justice that I learned at Saint Louis University.

I just ask that everyone, including the "experts" think about this for a second.

Thank you for this well thought out and constructive post. The reasons why I believe her are many. First is the research done on false reporting. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies study and publish statistics on how often false crimes are reported. The rate of false sexual assault is less than 5% of all sexual crimes reported; about the same rate as other types of crimes that are falsely reported. Second, why in the world would any person, man or woman, falsely report sexual assault given what they are in for? Look at some of these posts - rude, sexist, and demeaning things said about her. People attacking her character and questioning her behavior. Her entire sexual history and past relationships are up for public discussion or ridicule. She has nothing to gain from a false report except humiliation and anguish.

As for your great comment about Willie, you acknowledge it was an ambiguous situation and I agree that most young men would see it that way. But if it's not clear that what's happening is okay, then a reasonable young man with a conscience would consider stepping in to make sure no one is getting harmed. He didn't do this which is sad. Certainly not a crime, but still could be seen by the university (not me) as a violation of the student code of conduct. Yes, I do hold student-athletes to a higher standard. They are given much and have a higher profile on campus than the rest of the student body. They know they represent the university in a public way. It's a lot to ask of a young adult, but that's the reality of Div I college sports. Really I feel bad for Willie but he was there. I guess SLU sees it as guilt by association. I would not have treated him and KM the same given their different roles in what happened and understand why his family is so angry.

You raise some great concerns about how the university handled the process and I agree. I am familiar with how different universities handle judicial hearings like this and I can say that SLU made some mistakes and need to improve how they handle cases like this. I do not have any problem with the 6 month delay though. It takes time for people to decide what their options are and if they want to pursue any action or not.

[BillikenDoc]

I hope that you realize in your feminist standpoint... that you make women look totally inferior by assuming that shes too scared, weak or naive to leave, say no, or not participate *in a mocking voice pretending to cry. Your justification for her is moot when it makes her look so lowly. I understand not wanting to cause waves and agreeing sometimes just to keep everyone else happy, but not when it is something serious like this... If you want to support women, teach them to nut up and say no i don't want to do this and then NOT DO IT...

Not at all. I disagree with you completely. This is not a phenomenon that is specific to women alone. Children and men who are sexually abused can and do exhibit the same kind of reactions. People go into a state of shock when being exposed to traumatic events. Happens all the time in other situations like car accidents, etc.

[billikenfan05]

Thank you for this well thought out and constructive post. The reasons why I believe her are many. First is the research done on false reporting. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies study and publish statistics on how often false crimes are reported. The rate of false sexual assault is less than 5% of all sexual crimes reported; about the same rate as other types of crimes that are falsely reported. Second, why in the world would any person, man or woman, falsely report sexual assault given what they are in for? Look at some of these posts - rude, sexist, and demeaning things said about her. People attacking her character and questioning her behavior. Her entire sexual history and past relationships are up for public discussion or ridicule. She has nothing to gain from a false report except humiliation and anguish.

As for your great comment about Willie, you acknowledge it was an ambiguous situation and I agree that most young men would see it that way. But if it's not clear that what's happening is okay, then a reasonable young man with a conscience would consider stepping in to make sure no one is getting harmed. He didn't do this which is sad. Certainly not a crime, but still could be seen by the university (not me) as a violation of the student code of conduct. Yes, I do hold student-athletes to a higher standard. They are given much and have a higher profile on campus than the rest of the student body. They know they represent the university in a public way. It's a lot to ask of a young adult, but that's the reality of Div I college sports. Really I feel bad for Willie but he was there. I guess SLU sees it as guilt by association. I would not have treated him and KM the same given their different roles in what happened and understand why his family is so angry.

You raise some great concerns about how the university handled the process and I agree. I am familiar with how different universities handle judicial hearings like this and I can say that SLU made some mistakes and need to improve how they handle cases like this. I do not have any problem with the 6 month delay though. It takes time for people to decide what their options are and if they want to pursue any action or not.

My theory is that she legitimately believed she was sexually assaulted. I would contend that she wasn't by Willie or Kwamain. I don't think she thought she was falsely reporting.

[Billiken Rich]

Finally a reasonable response to my post, so thank you. This is not a court of law or a medical consulting room, this is a discussion board. So my opinion is not given in any official professional role but as a private individual who has the education and experience to lend some insight into these matters. I have the same rights as everyone here to share that personal view. Yes, both sides made bad choices, but that does not mean she is to blame. Again, poor judgment is not a rapable offense. We agree on one thing; I would welcome Kwaimain back with open arms too. He will serve his punishment and hopefully comes out of this a better person and I wish him nothing but success.

You would welcome someone you considered guilty of sexual assault back on the team with open arms?

