Showtime 60 Minutes Sports story on UM

[91catAlum]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

[[cat_bracket]]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

When given the opportunity to explain why it didn't go to trial neither FVV or Muir mentioned video evidence. I find that odd if it did exist. Her "friend" was dating one of the players at the party. So she's not a great witness.

[94VegasCat]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

Been three times the legal drunk level and make a decision that you later regretted or lucky enough not to be videotaped?

[tampa_griz]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

Not sure but it wouldn't take long to find out if someone was a willing participant. If someone was trying to put their dick in the mouth of someone that didn't want it there, chances are you'd know pretty quick.

[tampa_griz]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

When given the opportunity to explain why it didn't go to trial neither FVV or Muir mentioned video evidence. I find that odd if it did exist.

It exists. But mentioning it would've been more "piling on the victim". So between the video evidence and the alleged victims' statement and players' statements, it was a lot to overcome.

[[cat_bracket]]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

Been three times the legal drunk level and make a decision that you later regretted or lucky enough not to be videotaped?

English please.

[[cat_bracket]]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

When given the opportunity to explain why it didn't go to trial neither FVV or Muir mentioned video evidence. I find that odd if it did exist.

It exists. But mentioning it would've been more "piling on the victim". So between the video evidence and the alleged victims' statement and players' statements, it was a lot to overcome.

How do you know it exists?

[91catAlum]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

Not sure but it wouldn't take long to find out if someone was a willing participant. If someone was trying to put their dick in the mouth of someone that didn't want it there, chances are you'd know pretty quick.

Actually there's no time limit on when you can say no. And it's possible she did want to "be with" the first guy but not his 3 friends.

[tampa_griz]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

When given the opportunity to explain why it didn't go to trial neither FVV or Muir mentioned video evidence. I find that odd if it did exist.

It exists. But mentioning it would've been more "piling on the victim". So between the video evidence and the alleged victims' statement and players' statements, it was a lot to overcome.

How do you know it exists?

It exists. It's widely been discussed. This is the first time its existence has been called into question.

How do you know it doesn't?

[tampa_griz]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

Not sure but it wouldn't take long to find out if someone was a willing participant. If someone was trying to put their dick in the mouth of someone that didn't want it there, chances are you'd know pretty quick.

Actually there's no time limit on when you can say no. And it's possible she did want to "be with" the first guy but not his 3 friends.

There's a lot of supposition in that statement. Lot's of things are possible. But "possible" and "probable cause" aren't synonymous terms. I didn't see the segment. Did the alleged victim say she wanted to be with one guy and that the other three forced themselves on her?

[[cat_bracket]]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

When given the opportunity to explain why it didn't go to trial neither FVV or Muir mentioned video evidence. I find that odd if it did exist.

It exists. But mentioning it would've been more "piling on the victim". So between the video evidence and the alleged victims' statement and players' statements, it was a lot to overcome.

How do you know it exists?

It exists. It's widely been discussed. This is the first time its existence has been called into question.

How do you know it doesn't?

It exists because it's been widely discussed? Where? I can't find a report about it. Only mentions are on egriz and reader comments. Muri and FVV didn't need to show the video. They could've just said they had it. Instead they showed comments that the DOJ said were coerced.

[91catAlum]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

Not sure but it wouldn't take long to find out if someone was a willing participant. If someone was trying to put their dick in the mouth of someone that didn't want it there, chances are you'd know pretty quick.

Actually there's no time limit on when you can say no. And it's possible she did want to "be with" the first guy but not his 3 friends.

There's a lot of supposition in that statement. Lot's of things are possible. But "possible" and "probable cause" aren't synonymous terms. I didn't see the segment. Did the alleged victim say she wanted to be with one guy and that the other three forced themselves on her?

No she didn't. I'm giving you an example of why the video tape doesn't necessarily refute her story - because the entire incident is not on video.

[[cat_bracket]]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/department ... f-rape-vic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tampa_griz]

That she said "no" and pushed them away seems like plenty to move forward to trial.

Her friend and video evidence refuted that claim though. You can't dismiss that kind of evidence outright. It must be also be part of the equation.

As i understand it, only a small portion of the incident was video taped, is that correct?

Not sure but it wouldn't take long to find out if someone was a willing participant. If someone was trying to put their dick in the mouth of someone that didn't want it there, chances are you'd know pretty quick.

Actually there's no time limit on when you can say no. And it's possible she did want to "be with" the first guy but not his 3 friends.

There's a lot of supposition in that statement. Lot's of things are possible. But "possible" and "probable cause" aren't synonymous terms. I didn't see the segment. Did the alleged victim say she wanted to be with one guy and that the other three forced themselves on her?

No she didn't. I'm giving you an example of why the video tape doesn't necessarily refute her story - because the entire incident is not on video.

OK. But you're making a lot of supposition there. As I mentioned before, most people would know pretty fast if someone didn't want to perform oral sex on someone if they saw it on video. It would just seem obvious.

[tampa_griz]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/department ... f-rape-vic

The DoJ should've tried bringing this up two or three weeks ago. It might have helped them yesterday. It sure couldn't have hurt.

[Sportin' Life]

I too have wondered where this alleged video is aside from egriz rumors. People are supposed to accept it as unassailable evidence of innocence when no one seems to know who exactly has seen it. I don't think I have ever seen a legitimate news source document it.

[tampa_griz]

I too have wondered where this alleged video is aside from egriz rumors. People are supposed to accept it as unassailable evidence of innocence when no one seems to know who exactly has seen it. I don't think I have ever seen a legitimate news source document it.

I think I remember reading about it in one of the linked documents to the original police report. I think it was a Montana NBC affiliate. I remember they blacked-out the names of those involved but you could read them anyway.

[Sportin' Life]

I too have wondered where this alleged video is aside from egriz rumors. People are supposed to accept it as unassailable evidence of innocence when no one seems to know who exactly has seen it. I don't think I have ever seen a legitimate news source document it.

I think I remember reading about it in one of the linked documents to the original police report. I think it was a Montana NBC affiliate. I remember they blacked-out the names of those involved but you could read them anyway.

That definitely could be I don't recall seeing that, but still I wonder how so many people seem to be such experts about what is on that video that I would assume (and I sincerely hope) only a few people have seen.

[tampa_griz]

I too have wondered where this alleged video is aside from egriz rumors. People are supposed to accept it as unassailable evidence of innocence when no one seems to know who exactly has seen it. I don't think I have ever seen a legitimate news source document it.

I think I remember reading about it in one of the linked documents to the original police report. I think it was a Montana NBC affiliate. I remember they blacked-out the names of those involved but you could read them anyway.

That definitely could be I don't recall seeing that, but still I wonder how so many people seem to be such experts about what is on that video that I would assume (and I sincerely hope) only a few people have seen.

Well I'm certain only a small number of people have seen it. But, one could conclude it disagreed with the alleged victim's version of events and that, taken with her friend's statement, led authorities to their decision.

You can't make judgments without a full accounting of the relevant facts.

[91catAlum]

According to last night's program, the decision not to prosecute came primarily from a statement the victim gave during her police interrogation/interview. They asked something to the effect of "are you sure that all the perpetrators knew you did not consent" and her answer was no.

I didn't hear any mention of a video.