Fall 2017 allegations against unnamed players (aka Situation 2)

[JohnnyJumpUp]

33 minutes ago, Pistol said:

How quickly does this determination normally happen?

Normally within 30 days, but they can take it under advisement and issue charges at a later date but before the statute if limitations is up. It just depends how big of a priority this case is to her. Most of the time, a case like this would be refused immediately by the prosecutor and maybe not even presented to the prosecutor by police, but with the indictment against Greitens I have a feeling this was specifically requested by the prosecutor to be presented.

[Slu let the dogs out?]

14 hours ago, brianstl said:

I know the statue. Posted it here before.  It doesn’t matter.  The female isn’t even claiming her privacy was violated in the Greitens case, but Gardner went out and got herself an indictment.  What is she going to do in a case where one of the girls lawyers is claiming this statue was broken.

I don’t like Greitens. The guy is a complete narcissist, but the charges against him are BS.  I fear Gardner will charge a player to make her Greitens case not look like it is complete political BS.

Indictments are one thing but it's going to be nearly impossible to convict if the victims refuse to cooperate (Greitens or S2). Doesn't make the baseless indictment right, I know. Everything I know about Greiten's victim leads me to believe that she won't say anything unless forced (subpoena?).  While I have no proof, based on everything I've heard from those that have spoken with her, it sounds like she signed a non-disclosure a la Stormy. But I'm rarely right about anything. 

[Bills_06]

6 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Indictments are one thing but it's going to be nearly impossible to convict if the victims refuse to cooperate (Greitens or S2). Doesn't make the baseless indictment right, I know.

Apparently in the Greitens case she may be one of the 3 witnesses.  The question I have in the SLU case, even if the girls cooperate, what did they go to the police with the night of?  According to the lawyers when they first talked, they said the girls gave inconsistent statements to police and SLU which calls into question their credibility.  I think in the SLU case it would be even more difficult to prove if multiple pictures were taken out in the open and the girls originally claimed something else to the police.  Plus add in the fact that I think most people would also question expectation of privacy with 6 people in a room compared to a couple situation.  

[Slu let the dogs out?]

4 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

Apparently in the Greitens case she may be one of the 3 witnesses.  The question I have in the SLU case, even if the girls cooperate, what did they go to the police with the night of?  According to the lawyers when they first talked, they said the girls gave inconsistent statements to police and SLU which calls into question their credibility.  I think in the SLU case it would be even more difficult to prove if multiple pictures were taken out in the open and the girls originally claimed something else to the police.  Plus add in the fact that I think most people would also question expectation of privacy with 6 people in a room compared to a couple situation.  

Wow, well if that's the case it's going to get a lot tougher for ole Eric.

[Bills_06]

3 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Wow, well if that's the case it's going to get a lot tougher for ole Eric.

I don't think it's confirmed but just got that from this article which said, "Greitens’ lover, whom the Post-Dispatch and other media outlets have refrained from naming because she has consistently declined to talk to reporters, is apparently talking to prosecutors."

Link

[gobillsgo]

19 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

Still here. Will be here everyday my friend.

I always thought it was weird that the police investigation kept on going past the Title IX investigation.

Everyone here said it was a favor to Kratky.

I wonder what those folks say now?

Gardner has a real quandry on her hands.

Either drop the charges against Greitens (which she doesn't want to do for political purposes and not charge the player/players. Or, charge Greitens and then have to charge the player/players.

Everyone on this board ignored the filming and posting to Snapchat as it was no big deal.

Evidently it is a big deal.

 

Has the group home been holding your Zyprexa again?  It’s really important that you take your daily dose. 

[Billboy1]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 10:15 AM, SluSignGuy said:

I am unlocking the thread, partly to reduce the amount of pollution of other threads.  

@Tilkowsky...You are trolling.  If you continue to bump this thread, you will be suspended for a month.   If you want to contribute to the discussion about Billikens on the court fine.  But if you appear to continue to troll (even in other threads).  You will be reduced to 0 posts a day.