[Billiken Rich]

Just to interject with something here, people are throwing the term 'feminist' around inaccurate in several posts. A feminist is someone who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. It's that simple.

Pistol,

If you do not see a vein of male hatred running through even the more mainstream feminist literature you aren't looking very hard.

[dlarry]

You would welcome someone you considered guilty of sexual assault back on the team with open arms?

BillikenDoc isnt even using the term sexual assualt he has been saying rape.

So he would let a rapist back on the team.

[Pistol]

Pistol,

If you do not see a vein of male hatred running through even the more mainstream feminist literature you aren't looking very hard.

Rich, thanks for keeping up on your mainstream feminist literature. That's truly unexpected.

As for 'male hatred', I think you're being a bit dramatic. Some of it might be present in some of that literature/non-fiction, but to call feminists as a whole 'male haters' is wholly inaccurate.

Also, attacking feminists just for being feminists just fuels the fire. Treat everyone as equals and you won't hear much from them.

[kevinfootes]

Just to interject with something here, people are throwing the term 'feminist' around inaccurate in several posts. A feminist is someone who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. It's that simple.

The feminist stance is not automatically to defend a female in every male vs. female situation, and a reasonable feminist would look at this entire case before passing judgment. Problem is, there are unreasonable people on both sides- those who have rushed to this girl's defense and reacted against Mitchell and Reed harshly with no knowledge of the details, and those who have painted those people and all reasonable people who have expressed concer, discomfort, disappointment, or anger over the situation and the players' behavior as feminists in a euphemistic manner.

That's completely unfair, as people have every right to be upset, disappointed, and confused about what happened May 1st. It's also completely understandable that people rushed to this girl's defense based on what she said and how potentially frightening it could be as a woman helpless against four men. It's also understandable that feminist groups on SLU's campus are particularly outspoken about this, given that they have not been allowed to even perform a certain play on campus where 100% of proceeds are donated to women's charities. I just wish they would have talked to the players and girl and waited to see all details before rushing to judgment (past Una members I've known would have handled it better).

That said, let me be clear that I do not think rape occurred that night, nor do I think charges should have been pressed, nor do I think the judicial board handled this case properly, though I do think the remaining players should have been punished in some way because of their extremely poor judgment.

But please stop using 'feminist' as a euphemism against everyone you disagree with in this case. 'Feminazi' is even worse; you might find certain feminists to be self-righteous, abrasive, or disagreeable, but I'm pretty sure that people advocating women's rights aren't Nazis. I don't know where the calling-opponents-Nazis trend started, but that's really ugly, dangerous language.

+1

BTW, the people throwing around nazi accusations are typically the ones losing the debate. If you don't have what it take to win with logic, go with a smear.

[Billiken Rich]

Rich, thanks for keeping up on your mainstream feminist literature. That's truly unexpected.

As for 'male hatred', I think you're being a bit dramatic. Some of it might be present in some of that literature/non-fiction, but to call feminists as a whole 'male haters' is wholly inaccurate.

Also, attacking feminists just for being feminists just fuels the fire. Treat everyone as equals and you won't hear much from them.

I certainly do not equate feminists with male hated as a whole. I prefer to read and listen to feminists like Camille Paglia and Tammy Bruce, both of which abhor seeing women cast in the role of victims in their every dealings with men and society as a whole.

Try reading Catherine McKinnon and Andrea Dworkin if you'd need evidense of male hatred in feminist literature, though I'll admit they are not necessarily in society's mainstream. They are in the mainstream at many universities......

You'd likely be surprised at the selections available in my library.

[Major Majerus]

But please stop using 'feminist' as a euphemism against everyone you disagree with in this case. 'Feminazi' is even worse; you might find certain feminists to be self-righteous, abrasive, or disagreeable, but I'm pretty sure that people advocating women's rights aren't Nazis. I don't know where the calling-opponents-Nazis trend started, but that's really ugly, dangerous language.

While I would never voluntarily listen to Rush Limbaugh, who I consider a hater, I have been present when others had him on the radio. [my in-laws and my house cleaners(!)] He used that word many times on the few occasions I heard him. It's an ugly word...but possibly descriptive for a very few... Not a necessary word, imo.

[BillikenDoc]

BillikenDoc - I have a problem with what you are saying. As an attorney who has handled sexual assault cases before, I will tell you that the lawyers who handle these cases would NOT view this as assault. Neither would the judges involved. I will also say that almost every attorney who needs a medical expert to say an incident constituted assault can find one. Your opinion is completely subjective. You hold a very lax view of what constitutes assault. And, in a lot of ways, it is very dangerous. This girl never said no. Sure, at some point, she expressed some hesitation. That was before people started getting naked and before she put a condom on people. You are taking the minority view - a feminist view - that if a girl expressed uneasiness at any point during an encounter, then anything that happens after that is assault so long as she regrets it. This is the kind of view that allows women to exculpate themselves from blame. It is also the kind of view that most of the world, including most doctors, view as ridiculous.

