90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

I don't recall all the Democrats rushing to condemn Bill Clinton on either his alleged sexual assaults or affairs. How many women did JFK sleep with? Stories abound of him instructing interns to give blow jobs to White House aids. Bill Clinton couldn't hold his jock.

Again, pardon me if I don't see either party as the righteous one when it comes to turning a blind eye to one of their own.

---

No one reported sexual misconduct until after the Nixon era.

Eisenhauer, Roosevelt and Johnson all had mistresses.

I'd say Clinton and Trump are comparable, but Clinton didn't try to pay women or buy the rights to their stories to hush them up or get caught on tape bragging about groping. THAT might end up causing him a legal problem similar to Clinton's lying under oath about Lewinski. My point is simply that Republicans have absolutely no moral high ground, having elected him as a leader when his record of sexual misconduct is documented and dates back decades.

Clinton should have paid off Juanita Broaddrick

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

Not sure why you were compelled to add this last little diatribe. It is terribly wrong, bordering on fantasy.

Maybe if an honest discussion were laid out there, more progress could be made. You really think R's want their mothers, wives, daughters and granddaughters to be able to be assaulted and the perp get away with it.

Really?

You are certainly wrong.

---

Republicans just elected a president who bragged about grabbing women by the p--sy because he's a celeb, so "they let you do it."

They campaigned on outrage because two of Brett Kavanaugh's former high school and college classmates came forward with stories about his drunken misdeeds. I guess boys will be boys, and women are liars. And Kavanaugh was the real victim. According to him and Fox.

I'm tired of the terrific double-standard where lies and sexual misconduct are OK if the perp is Republican but should be investigated for years and subject to severe penalties and possibly drawn and quartered if the perp is a Democrat (or a Republican Trumpies don't like).

Republicans at this point don't even appear to support the rule of law--at least not as it applies to the president, his family members and his associates. They call a successful investigation that has uncovered a nest of fraudsters and bad actors a "witch hunt."

So my contempt is justified. When do you think the GOP might start supporting the rule of law again?

---

I notice that now that there are facts being reported by the local paper that might support the DA's decision you have gone off topic and onto a political rant.

It is incredibly biased to paint either party as the one that excuses bad sexual acts. Both parties have had their fair share of sexual abusers and had party members rush to their defense or respond with, "Yeah, but..."

We can back and forth tossing examples from both sides so don't waste everyone's time with that line of conversation.

---

I didn't bring up Kavanaugh--FadSkier did, as an example of poor persecuted men wrongly accused by evil women. But I'm tired beyond keeping my temper of conservatives acting like the only story there is that poor Brett got a raw deal, when most non-Republicans and more than a few moderate Republicans (probably mostly women) think that isn't the case.

As for the Waco case, pleading no contest, if I understand it correctly, doesn't mean you aren't guilty. It simply means you aren't contesting the charges against you. In this case, Mr. Anderson got a very good deal. Except in the court of public opinion.

And, while I agree that both parties have their fair share of sexual abusers, Republicans have proven much more adept than Democrats at either ignoring, disrgarding, excusing, defending or covering up the sexual misconduct of their politicians, including Newt Gingrich, who was all over Clinton while he was living with Calista while married to his second wife. Dennis Hastert tried to cover for Mark Foley and then was revealed to himself be a pedophile; he may still be in the federal pen. Kavanaugh obviously drank hard and didn't remember everything he did in high school and his alcholic buddy went into hiding, but Blasey Ford was villainized by the right. There's a huge double-standard. I'd like to see Republicans hold their own pols responsible for keeping their pants zipped and their hands to themselves. I'm still waiting.

---

Can you never admit to being wrong about anything. There are 30 something million men who voted R in 2016 for President. Virtually none, want men to get away with sexual crimes.

What people of all stripes I would hope do want, is men that are accused to get a fair trail and not to be assumed guilty if accused, which is a dangerous precedent a small few have started.

---

I agree wholeheatedly that people--men and women--don't want men to get away with sexual crimes.

I also understand how people could think a man HAS gotten away with a sexual crime when he isn't actually prosecuted for it, but is instead allowed to plead guilty to a lesser crime.