Out of bounds?

[ACE]

24 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

Apparently in the Greitens case she may be one of the 3 witnesses.  The question I have in the SLU case, even if the girls cooperate, what did they go to the police with the night of?  According to the lawyers when they first talked, they said the girls gave inconsistent statements to police and SLU which calls into question their credibility.  I think in the SLU case it would be even more difficult to prove if multiple pictures were taken out in the open and the girls originally claimed something else to the police.  Plus add in the fact that I think most people would also question expectation of privacy with 6 people in a room compared to a couple situation.  

The Greitens situation also alleges blackmail as a motivation, which I would guess would make it far more serious than anything alleged in S2.

[billikenfan05]

3 minutes ago, ACE said:

The Greitens situation also alleges blackmail as a motivation, which I would guess would make it far more serious than anything alleged in S2.

The problem is that people like Ortiz don't see the difference.

[brianstl]

3 minutes ago, ACE said:

The Greitens situation also alleges blackmail as a motivation, which I would guess would make it far more serious than anything alleged in S2.

Which interestingly, Greitens hasn't been charged with.    That would be the solid thing to charge him with if the evidence existed, instead of trying to get him on a law that has never been used like this before and when the prosecutor doesn't even have the photo in question. 

The fact that Gardner is going after Greitens in the way she has choosen, is what scares me for the players.  She needs to charge someone else under this law so the Greitens case has an appearance of more than a political hit job.

[billiken_roy]

boy i sure hope miss cheerleader is just so proud of herself for this total trainwreck.   and kudos to our wonderful bot, pesty, krafty and stormy.  their help in making things for the worse for everyone but cheery cant be emphasized enough.   i am so proud to be a slu alumni. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

With regard to the police department's presenting the case to the prosecutor, is it possible that some crime other than sexual misconduct is at issue?  It has been "rumored" that the young women provided not just condoms but also alcohol.  (According to rumor, that's what Goodwin was suspended for a semester for, because he's a minor.  The biased do-gooders in SLU's Title 9 office felt they had to punish him for something.)  Weren't the young women also minors?  Could it be that the PD is open to prosecution for minors in possession of alcohol?  A misdemeanor, I'm sure, and it probably won't make the news, but that's what I wonder.

[JohnnyJumpUp]

33 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

With regard to the police department's presenting the case to the prosecutor, is it possible that some crime other than sexual misconduct is at issue?  It has been "rumored" that the young women provided not just condoms but also alcohol.  (According to rumor, that's what Goodwin was suspended for a semester for, because he's a minor.  The biased do-gooders in SLU's Title 9 office felt they had to punish him for something.)  Weren't the young women also minors?  Could it be that the PD is open to prosecution for minors in possession of alcohol?  A misdemeanor, I'm sure, and it probably won't make the news, but that's what I wonder.

Zero chance that is the case

[SShoe]

43 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

With regard to the police department's presenting the case to the prosecutor, is it possible that some crime other than sexual misconduct is at issue?  It has been "rumored" that the young women provided not just condoms but also alcohol.  (According to rumor, that's what Goodwin was suspended for a semester for, because he's a minor.  The biased do-gooders in SLU's Title 9 office felt they had to punish him for something.)  Weren't the young women also minors?  Could it be that the PD is open to prosecution for minors in possession of alcohol?  A misdemeanor, I'm sure, and it probably won't make the news, but that's what I wonder.

Nobody gives a hoot about underage, college drinking in the city of St. Louis.  

[johnbj14]

It is highly unlikely JG was suspended for underage drinking, as the punishment exercised is typically an awareness class and a fine. 

[2010andBeyond]

55 minutes ago, ACE said:

The Greitens situation also alleges blackmail as a motivation, which I would guess would make it far more serious than anything alleged in S2.

Nope. He is charged with invasion of privacy. So far charge Has nothing to do with blackmail or any other motivation. Statute requires a non consensual nude pic or video where there is an expectation of privacy and then subsequent upload to the internet. The difference I see is on expectation of privacy. Two people alone in a basement would likely have this expectation, not sure about a seven party group thing. Also there could be something in the video that suggests the participants know they are being filmed and are ok with it.

