kshoe Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Unfortunately, most casual fans and St. Louisans will read the Post Dispatch version of the incident rather than the RFT version. Here is what the Post wrote: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/slu/article_b0d76ac8-3ceb-5bd9-badd-a0f0aa2d1173.html?mode=story "Once at the apartment, the woman told police she went into a bedroom with Mitchell, where they kissed and fondled each other. When Mitchell began to remove her pants and underwear she told him to stop and said she wanted to leave. She said she did not physically resist "but remembers thinking that she wanted to be anywhere else than in that bedroom. …" When Mitchell left the bedroom, he smiled and gave another player the OK to enter, the police report said." Here is what the RFT wrote: "At some point," the report continues, "[Redacted] started to remove the victim's pants and underwear. The victim objected to this action by telling the suspect that she wanted to 'stop' and that she 'wanted to leave.'" The woman told police that Mitchell "stopped his advances" and "began to tell her things like 'you don't have to leave' and 'don't worry.'" Her "concern over what was occurring rose and fell over the course of this brief conversation," but, ultimately, she "felt more secure." According to the woman, Mitchell then "stood up from the bed and removed his clothes," then slipped back between the sheets and continued to make out with his eventual accuser. She made it clear to police that this was "a mutual act," but what happened next, she claimed, was not. Mitchell "removed the victim's pants and underwear," and told her that "everything was alright," the woman reported. She "did not physically resist," but told police that "she remembers thinking that she wanted to be anywhere else than in that bedroom...she had verbally expressed that she did not want to go any further than kissing however she now found herself naked in the bed" with him. Mitchell "produced" a condom, which he "asked the victim to help him put it all the way on." The woman told detectives that "she did not want to have sex...however she felt powerless to stop the act." She said she "wished only for this incident to be over," so she helped Mitchell put on the condom." The average person that doesn't read the report will get an entirely different take on what happened. Thanks for the hack job Post. And I hope nobody defends the post by saying there wasn't enough space to get the details in there correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick and Roll Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 The Post sucks. My hometown paper back in Indiana is better than the Post and their operation is pretty weak. When I moved here I had a subscription for a month and immediately canceled it; I haven't had a subscription since. My brother-in-law tells me often that if you want to read the story first then pick up the RFT. He is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted November 20, 2010 Share Posted November 20, 2010 Not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. The Post is no friend to SLU or to the Catholic Church. It is also interesting that the Post almost immediately closed the comments when people began to point out that the article was fundamentally flawed and misleading. Censorship by a liberal paper? Hmmmmm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooch1918 Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Are you guys saying the Post-Dispatch was MORE damaging than what the RFT made available? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Are you guys saying the Post-Dispatch was MORE damaging than what the RFT made available? Yes, because the Post used selective information as opposed to full disclosure and the selective information appears to have been selected by someone at the Post to make it look like an assault as opposed to what it really was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 Yes, because the Post used selective information as opposed to full disclosure and the selective information appears to have been selected by someone at the Post to make it look like an assault as opposed to what it really was. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted November 21, 2010 Share Posted November 21, 2010 If they would have added a sentence referring to her helping put the condoms on most readers dismiss the assault allegation. Leave it out and they think where's there's smoke there's fire. They obviously want to make it more newsworthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.