So when you come on the board and pound your chest about your opinion as a physician, please put a disclaimer on it. Most doctors would not agree with your opinion.

I respect your opinion as an attourney. But I'd like to correct some things you have wrong. I am not a physician and have never claimed to be one. I am a psychologist, not an MD. I'm sure you would agree with me that judgements made in a court of law do not always perfectly reflect the truth of what actually happened. As you point out, views will differ among experts, judges and juries. That's to be expected given human nature; no person can be completely free of bias or subjectivity. That does not mean my view is "completely subjective." Your views are biased too by your own experiences and beliefs to a degree as well.

My view on consent is not lax at all. The law does not require the person to state "no" in order to establish that an assault took place. Consent requires the presence of a yes, not the absence of a no. You point out she expressed "uneasiness" or doubt - clearly not a yes. A person should stop and find out for sure if that happens. I know most people don't agree with me and that's ok. Majority opinions can be wrong sometimes. You suggest that women only do this to exculpate themselves; in my professional experience that has never been the case. Even in cases where the person was clearly physically forced or had a weapon used, the victim still tries to blame themselves. Psychologically, it's a way to try and denfend against the realization that they were powerless. Much easier to think that there must have been something they could have to done to prevent it or stop it.

Happy to put any disclaimer on my views that you put on yours.

[BillikenDoc]

Doc, I'm sure you can understand the skepticism by some on the board. To help alleviate that, can you share with us your background? Where you have worked, your education, training, etc... a little more about your professional qualifications. Thanks

Yes, I can totally understand people's skepticism and doubt. In fact, I expected it. I'd like to share some of my background, but reserve the right to my privacy too. So here is what I will share. I have a master's degree in counseling psychology and a doctoral degree in clinical psychology. I have worked full time in clinical practice for over a decade. I've worked in a variety of settings; hospitals, community mental health centers, but mostly in university settings. So not only do I have a background in sexual assault/trauma but also within the setting of higher education. I'm licensed in the state of Missouri and also teach part-time at the undergraduate and graduate levels in psychology. In addition, I'm a clinical supervisor meaning I train and supervise graduate students who are doing internships/practica as part of their degree requirements.

I can provide more details if you like, but I'm not comfortable giving out specific information regarding where I have worked.

[BillikenDoc]

The victim in this case was transported to St. Mary's Hospital via ambulance. This strongly implies she was examined by some type of professional. Again, I believe some sort of examination/interview is required before you can make an informed and accurate determination that a sexual assault occurred. As this board so aptly proves, the police report isn't as black and white as you make it seem. (No pun intended)

No actually that's not true. Depending on a number of variables, there might not be any tissue damage that is visible to a medical doctor upon exam. For example if someone did not physically resist or try to get away, there may be no injuries. If verbal coersion was used instead of force, etc.

[BillikenDoc]

Just to interject with something here, people are throwing the term 'feminist' around inaccurate in several posts. A feminist is someone who advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. It's that simple.

The feminist stance is not automatically to defend a female in every male vs. female situation, and a reasonable feminist would look at this entire case before passing judgment. Problem is, there are unreasonable people on both sides- those who have rushed to this girl's defense and reacted against Mitchell and Reed harshly with no knowledge of the details, and those who have painted those people and all reasonable people who have expressed concer, discomfort, disappointment, or anger over the situation and the players' behavior as feminists in a euphemistic manner.

That's completely unfair, as people have every right to be upset, disappointed, and confused about what happened May 1st. It's also completely understandable that people rushed to this girl's defense based on what she said and how potentially frightening it could be as a woman helpless against four men. It's also understandable that feminist groups on SLU's campus are particularly outspoken about this, given that they have not been allowed to even perform a certain play on campus where 100% of proceeds are donated to women's charities. I just wish they would have talked to the players and girl and waited to see all details before rushing to judgment (past Una members I've known would have handled it better).

That said, let me be clear that I do not think rape occurred that night, nor do I think charges should have been pressed, nor do I think the judicial board handled this case properly, though I do think the remaining players should have been punished in some way because of their extremely poor judgment.

But please stop using 'feminist' as a euphemism against everyone you disagree with in this case. 'Feminazi' is even worse; you might find certain feminists to be self-righteous, abrasive, or disagreeable, but I'm pretty sure that people advocating women's rights aren't Nazis. I don't know where the calling-opponents-Nazis trend started, but that's really ugly, dangerous language.

We may disagree about wheather a sexual assault occurred, but I very much agree with most of what you say here.