Grand jury will review if they are looking at a felony. The uploading to the internet is what makes it a felony so I think that has been established in this case. Will depend on whether circuit attorney kicks it out on expectation of privacy or not. I’m guessing they will pass it to grand jury and let them decide because in light of greitens they will want ultimate consistency/transparancy. 

 

[Bills_06]

Do we know for sure if the video/pictures in this case still exist?  I thought the rumor was it was shared through snapchat and the point of snapchat is for the picture or video to disappear after viewing it (unless a screenshot is taken).  If the picture/video isn't still around in this case and if as the lawyers said the girls gave inconsistent statements, I don't see how there is a case.  Rosenblums comments did basically confirm that a picture was taken though.  This entire thing is very confusing as to what the facts are.  

[BillikenBoy10]

32 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

Do we know for sure if the video/pictures in this case still exist?  I thought the rumor was it was shared through snapchat and the point of snapchat is for the picture or video to disappear after viewing it (unless a screenshot is taken).  If the picture/video isn't still around in this case and if as the lawyers said the girls gave inconsistent statements, I don't see how there is a case.  Rosenblums comments did basically confirm that a picture was taken though.  This entire thing is very confusing as to what the facts are.  

https://www.tomsguide.com/us/snapchat-ftc-settlement,news-18754.html

[razorburn]

1 hour ago, Bills_06 said:

Apparently in the Greitens case she may be one of the 3 witnesses.  The question I have in the SLU case, even if the girls cooperate, what did they go to the police with the night of?  According to the lawyers when they first talked, they said the girls gave inconsistent statements to police and SLU which calls into question their credibility.  I think in the SLU case it would be even more difficult to prove if multiple pictures were taken out in the open and the girls originally claimed something else to the police.  Plus add in the fact that I think most people would also question expectation of privacy with 6 people in a room compared to a couple situation.  

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I thought I'd shed some light on this situation based on my somewhat educated opinion on how the "invasion of one's privacy" is a legally malleable concept. I think most posters are spot-on in that when one acts in the presence of 6 others in a room, that action does not come with an expectation of privacy to those six people. However, one does not inherently consent to the release and dissemination of a video of that act (especially a sexual one) to others outside of the room (via a snapchat video or otherwise). In other words, there's an argument available to anyone who was present for the alleged sexual encounter to say, "Yes, I consented to all the actions in the room. Yes, I consented to being video taped. But, I did not consent to publishing the video on social media and acts deemed private among those in the room and made available on video on social media. Therefore, my privacy [as I reasonably expected it to be to those outside of the room] was invaded." That's what I believe the crux of this situation is. 

Further, even if the video was removed from social media or the internet, there are rules of evidence that will allow for the recovery of the meta-data/ account activity history of anyone who is alleged to have posted the video on the internet/ social media app. They can use this information to put some of the pieces to the puzzle as to when this could have been possibly posted together. 

As to the "inconsistent statements" argument, there's some shaky ground there no doubt. But, the inconsistent statements could be related to the sexual assault issue and not necessarily the invasion of privacy issue.  

Feel free to disagree, but this is my speculation as to why the one who allegedly videotaped and posted this video could be in hot water... 

[billiken_roy]

16 minutes ago, razorburn said:

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I thought I'd shed some light on this situation based on my somewhat educated opinion on how the "invasion of one's privacy" is a legally malleable concept. I think most posters are spot-on in that when one acts in the presence of 6 others in a room, that action does not come with an expectation of privacy to those six people. However, one does not inherently consent to the release and dissemination of a video of that act (especially a sexual one) to others outside of the room (via a snapchat video or otherwise). In other words, there's an argument available to anyone who was present for the alleged sexual encounter to say, "Yes, I consented to all the actions in the room. Yes, I consented to being video taped. But, I did not consent to publishing the video on social media and acts deemed private among those in the room and made available on video on social media. Therefore, my privacy [as I reasonably expected it to be to those outside of the room] was invaded." That's what I believe the crux of this situation is. 

