Regarding the time to file charges, CNN had the police chief on in a phone interview last week. Said it was an extremely complex case to investigate. 2 possible victims, 7 suspects, dozens of witnesses, multiple crime scenes, and on top of that because most of the people they needed to interview were students, many of them left town, or even the state, before they could talk to them. Even the victim left the state. The chief said in a case like that 18 months to file charges is not all that unusual, and maybe even typical.

Also, he spoke to the comment from Chris Spielman that his son had already been exonerated and he couldn't understand why the police were re-opening the case. The chief said no one was was ever charged or exonerated until these charges were just filed. He said the school may have told the families that they were finished with their internal investigation, but the police never said anything of the sort about any of the suspects.

And if the school thought they had not done anything wrong, why did they make the players do 50 hours of community service? How can a school even force anyone to do community service? True, we don't know the whole story, but at the very least the injuries don't make things look good. Also, if they really left him there alone on a 40 degree night, half naked, I wonder why they don't have a criminal endangerment charge, as left there long enough he could have suffered serious hypothermia.

(09-25-2017 06:10 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-25-2017 05:05 PM)MotoRocket Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 10:18 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 09:28 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  Charge of kidnapping and attempted sodomy - heavy charges but can see how that could be overblown by prosecutor. Still not good. Says he was left half naked on a baseball field and there was aggravated battery involved. Shoulders required surgery. Above everything else, facts are not being presented of what really happened and what each side claims actually happened. After the initial shock of the story, I think it is best to know what the facts are and what happened - and what can be proven to have happened based on the physical evidence from the condition of the victim.

I don't think there's much headroom above that to blow into. There's murder, genocide...

so you think kidnapping is a reasonable charge - or just one that can be made and later pleaded down. They may or may not have taken him against his will. In retrospect of what happened (alleged) - of course the victim is going to say he did not agree to the hazing incident that involved him being tied up and moved to the football field - and thus the charge of kidnapping. If it happened in a dorm room it would them be false imprisonment. Is it real? We don't know.

Same with attempted sodomy. Did they threaten to put their ***** in his mouth (also sodomy) and actually stuck a kielbasa near his face or touching his face as part of the hazing and to scare him? Again, nothing is known - but attempted sodomy seems to leave a lot to question - what does that mean? We don't know.

Then again, there is the fact that you are also presumed innocent until proven guilty. We don't know the facts of what happened and why it took so long for them to be charged. Like I said - this seems very strange after you calm down and think about what was written and what it really means, and assuming that they may actually be innocent. Remember Duke Lacrosse team? I will hold judgment until the facts are proven. Hopefully this prosecutor isn't like the one in the Duke LaX case.

But I don't see your defense of calling them "over blown?" Only "we don't know yet." If we don't know, how can they be called "overblown?" Charges are based upon the accusation, not the final result. Charges are not based upon whether or not they're eventually found innocent. Charges are not judgment. They are not "withheld."

apparently the words "could be" don't weigh in with you, even though you highlighted them. Charges are "trumped up" (I'm sure you've heard that expression before) for various reasons - often when there is no cooperation in an investigation and the prosecutor stretches a bit on something he can charge them with, but likely knows he cannot prove it in court. It is a scare tactic.

Other than that, you said exactly what I said, but in different words.