"The prosecutor didn't think she could get a conviction" isn't a good answer, and neither the perp--who pleaded no contest to detaining the woman (and why did he detain her, exactly?), got off with a slap on the wrist, but has been convicted in the court of public opinion--or the victim, who didn't do herself any favors by making a scene at the courthouse.

I would really like to see plea deals taken out of the criminal justice system. They infect an element of fiction into legal proceedings that shouldn't be there.

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

90sBear said:

---

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

---

I don't like plea deals. Try the guy. If he isn't guilty or if there isn't enough evidence to prove his guilty, justice will be served to the extent that's possible in a he said/she said case like this. But the woman will get her day in court, which may or may not be a good thing for her. Either way, justice is better served than a bargain made with the accused's lawyer.

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

---

I don't like plea deals. Try the guy. If he isn't guilty or if there isn't enough evidence to prove his guilty, justice will be served to the extent that's possible in a he said/she said case like this. But the woman will get her day in court, which may or may not be a good thing for her. Either way, justice is better served than a bargain made with the accused's lawyer.

---

I thought you were looking for more sexual assault convictions, not fewer.

Plea deals keep the legal system running much smoother than if every single case went to trial. I would envision a lot more sexual assault victims not getting any justice because the DA's would begin dropping cases rather than trying to prosecute them all simply because they wouldn't have enough time and the courts would be burdened.

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

---

I don't like plea deals. Try the guy. If he isn't guilty or if there isn't enough evidence to prove his guilty, justice will be served to the extent that's possible in a he said/she said case like this. But the woman will get her day in court, which may or may not be a good thing for her. Either way, justice is better served than a bargain made with the accused's lawyer.

---

I thought you were looking for more sexual assault convictions, not fewer.

Plea deals keep the legal system running much smoother than if every single case went to trial. I would envision a lot more sexual assault victims not getting any justice because the DA's would begin dropping cases rather than trying to prosecute them all simply because they wouldn't have enough time and the courts would be burdened.

---

How dare you interrupt her rant with logic.

Jinx's superior morality just burns too bright for you mere peasants. Sorry to assume Jinx's gender.

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

---

I don't like plea deals. Try the guy. If he isn't guilty or if there isn't enough evidence to prove his guilty, justice will be served to the extent that's possible in a he said/she said case like this. But the woman will get her day in court, which may or may not be a good thing for her. Either way, justice is better served than a bargain made with the accused's lawyer.

---

That sounds nice, but it just doesn't comport with reality. I actually think our flawed system is better than any other. I can say that without excusing the flaws. And I prefer a system that errs on the side of acquittal. The worst flaws in our system are those that diminish the presumption of innocence or apply that presumption unfairly.

If there is injustice here, let's see some good reporting, with a review of the defense and the weaknesses in the prosecutions case. Good, responsible, thorough investigative reporting is essential here. I see none of it.

The DA cut a deal because they didn't like the case.
The bikers stomped them good. There was real lawyering going on with those biker cases.
The DA would get Duke LaCrosse coverage with an another L. Fitting end to regime.
Good luck to the new DA. The fine people in Waco are better than the old guys. Shameful.


It was easier prosecuting our football players with football's lawyers. We had little school folks competing in blue blood world. Your players must have counsel who can understand the cellphone records when it is the evidence. It's either that or a Joe Mixon fix.

90sBear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Fine.

So back on topic - if the quotes from the Trib are true and physical evidence and other witnesses' testimony dispute with the victim's account, what do you think of the DA's office choosing to lessen the charge in order to get a no contest plea?

---

I don't like plea deals. Try the guy. If he isn't guilty or if there isn't enough evidence to prove his guilty, justice will be served to the extent that's possible in a he said/she said case like this. But the woman will get her day in court, which may or may not be a good thing for her. Either way, justice is better served than a bargain made with the accused's lawyer.

---

I thought you were looking for more sexual assault convictions, not fewer.

Plea deals keep the legal system running much smoother than if every single case went to trial. I would envision a lot more sexual assault victims not getting any justice because the DA's would begin dropping cases rather than trying to prosecute them all simply because they wouldn't have enough time and the courts would be burdened.

---

You thought wrong.

The LAST thing I want is for anyone who isn't guilty to be railroaded into a plea deal because the consequences of a trial would be so much worse.