Further, even if the video was removed from social media or the internet, there are rules of evidence that will allow for the recovery of the meta-data/ account activity history of anyone who is alleged to have posted the video on the internet/ social media app. They can use this information to put some of the pieces to the puzzle as to when this could have been possibly posted together. 

As to the "inconsistent statements" argument, there's some shaky ground there no doubt. But, the inconsistent statements could be related to the sexual assault issue and not necessarily the invasion of privacy issue.  

Feel free to disagree, but this is my speculation as to why the one who allegedly videotaped and posted this video could be in hot water... 

ONE........not all four.   all four have been forever tarnished.    

[Bills_06]

8 minutes ago, razorburn said:

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I thought I'd shed some light on this situation based on my somewhat educated opinion on how the "invasion of one's privacy" is a legally malleable concept. I think most posters are spot-on in that when one acts in the presence of 6 others in a room, that action does not come with an expectation of privacy to those six people. However, one does not inherently consent to the release and dissemination of a video of that act (especially a sexual one) to others outside of the room (via a snapchat video or otherwise). In other words, there's an argument available to anyone who was present for the alleged sexual encounter to say, "Yes, I consented to all the actions in the room. Yes, I consented to being video taped. But, I did not consent to publishing the video on social media and acts deemed private among those in the room and made available on video on social media. Therefore, my privacy [as I reasonably expected it to be to those outside of the room] was invaded." That's what I believe the crux of this situation is. 

Further, even if the video was removed from social media or the internet, there are rules of evidence that will allow for the recovery of the meta-data/ account activity history of anyone who is alleged to have posted the video on the internet/ social media app. They can use this information to put some of the pieces to the puzzle as to when this could have been possibly posted together. 

As to the "inconsistent statements" argument, there's some shaky ground there no doubt. But, the inconsistent statements could be related to the sexual assault issue and not necessarily the invasion of privacy issue.  

Feel free to disagree, but this is my speculation as to why the one who allegedly videotaped and posted this video could be in hot water... 

Yea I don't disagree but I guess my question is wouldn't what you posted be more of the reason why states are adding "revenge porn" laws?  I am far from a lawyer so feel free to correct me but currently there isn't a "revenge porn" law in Missouri which I feel would be exactly what you posted; consensual sex and video/picture being taken but it would be illegal to distribute without consent.  

According to this article, there is a bill in Missouri that is being discussed that, "would outlaw "non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images." An amendment added by Neely also would ban people from threatening to distribute those images."

If they are going after the same charge as Greitens which is the "invasion of privacy" statue, would it pass either of the two criteria if there isn't an "expectation of privacy" with 6 people?  

[brianstl]

25 minutes ago, razorburn said:

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I thought I'd shed some light on this situation based on my somewhat educated opinion on how the "invasion of one's privacy" is a legally malleable concept. I think most posters are spot-on in that when one acts in the presence of 6 others in a room, that action does not come with an expectation of privacy to those six people. However, one does not inherently consent to the release and dissemination of a video of that act (especially a sexual one) to others outside of the room (via a snapchat video or otherwise). In other words, there's an argument available to anyone who was present for the alleged sexual encounter to say, "Yes, I consented to all the actions in the room. Yes, I consented to being video taped. But, I did not consent to publishing the video on social media and acts deemed private among those in the room and made available on video on social media. Therefore, my privacy [as I reasonably expected it to be to those outside of the room] was invaded." That's what I believe the crux of this situation is. 

Further, even if the video was removed from social media or the internet, there are rules of evidence that will allow for the recovery of the meta-data/ account activity history of anyone who is alleged to have posted the video on the internet/ social media app. They can use this information to put some of the pieces to the puzzle as to when this could have been possibly posted together. 

