Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[TheChosenOne]

12 minutes ago, brianstl said:

What irks me is she labels the the players as perpetrators of sexual assault and the proceeds to only accuse them of actions that are not a crime much less sexual assault.  That should really upset anyone who cares about the issue of sexual assault.

This is where I am at. We have a statement from the woman that essentially lays out the situation which in those words comes down to the players not understanding consent when it comes to videoing/photographing yet is primarily focused on the term agreed to (explicit vs. implicit). It's a real shame that is what is being argued about in comparison to the punishment they have received.

[brianstl]

Did someone at SLU hire Nate Gatter to do PR on this case or was it the girl’s father?  That statement today was basically the same case Gatter tried to make with Hochman yesterday on Twitter.  It seems just a little too coincidental that SLU’s sloppy email came out yesterday, a recent college grad sports media professional tries to engage Hochman yesterday about changing the tone of the story and then that guy’s same sloppy case to Hochman is used in a press release from one of the lawyers representing the female.

[SLU_Lax]

12 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

This is where I am at. We have a statement from the woman that essentially lays out the situation which in those words comes down to the players not understanding consent when it comes to videoing/photographing yet is primarily focused on the term agreed to (explicit vs. implicit). It's a real shame that is what is being argued about in comparison to the punishment they have received.

If she argues that as men (and sexual assaulters) they could not understand what consent is or when consent is received, I would love to see the players' lawyer retort that as a white person (and a racist) they could not understand what consent is or when it is received.  Of course that kind of nonsense would go nowhere, but it would make me feel better.  This whole thing is a joke.  It is fascinating to see that SLU (who has always been awful at marketing and PR) seems to be trying to engage in a PR/Marketing campaign on this issue.  SLU will find out that they are terribly unskilled at it and will make things way worse for themselves.

The accuser's lawyer certainly just made things WAY worse for the accuser and did not help one bit.

[juniorbill76]

7 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Did someone at SLU hire Nate Gatter to do PR on this case or was it the girl’s father?  That statement today was basically the same case Gatter tried to make with Hochman yesterday on Twitter.  It seems just a little too coincidental that SLU’s sloppy email came out yesterday, a recent college grad sports media professional tries to engage Hochman yesterday about changing the tone of the story and then that guy’s same sloppy case to Hochman is used in a press release from one of the lawyers representing the female.

Do you mean Nate Gatter, the voice of the Grizzlies and recent SPUMAC grad?

[billikenfan05]

Just now, juniorbill76 said:

Do you mean Nate Gatter, the voice of the Grizzlies and recent SPUMAC grad?

Yes

[Slu let the dogs out?]

6 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Did someone at SLU hire Nate Gatter to do PR on this case or was it the girl’s father?  That statement today was basically the same case Gatter tried to make with Hochman yesterday on Twitter.  It seems just a little too coincidental that SLU’s sloppy email came out yesterday, a recent college grad sports media professional tries to engage Hochman yesterday about changing the tone of the story and then that guy’s same sloppy case to Hochman is used in a press release from one of the lawyers representing the female.

I thought the exact same thing. Without going back and comparing his twitter rant and the statement released today, if their text isn't verbatim it's pretty darn close. Pretty convenient that during his back and forth with Hochman, he conveniently skipped over the language which you have previously cited about the expectation of privacy. 

[Spoon-Balls]

1 hour ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

2. what does the police report say? I'm curious to see if their original claims in the police report were sexual assault. As someone pointed out on here, who goes to the hospital at 2:30am because someone took a video of you? I'm curious to see if their narrative started shifting once the police started poking big holes in their stories. 

3. If their story did change, isn't filing a false police report illegal? So SLU frowns upon pictures and videos (even if it was determined to not be illegal during an investigation) and doles out punishments ranging from 18 months suspension to expulsion but looks the other way for Class B misdemeanors punishable by up to six months in the house of correction?

 

These two points are key. There is absolutely no excuse for SLU letting false "assault" claims slide while doling out what is essentially 4 expulsions to the men who were participating in this consensual situation..... 

[NextYearBill]

I am sooooo tired. I need a new hobby 

[kmbilliken]

The way the statement is worded it is clear all sexual contacted was consented to. It is also clear she was aware she was being filmed and made no attempt to stop it or complain about it, which to me would imply consent. Their complaint is because did verbally express her consent, their is no consent so she was the victim of a sexual assault. It doesn't get much weaker than that, but apparently at SLU that is all it takes. This case is going to cost SLU a lot.

[billikenfan05]

Just now, NextYearBill said:

I am sooooo tired. I need a new hobby 

I took up going to the gym only problem is I find myself reading the board when I’m waiting on machine I want to open 

[moytoy12]

1 minute ago, kmbilliken said:

The way the statement is worded it is clear all sexual contacted was consented to. It is also clear she was aware she was being filmed and made no attempt to stop it or complain about it, which to me would imply consent. Their complaint is because did verbally express her consent, their is no consent so she was the victim of a sexual assault. It doesn't get much weaker than that, but apparently at SLU that is all it takes. This case is going to cost SLU a lot.