What I want is for women not to be ****shamed so that juries are convinced that they got what was coming to them, even if that involved assault or rape. Or for the fact that a woman was passed out or drunk to be viewed as an acceptable excuse for rape or assault.

Plus plea deals encourage prosecutors to introduce a cornecopia of charges they could bring to scare people and then offer a lesser charge, resulting in plenty of innocent people, or people arrested for questionable offenses, pleading guilty to something they didn't do because they think it's their best option.

It's a system riff with abuses,and it's primarily designed to benefit prosecutors and the legal system, not defendents.

KingHendy said:

---

Jinx's superior morality just burns too bright for you mere peasants. Sorry to assume Jinx's gender.

---

No, you aren't.

But I've obviously pissed you off. So my work here is done.

ADA LaBorde said

"Conflicting evidence and statements exist in this case making the original allegation difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As a prosecutor, my goal is no more victims. I believe that is best accomplished when there is a consequence rather than an acquittal,"


Don't know if this case was done correctly, but foolish to think you always go to trial.

And again, THIS case isn't a commentary about culture.

Prosecutors deal in facts. The case wasn't going to hold up and Laborde (who I personally don't care for) got what she could.

The publicity this trial got has done immeasurable damage to this kid's reputation anyway, deserved or not.

KingHendy said:

---

You have a lot more to work to do if you want to irritate me! I have 3 kids at home, have flown 140,000 miles on American Airlines this year, and was a student at Baylor for 4 years with Kevin Steele. You are a sparrows fart in a hurricane.

---

OK, Uncle! You win based on the 140,000 miles on AA alone. I'm waiting to see if Delta or American will be first to get rid of seats and convert their coach compartment to a cattle-car format where everyone stands packed in like passengers on a Chinese train.

Jinx 2 said:

---

What I want is for women not to be ****shamed so that juries are convinced that they got what was coming to them, even if that involved assault or rape. Or for the fact that a woman was passed out or drunk to be viewed as an acceptable excuse for rape or assault.

---

I hear you on this. I really do. Unfortunately, I don't know how to apply what you say to our system:

Our system is adversarial. It is built around fundamental concepts of due process that none should be deprived of liberty BY THE GOVERNMENT without the opportunity for the fullest defense they can muster. That requires cross examination. In a suit where consent is the core issue, I just don't know how to both allow cross examination and prohibit "**** shaming." How do you prohibit "**** shaming" where the core issue in every rape case is consent? It's agonizing.

The one thing I can assure you about the prosecutors, though, is about what they wanted here. I can guarantee you they wanted a trial and a conviction. What made them move to a plea bargain was the fear that a jury would acquit him entirely. They knew the public wouldn't like this outcome, but they knew they'd like the other outcome even worse.

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

And again, THIS case isn't a commentary about culture.

Prosecutors deal in facts. The case wasn't going to hold up and Laborde (who I personally don't care for) got what she could.

The publicity this trial got has done immeasurable damage to this kid's reputation anyway, deserved or not.

---

Here's the WaPo story. It appears that lots of people here are accepting Anderson's lawyers' story about this.Think the fact that his parents are paying them might influence their story any?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/12/13/former-baylor-frat-president-accused-rape-got-no-jail-time-now-is-barred-graduation/?utm_term=.a1d5878faadd

There's also plenty of ****-shaming, since they mention "kissing, groping and grinding" and that this "may have been consensual."

All of which her attorney calls "bullshlt."

Should have tried the case.

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What I want is for women not to be ****shamed so that juries are convinced that they got what was coming to them, even if that involved assault or rape. Or for the fact that a woman was passed out or drunk to be viewed as an acceptable excuse for rape or assault.

---

I hear you on this. I really do. Unfortunately, I don't know how to apply what you say to our system:

Our system is adversarial. It is built around fundamental concepts of due process that none should be deprived of liberty BY THE GOVERNMENT without the opportunity for the fullest defense they can muster. That requires cross examination. In a suit where consent is the core issue, I just don't know how to both allow cross examination and prohibit "**** shaming." How do you prohibit "**** shaming" where the core issue in every rape case is consent? It's agonizing.

The one thing I can assure you about the prosecutors, though, is about what they wanted here. I can guarantee you they wanted a trial and a conviction. What made them move to a plea bargain was the fear that a jury would acquit him entirely. They knew the public wouldn't like this outcome, but they knew they'd like the other outcome even worse.