As to the "inconsistent statements" argument, there's some shaky ground there no doubt. But, the inconsistent statements could be related to the sexual assault issue and not necessarily the invasion of privacy issue.  

Feel free to disagree, but this is my speculation as to why the one who allegedly videotaped and posted this video could be in hot water... 

Doesn't privacy by the definition of the word require seclusion from the observation or presence of others?  The law that people could be charged under in MO requires a reasonable expectation of privacy and consent only applies to the recording itself.    Consent to the recording is not needed if the people involved do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No further consent is required to disseminate the recording.  

[razorburn]

4 minutes ago, Bills_06 said:

Yea I don't disagree but I guess my question is wouldn't what you posted be more of the reason why states are adding "revenge porn" laws?  I am far from a lawyer so feel free to correct me but currently there isn't a "revenge porn" law in Missouri which I feel would be exactly what you posted; consensual sex and video/picture being taken but it would be illegal to distribute without consent.  

According to this article, there is a bill in Missouri that is being discussed that, "would outlaw "non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images." An amendment added by Neely also would ban people from threatening to distribute those images."

If they are going after the same charge as Greitens which is the "invasion of privacy" statue, would it pass either of the two criteria if there isn't an "expectation of privacy" with 6 people?  

Good question. Revenge porn and invasion of privacy are not exclusive of each other. Revenge porn likely constitutes an invasion of privacy and charges could likely be brought under both theories of law. However, not all invasions of privacy cases are revenge porn cases. I haven't done a deep dive of the revenge porn statute in MO, but my limited understanding is that the plaintiff must satisfy the "revenge" element, meaning there's retribution; black mailing, etc. (I think a poster correctly alluded to this above). You don't need to satisfy this revenge element to prove that your privacy was violated. You simply need to show some reasonably private element of your life was exposed. 

Now, if the prosecutor can some how prove that all three/four players conspired to post the video (which would be extremely difficult to prove), all of them could be in hot water... 

I'm actually a huge bills fan and supporter; not trying to be overly-negative here. Just wanted to offer some brief speculation of what could unfold. I have a few more thoughts on how I think this could play out, but I'm gonna get back to billing some hours... Looking forward to next season. 

[razorburn]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

Doesn't privacy by the definition of the word require seclusion from the observation or presence of others?  The law that people could be charged under in MO requires a reasonable expectation of privacy and consent only applies to the recording itself.    Consent to the recording is not needed if the people involved do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. No further consent is required to disseminate the recording.  

The bolded is not necessarily true. If one reasonably expect a recording to remain private (as private sex tapes usually are), you would need consent to post that recording on social media. Further, there's heightened expectation of privacy that comes with actions in the bedroom (even in there are 2+ parties involved), but I will not get into the nitty gritty there. 

[JohnnyJumpUp]

11 minutes ago, razorburn said:

Good question. Revenge porn and invasion of privacy are not exclusive of each other. Revenge porn likely constitutes an invasion of privacy and charges could likely be brought under both theories of law. However, not all invasions of privacy cases are revenge porn cases. I haven't done a deep dive of the revenge porn statute in MO, but my limited understanding is that the plaintiff must satisfy the "revenge" element, meaning there's retribution; black mailing, etc. (I think a poster correctly alluded to this above). You don't need to satisfy this revenge element to prove that your privacy was violated. You simply need to show some reasonably private element of your life was exposed. 

Now, if the prosecutor can some how prove that all three/four players conspired to post the video (which would be extremely difficult to prove), all of them could be in hot water... 

I'm actually a huge bills fan and supporter; not trying to be overly-negative here. Just wanted to offer some brief speculation of what could unfold. I have a few more thoughts on how I think this could play out, but I'm gonna get back to billing some hours... Looking forward to next season. 

The element of the crime that states the photo/video must be obtained in a place where one would have reasonable expectation of privacy, can't be met in a 7 person g@ng b@ng. If that element is not met, then the additional element involving the sharing of the photo/video, which would turn it into a felony, would not matter since all elements of the crime need to be met to be considered a crime.