I'm sure they argued that she/they couldn't give effective consent because of (a) alcohol and/or (b) duress/intimidation.  While I don't believe either of those to be the case, those are two instances where a person cannot give effective consent under the SLU policy. 

[Pred Festello]

After a lot of pressure from my brother in law to make my voice heard instead of only being a reader of the Board, here I am.

I read on this Board how somebody stated that the girls involved in this must have plenty of experience getting around, as you don't go from A-Z in one night.  I think that was very well stated.  That being said, it perplexes me that this girl released a statement.  It appears there is video evidence of this being consensual and somebody said this was a planned event.  If that is the case, how is there any way this girl will not be brought to light at some point soon?  I would think we will know her name and then from there, somebody will find a picture and that will stay with the girl for a long time.  This girl's attorney said these women will deal with this for many years to come.  That I believe, but not in the way she is painting the picture.  This girl basically got caught doing something she more than likely she has experience with.  Even if she was a 1st timer in a 6-7 person sexual romp, she has sexual experience.  Now all of a sudden - mom, dad, and family know about all of this.  I would have been somewhat traumatized if my parents knew some of the stuff I did and would be mortified if they saw video evidence of it.  In the day and age of social media, it won't be long before tons of people will know who she is and what she did.  I have a feeling this is going to backfire huge. not just for SLU, but for the girl and her family.  

Look, if she was truly raped or sexually assaulted in the way most of us know those terms, she should ABSOLUTELY seek justice and hopefully that justice would be far worse for the guys than just not playing basketball for SLU.  It doesn't appear that is the case though.  At the end of the day, many of us are pretty sure it was a consensual thing.  If we find out it was much worse than we all know, then I applaud her bravery.  However, if it were,  they would have been arrested and charges would be filed.  They weren't which makes it almost clear that little "Olivia Orgy" will be regretting this for many years.  And by regret, I mean forcing this forward to the point where the punishment doesn't fit the situation.  Apparently, she's getting advice that pushing hard towards justice for something she willingly did is better than acknowledging her mistake to herself and to make better choices for herself in the future.  After all, she can only control that, and not the negative attention that will ultimately come her way.  When that happens, all future men should stay clear of this woman in all regards and for many reasons.

[brianstl]

About the only thing the other side did right was decision on which lawyer to have release the statement.  Having the woman who does pro bono work for abused women and children was a smart move to try to generate sympathy.

[NextYearBill]

Had a good conversation with my conservative mother.... she wonders if this girl had a goal in mind from the jump.... everyday you read about million dollar settlements for #metoo "victims"... maybe she concocted a scheme?  This lil ****** is devioussssss regardless of outcomes. EXPEL HER ASS FOR BEING A ***** 

[willie]

47 minutes ago, kmbilliken said:

The way the statement is worded it is clear all sexual contacted was consented to. It is also clear she was aware she was being filmed and made no attempt to stop it or complain about it, which to me would imply consent. Their complaint is because did verbally express her consent, their is no consent so she was the victim of a sexual assault. It doesn't get much weaker than that, but apparently at SLU that is all it takes. This case is going to cost SLU a lot.

If this is truly the case against the 4 it angers me to no end. It might merit a 3 game suspension,super duber probation and 20 hours of community service. It can’t be this simple. There has to be more. The University just can’t be that stupid. 

[TGSLU]

Certainly beyond my comprehension that someone can take my photo without my objection (i.e., I know my photo is being taken) and then I can later say I did not consent to being photographed.  I also fail to see the argument that non consent to the photo transformed a consensual sexual act into a nonconsensual sexual act.  Further, unless all of the male participants took photos I fail to see how they are all subject to the same punishment.  Facts are still missing here.  I can understand her remorse that her photo was taken but if these girls initiated the activities and supplied the condoms, etc. they seem at least equally guilty. 

[billikens747]

Did AD change his twitter profile back? It has pictures of him in SLU gear (I assuming) and the statement about being a pro ball player is gone.

[DeSmetBilliken]

4 minutes ago, billikens747 said:

Did AD change his twitter profile back? It has pictures of him in SLU gear (I assuming) and the statement about being a pro ball player is gone.

I think it was his Instagram account that had the stuff about being a pro basketball player.

[eskimo]

2 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

I thought the exact same thing. Without going back and comparing his twitter rant and the statement released today, if their text isn't verbatim it's pretty darn close. Pretty convenient that during his back and forth with Hochman, he conveniently skipped over the language which you have previously cited about the expectation of privacy. 

Maybe not just a coincidence?

http://law.slu.edu/people/robert-gatter

[davidnark]

5 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

I think it was his Instagram account that had the stuff about being a pro basketball player.

I saw the change in Twitter as well yesterday. 

[BillsBeliever!!!]

14 minutes ago, billikens747 said:

Did AD change his twitter profile back? It has pictures of him in SLU gear (I assuming) and the statement about being a pro ball player is gone.

What does "I Am Second" mean?

[HoosierBilliken]

It is only getting worse for SLU.  Pestello and the Title IX office colluding in releasing a statement that tried to drum up sympathy only confirms no actual sexual assault occurred.    