---

I'm sure you are correct.

Anytime you have a he said/she said sexual assault case, it's a no-win situation. In the 1980s a female lawyer friend who was a prosecutor told me an awful story what she thought was an open and shut rape case. The woman had been assaulted standing up. The jury debated a really long time, and she started getting nervous. Ultimately, they convicted the perp. But two jurors told her, after they were dismissed, that an older man on the jury refused to believe you could have sex standing up, despite several other jurors assuring him it was possible. There was some shouting and a couple threatened to demonstrate while fully clothed before he was finally convinced.

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

And his testimony holds just as much weight as hers.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

in a he/she said case, without a solid alibi, those tears can become quite the evidence.

Jinx 2 said:

---

BarleyMcDougal said:

---

And again, THIS case isn't a commentary about culture.

Prosecutors deal in facts. The case wasn't going to hold up and Laborde (who I personally don't care for) got what she could.

The publicity this trial got has done immeasurable damage to this kid's reputation anyway, deserved or not.

---

Should have tried the case.

---

I tell ya what...

You go to trial with zero genetic evidence of an assault and a he said/she said case where the alleged victim has presented conflicting statements. It's a foolproof plan every time and I am more than sure that you would win every case.

Life is not black and white and there are numerous reasons why people take plea bargains.

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

And his testimony holds just as much weight as hers.

---

That didn't mitigate in Kavanaugh's favor in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, when he was ranting about liking beer and sarcastically evading questions.

It might have worked for Mr. Anderson in court.

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

And his testimony holds just as much weight as hers.

---

Duh.

fadskier said:

---

The lesson for all of these young people is, don't get drunk.

---

And act like a gentleman

If there is a lesson here, it's about parents needing to mentor their children in a variety of areas. My limited understanding of psychology prevents me from making any blanket statements.

The reason anyone allegedly does something like this is beyond my scope of reason.

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

I wonder why the Regents didn't blow up the Phi Delts?

---

They did not have to. THIS Baylor administration actually took definitive action by expelling the accused and indefinitely suspending the fraternity's chapter.

---

We expelled the accused? So all it takes is an accusation?

---

Apparently the Baylor administration found the charges credible enough to kick both the student and the frat out. Good for them.

Then he pleaded no contest to criminal charges. Which confirms their judgment.

---

Would like to see what Baylor used because according to published stories, many of the accuser's facts didn't add up. He pled no contest to avoid a trial with a crying girl...because that would be emotional. and we've seen what emotional women can do (Blasey-Ford)

---

Crying girls don't play very well with juries in McLennan county. At least according to the prosecutor.

He pleaded no contest because he got out from under the albatross of being on the sex offender registry for life, not to mention possible prison time. This case is making news because it's a great deal for HIM.

Perhaps you are right, and the girl's allegations aren't credible. But the decision of the prosecutor to cut a deal with this guy allowing him to plead no contest means neither of them will ever have their day in court, which she obviously wanted and he didn't.

---

In this current atmosphere, no guy wants to go to court. We are in the age of believe all women...guilt until proven innocent. Something happened between these two, but obviously...even in court, we would never know.

---

Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, although this case indicates that it really hasn't.

And no innocent person deserves to spend time behind bars or face the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit--although that hasn't seemed to bother the politicians who control our criminal justice system in the least. I still remember George Ryan declaring a moratorium on the death penalty because he realized the possibility of executing an innocent man was so high. Ironic that one of the few politicians who had the moral courage to act against the death penalty was himself arrested for corruption charges. People are complicated.

So do the literally thousands of rape kits police departments have never processed.

And the centuries when women could not even come forward to accuse men of rape or domestic violence.

Followed by decades where, when they did come forward, the man's defense attorney would ****-shame them in court and alledge that they were at fault for dressing too provocatively, drinking, whatever. That's the era I grew up in, and it was abundantly clear to all of us, in high school, college and early in our careers, that WE needed to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from assault because, if we were assaulted, the man would likely on be prosecuted if we ended up dead.

Let's just say I don't have a lot of pity for this kid. He got off easy. So did Brock Turner.

I also believe that, had either of them been black or Hispanic, they would have been charged with worse crimes and served hard time.

