This made me laught
- Thread starter dgibbons
- Start date
There’s a reason I talk to my daughters about their safety in a setting where alcohol is involved. There are alternative explanations for her memory loss. Beyond a reasonable doubt was built on alternative explanations.
You don’t have to think JS is a good guy to know why he wouldn’t have been convicted. I believe she did settle a civil suit against Stevens. Obviously the burden of proof in a civil suit is very different.
What do you tell your daughters—don’t drink around husky football players or you might get raped?
So she let him tear her rectum willingly, certainly that’s a likely scenario right? Because the excruciating pain that must cause would certainly be something willingly allowed, no doubt.
How about just don’t over drink and especially around crowds of people you don’t know? How about don’t leave your friends and don’t let your friends leave you?
But the issue was whether if two drunk kids engage in sexual conduct and one has no memory of it, how do I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other acted criminally?
Having the prosecuting attorney in your back pocket makes it a lot easier for thugs to be thugs. Sorry you can’t follow that.
Maleng used his position to enable violent criminals to continue their behavior without recourse because of his allegiance to the university and the football program.
Yes, she brought it all on herself.
I’d say a torn rectum is beyond reasonable to believe someone would willingly endure that.
To the point of hospitalization? Uh, generally no. Using your logic, no one can ever be convicted of rape because sex is often consensual. I see now. The beauty of it for JS is, she was probably too incapacitated to say no, so therefore it was consensual, and even if she did say no, ol' Normy didn't have a videotape recording of the entire event so he just didn't have enough evidence to go through with a prosecution.
Last edited:
She wasn’t ever hospitalized. Whether excessive drinking left her incapacitated or simply uninhibited would have been a question the defense would have used to obtain an almost certain acquittal. You don’t have to believe JS was innocent to recognize that he wouldn’t have been convicted.
The theory that Norm Maleng decided to sell his soul in defense of Stevens runs contrary to everything we know about Maleng and his character and his three decades as prosecutor.
If you want to argue that Stevens’s time at the UW is embarrassing to the UW, and that he got coddled by Lambo and Neuheisel because he had football talent, I’d wholeheartedly agree.
Not much made me happier than when Ferris with Karstetter and Casto dropped a hundie on Franklin with Venoy and Peyton Siva in the state semi-finals. A first class asshat.
Whoa baby! When a Ferris win can have made O11 that happy....you KNOW it’s a momentous, meaningful event!!
Wow. I have been known to say things that are a little over the line, but you are so far over the line you can't even see it.
Perhaps the ability to discuss the facts of the case eludes you. I’m glad you don’t prosecute sex crimes for a living. It requires delving into unpleasant topics.
Last edited:
You really should find a better place to express your views....better yet, delete your account. Your posts are making me very uncomfortable. To the point of being sick to my stomach. Blood sucking lawyer with no conscience. GTFO!
Do you really want to discuss it?
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...-star-player-received-raft-of-second-chances/
Read it at the time. Is this article a substitute for your ability to engage? The topic was Maleng and whether a conviction could have been obtained. If the issue was the UW athletic department, I doubt we disagree much.
His DNA was on her. Her friends took her home from a party because she was so out of it, and may have been slipped a date rape drug. Go ahead and read this and explain how she consented, especially when the prosecutor's office concluded it was unlikely she consented to anal intercourse.
Too squeamish to discuss the case?
Stevens had two things in his favor: (1) this was before the #MeToo movement; and (2) he was a football star.
Is it reasonable to doubt? No, only if you’re someone trying to protect the program. Norm was a disgrace.
Too squeamish? "Unlikely" was their conclusion, but why? What was the reasonable doubt? Seems to me that the prosecutors had plenty of doubt about their own decision not to prosecute.
They were questioned about it a lot. Which prosecutor disagreed with the decision? “Unlikely” is why Marie was able to obtain a settlement in a civil suit. “Unlikely” is also why a criminal conviction wasn’t in the cards.
So all you can do is repeat a conclusion over and over.
What was the reasonable doubt" I'll even copy the portion of the article re the decision not to prosecute.
When prosecutors decide not to charge someone, they typically write a “decline” letter to police, explaining their reasons. The decline letter in the Stevens case, labeled “confidential,” included some damning language that never made it into Maleng’s news conference.
“It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said.
But, the letter added, jurors “could find reasonable doubt.”
The case hinged on Marie’s mental and physical state — and whether she was capable of consenting to sex.
The decline letter says an eyewitness who called 911 to report a possible rape in progress described Marie as “conscious and standing.” But, according to police reports, he also described her as “half passed out against a building … like she was drugged or drunk.”