1.  "It was difficult, in the beginning, to expect that the victims would get a fair hearing when the basketball program is so important to the University."  - How about the accused finding it difficult to get a fair hearing when every one of the twelve people in SLU's Title IX office were women, for all intents and purposes?  

2.  "Of course, the accused do not feel they have done anything wrong."  - They didn't do anything illegal.  Having an orgy on campus is "wrong," which all were guilty of.   

3.  "They do not feel that they did anything wrong because they felt completely entitled to do what they did, as most who commit sexual assault do. - Again, they didn't commit sexual assault according to your statement and by Missouri State Statute.  They felt videotaping was okay probably because the women with low morals were engaging in a debaucherous act in a group setting that would make a normal person think that these women wouldn't care. 

4.  They do not understand what consent means."  - Did "they" all videotape the debauchery or was it one person?  If the men were rude to the women who engaged in debauchery with men they did not really know, then they shouldn't be surprised if something is said that hurts their feelings.  

5.  "A person knowing that the act is being filmed or photographed is not consent. The person must actually agree to being filmed or photographed."  - You forgot to mention that it depends upon if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.  A group setting whittles away at that expectation of privacy.

6.  "If they don't agree and they don't have any way to stop what is happening, there is no consent. There was no consent in this case, and the attorney for some of the accused admitted as much when he stated in the January 19, 2018 Post-Dispatch article that the victims 'realized there were pictures being taken.' If they had consented to this activity, they would not have 'realized' it. They would have known."  - Could Implied Consent apply here?  Implied Consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the fact and circumstances of a particular situation (or by a person's silence or inaction).  I believe in a civil suit, which SLU will lose, a jury will be able to consider implied consent on the part of the women, whom the attorneys may portray in a poor light due to their own culpability in engaging in such lasciviousness and debauchery.  Where is the personal responsibility on their part?

Your victims don't make good victims for purposes of a jury at this point, unless there is something else to this.

Write the check Pestello.  It appears the Title IX process overreached and SLU created a system of institutional bias against men. 

The statement from the orgy survivor's attorney did not help.

[billikens747]

13 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said:

I think it was his Instagram account that had the stuff about being a pro basketball player.

I went back and checked Stu's tweet and you're right, it was his Instagram. His Instagram has not changed. 

[HoosierBilliken]

New topics for SLU Title IX program:

Surviving Orgies 101

Biography: How I Survived an Orgy and Destroyed the Lives of Men in the Process

Orgies are for Women, Not for Men

How Bad Feelings Can Be Sexual Assault

A Jury of 12 Women Is Always Fair

Men Bad, Women Good

Being Happy About Men's Misfortunes

Surviving Orgies 202

Intermediate Surviving Orgies

Certification on Surviving Orgies

[CBFan]

17 minutes ago, HoosierBilliken said:

It is only getting worse for SLU.  Pestello and the Title IX office colluding in releasing a statement that tried to drum up sympathy only confirms no actual sexual assault occurred.    

1.  "It was difficult, in the beginning, to expect that the victims would get a fair hearing when the basketball program is so important to the University."  - How about the accused finding it difficult to get a fair hearing when every one of the twelve people in SLU's Title IX office were women, for all intents and purposes?  

2.  "Of course, the accused do not feel they have done anything wrong."  - They didn't do anything illegal.  Having an orgy on campus is "wrong," which all were guilty of.   

3.  "They do not feel that they did anything wrong because they felt completely entitled to do what they did, as most who commit sexual assault do. - Again, they didn't commit sexual assault according to your statement and by Missouri State Statute.  They felt videotaping was okay probably because the women with low morals were engaging in a debaucherous act in a group setting that would make a normal person think that these women wouldn't care. 

4.  They do not understand what consent means."  - Did "they" all videotape the debauchery or was it one person?  If the men were rude to the women who engaged in debauchery with men they did not really know, then they shouldn't be surprised if something is said that hurts their feelings.  

5.  "A person knowing that the act is being filmed or photographed is not consent. The person must actually agree to being filmed or photographed."  - You forgot to mention that it depends upon if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.  A group setting whittles away at that expectation of privacy.

6.  "If they don't agree and they don't have any way to stop what is happening, there is no consent. There was no consent in this case, and the attorney for some of the accused admitted as much when he stated in the January 19, 2018 Post-Dispatch article that the victims 'realized there were pictures being taken.' If they had consented to this activity, they would not have 'realized' it. They would have known."  - Could Implied Consent apply here?  Implied Consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the fact and circumstances of a particular situation (or by a person's silence or inaction).  I believe in a civil suit, which SLU will lose, a jury will be able to consider implied consent on the part of the women, whom the attorneys may portray in a poor light due to their own culpability in engaging in such lasciviousness and debauchery.  Where is the personal responsibility on their part?

Your victims don't make good victims for purposes of a jury at this point, unless there is something else to this.

Write the check Pestello.  It appears the Title IX process overreached and SLU created a system of institutional bias against men. 

The statement from the orgy survivor's attorney did not help.

Really well done.

If all that happened was an orgy and pictures then the women must be punished for filing a false police report.

I am sure somewhere in SLU code of conduct rules would state filing a false police report against a student and bearing false witness is wrong and that student will be punished.