---

I have pity on all parties involved. Especially because I wasn't there and don't know the facts. However, after watching the Kavanaugh disgrace, there is one political party not interested in facts, or evidence, or justice.

I seriously doubt either party truly is.

---

I realize most conservatives, and particularly conservative men, thought Kavanaugh's tantrum in front of the Senate judiciary committee was entirely justified, and also believe that Christine Blasey Ford was a liar and possibly paid to bring forward her allegations.

I think Kavanaugh's tantrum, his evasive and sarcastic answers to questions, his little diatribe about liking beer and his rudeness and disrespect particularly for female senators like Amy Klobarchar should have disqualified him for a SCOTUS appointment, and that the court is diminished by his presence. It's also amazing how Republicans want to do a proctoscopic investigation of any potential misdeed by Democrats but try to put the quietus on investigations of those in their own party--which helped Kavanaugh. I believed Blasey-Ford, and I also believed that she didn't want to come forward, but did because she felt it was her civic duty to do what she could to see that a man with Kavanaugh's character didn't end up on SCOTUS. Perhaps he's grown up since high school and marriage and his perspective is more informed now that he has daughters who might be invited to the beach house with open.... I certainly hope so.

This is one of many points about which we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I want it to be abundantly clear to you that many Americans--and particularly many American women--believe that Kavanaugh's nomination was rammed through by a bunch of grandstanding GOP politicians and a tantrum complete with tears that would have completely disqualified Kavanaugh had he been female. His tears were manly; a woman's would have been disingenuous and hysterical.

Republicans have done a lot to undermine the rule of law. Somehow, despite that, fewer men are getting away with rape, sexual assault and sexual harrassment than was the case in the past. I'm sure Republicans will seek to undermine that progress if they possibly can.

---

The whole problem is you view it from an emotional standpoint instead of an evidentiary one. I don't usually partake is the luxury of choosing whom I believe. I look at evidence and facts. She had neither.

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

Can't believe I am having to explain this....you need evidence to back up your testimony...especially when accusing someone who says they are innocent.

Jinx 2 said:

---

MidWestBear2010 said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

And his testimony holds just as much weight as hers.

---

That didn't mitigate in Kavanaugh's favor in front of the Senate Judiciary committee, when he was ranting about liking beer and sarcastically evading questions.

It might have worked for Mr. Anderson in court.

---

His testimony contained evidence. He had a calendar with notes. The so called witnesses had submitted statements that did not support Ford's accusation. When she was asked for evidence to support her testimony, you could hear crickets. She had nothing...but she did cry...at least she tried that.

Osodecentx said:

---

fadskier said:

---

The lesson for all of these young people is, don't get drunk.

---

And act like a gentleman

---

And a lady

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

riflebear said:

---

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article223044915.html

---

Quote:

---

"...no evidence of injury in a hospital photograph taken 1 1/2 hours after the alleged incident.

There is no DNA evidence linking Mr. Anderson to this incident."

---

fadskier said:

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

90sBear said:

---

From a conversation on this topic in the Bear Cave

From a Trib Reporter:

"The woman's claims that she was choked is "absolutely contrary" to the physical evidence and her statements to police and medical personnel that night, they said. They also disputed her claim that she was drugged, saying no drugs were found in her system.

"She drank significantly before she ever came to the party, but her blood-alcohol level was barely above intoxication level (0.12) at the hospital," Daniel said. "She made statements to two separate male students that this may have been consensual. Those boys said she seemed fine, seemed calm and collected immediately afterward as if nothing had happened. She appears in a photograph in the hospital an hour and a half later. She is smiling and eating a cheese cracker with a full grin on her face.""

As others have noted, physical evidence contradictory to testimony evidence probably makes putting this case to a jury a lot more difficult.

---

Again, if I were the young man, I would have pled as he did. You get this girl in front of a jury crying, and they'll believe her whether the evidence proves it or not. Just look at the wackos who insist on supporting Blasey-Ford in light of the fact that she had ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence.

---

Can't believe I have to say this again: testimony is evidence.

---

Can't believe I am having to explain this....you need evidence to back up your testimony...especially when accusing someone who says they are innocent.

---

You said, in caps, zero evidence, in a case where there was testimonial evidence. Just plain wrong.