The decline letter says Marie’s friends “describe her as standing, making limited conversation, and making decisions.” But, according to police reports, her friends described her as “unable to keep her balance,” having “slurred speech” and “acting like she was drugged.” One friend told police: “She couldn’t really talk or stand.”
The decline letter says: “None of her friends appeared afraid for her welfare.” But, according to police reports, one friend tried to take away her keys. Two others drove her home. Marie’s sorority was nearby, but she was unfit to walk, one friend told police.
The prosecutors’ decision not to charge Stevens “devastated” Marie, Parker said. She “did not feel supported by the prosecutor’s office at all.”
doubt? I'll even copy and paste the portion of the article regarding the decision not to prosecute.
Last edited:
I’m beginning to think you’re serious. The reasonable doubt was over whether she consented. “Unlikely” doesn’t feed the bulldog in a criminal case. Didn’t you take civics in high school?
I think you're intellectually dishonest. You're unable to explain what the reasonable doubt was? Go ahead and read the article and explain the reasonable doubt on the consent issue.
I think you need to read the article. It contains a very fair description of the problem with the case from a prosecution standpoint. The only question is whether you’re actually this obtuse or whether you’re just pretending.
I did read it. That's why I know it says this:
When prosecutors decide not to charge someone, they typically write a “decline” letter to police, explaining their reasons. The decline letter in the Stevens case, labeled “confidential,” included some damning language that never made it into Maleng’s news conference.
“It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said.
But, the letter added, jurors “could find reasonable doubt.”
The case hinged on Marie’s mental and physical state — and whether she was capable of consenting to sex.
The decline letter says an eyewitness who called 911 to report a possible rape in progress described Marie as “conscious and standing.” But, according to police reports, he also described her as “half passed out against a building … like she was drugged or drunk.”
The decline letter says Marie’s friends “describe her as standing, making limited conversation, and making decisions.” But, according to police reports, her friends described her as “unable to keep her balance,” having “slurred speech” and “acting like she was drugged.” One friend told police: “She couldn’t really talk or stand.”
The decline letter says: “None of her friends appeared afraid for her welfare.” But, according to police reports, one friend tried to take away her keys. Two others drove her home. Marie’s sorority was nearby, but she was unfit to walk, one friend told police.
The prosecutors’ decision not to charge Stevens “devastated” Marie, Parker said. She “did not feel supported by the prosecutor’s office at all.”
Good luck with your career as a prosecutor! Conflicting witness statements are a real winner in that arena.
Very succinct. He didn’t prosecute a Husky football player to a virtually certain acquittal. Very bad man.
"Conflicting" witness statements are the norm. If by conflicting you mean that the prosecutors office looked for reasons and not to prosecute Stevens, and looked for ambiguity where there really wasn't any.
You have a letter from the prosecutor's office saying "It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said.
What is the reasonable doubt? A witness statement said she couldn't talk or stand. How did she consent?
Certain acquittal? From the context of the article, the police and prosecutors appeared focused on a second degree rape charge. RCW 9A.44.050:
(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
(a) By forcible compulsion;
(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;
(c) When the victim is a person with a developmental disability and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:
(i) Has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense;
(d) When the perpetrator is a health care provider, the victim is a client or patient, and the sexual intercourse occurs during a treatment session, consultation, interview, or examination. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the client or patient consented to the sexual intercourse with the knowledge that the sexual intercourse was not for the purpose of treatment;
(e) When the victim is a resident of a facility for persons with a mental disorder or chemical dependency and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and has supervisory authority over the victim; or
(f) When the victim is a frail elder or vulnerable adult and the perpetrator is a person who is not married to the victim and who:
(i) Has a significant relationship with the victim; or
(ii) Was providing transportation, within the course of his or her employment, to the victim at the time of the offense.
Again, you have a witness saying she couldn't stand or talk.
And you had witnesses saying she was conscious and making decisions. Would your cherry picking witness statements be an example of your intellectual honesty?
You're looking for a reason not to prosecute, rather than at the evidence. "Conscious" and "unable to stand or talk" do not contradict each other. The prosecutor's own letter said "It seems highly unlikely that the victim would have consented to anal intercourse with the suspect in a fraternity alley,” the letter said.
No. I’m looking at a bunch of football fans who apparently have no clue what the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution is. They are swift to defame one of the most respected members of my community because their hatred of their football rival is that intense. It’s a little sick, really.
2 things, mutt.
1. Was Norm your Dad, or what?
2. Feel free to go away. You are perpetuating this thread with your crap.
What's sickening is what Stevens got away with, and your pal Norm enabled some of that.
One uw football fans wants to use the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution to excuse misconduct. That's also pretty sick.
