xiledinok said:
Oakman had a good lawyer. He would have won SamU's case.
JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
I feel really bad for the young lady. Who in their right mind would lead her on into thinking there is a case there? She was led on for almost 3 years - since April 3, 2016. Unbelievable.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
Not true actually. He would not have had a trial any faster than had he hired a lawyer.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
Why is it ok for you to say Sam U should have been found not guilty but you trash Phil Bennet repeatedly for thinking he would be acquitted at his trial.xiledinok said:
Oakman had a good lawyer. He would have won SamU's case.
PartyBear said:Why is it ok for you to say Sam U should have been found not guilty but you trash Phil Bennet repeatedly for thinking he would be acquitted at his trial.xiledinok said:
Oakman had a good lawyer. He would have won SamU's case.
Two assistant DA's who take an activist-like approach to a job that demands almost total impartiality? Moody and LaBorde can't hit the road fast enough in McLennan county from what I gather.Stan Mikita said:I feel really bad for the young lady. Who in their right mind would lead her on into thinking there is a case there? She was led on for almost 3 years - since April 3, 2016. Unbelievable.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
PartyBear said:
You spoke with him and got his opinion on rape directly from him ?
If you did not you are inconsistent for trashing him for having the same view of SamU's case you do.
xiledinok said:PartyBear said:
You spoke with him and got his opinion on rape directly from him ?
If you did not you are inconsistent for trashing him for having the same view of SamU's case you do.
No, Bennett was popping off at one of the alumni dinners about Sam having an issue to deal with weeks before his trial. I guess rape charges are just an issue for the old Aggie points per possession guy.
Dman said:
Saddest part. The 3 OWNED idiots who live on this forum, all cheering for a guilty verdict (against a now innocent man) just to fit a narrative against a man no longer here...but still OWNS them. Versus letting the legal system play out.
Going through life bitter, old, and OWNED is a sad and wasted life indeed.
xiledinok said:
Off to the AAF.
boognish_bear said:
So....what's the status with SamU. Is he still waiting for a re-trial?
Technically, this doesn't even fall under Baylor or Briles anyway since all of the alleging happened after he was done with the team and with school and preparing for the draft.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
I disagree. If this were my kid this would have been done in worst case a year.PartyBear said:Not true actually. He would not have had a trial any faster than had he hired a lawyer.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
That's not how ESPN sees it in the first sentence of their story:EvilTroyAndAbed said:Technically, this doesn't even fall under Baylor or Briles anyway since all of the alleging happened after he was done with the team and with school and preparing for the draft.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
It would be like blaming aggy for Johnny Football's shenanigans after he left College Station.
EvilTroyAndAbed said:Technically, this doesn't even fall under Baylor or Briles anyway since all of the alleging happened after he was done with the team and with school and preparing for the draft.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?
It would be like blaming aggy for Johnny Football's shenanigans after he left College Station.
Neither party really 'wins' in this sort of deal. It's not a great PR move if you're Shawn or the girl.Stan Mikita said:I feel really bad for the young lady. Who in their right mind would lead her on into thinking there is a case there? She was led on for almost 3 years - since April 3, 2016. Unbelievable.JohnProctor said:
Nobody wins in this one. If this kid had a family wiht a little money he would have been found not guilty within 6 months after the accusation and likely he would be in the NFL right now.
That makes 1 sexual assault conviction under Briles or am I miscounting?