180 replies to this topic

[Nigel Tufnel]

Wouldn't the bruises be the evidence?

 

Well, except that the police didn't see her until 5 days after the incident, and I don't think they ever saw the bruises.

[hallas]

IIRC, the young man was probably guilty of statutory rape. The sex was apparently consensual, however, he was 18 and she was 15. I also think the act took place on the school campus and the girl accused him of rape to avoid punishment.I'm pretty sure 60 minutes did a piece on this guy and he received some outside legal help while he was in jail.

 

He was 16 at the time.  If it were consensual then California's statutory rape laws would technically mean that both are guilty of it, but this is usually not prosecuted.

[hallas]

I was half joking.

 

A private investigator would absolutely know that recording someone without consent is inadmissible in court. I wouldn't be shocked as part of the arrangement she was coached not to give consent to being recorded. But it is not inadmissible as public knowledge, clearing Banks in the court of public opinion everyone is so sensitive about. Because it is inadmissible in court, she keeps her millions from the civil suit.

 

He did five years. His name and reputation come out clean. She doesn't go broke and at worst is branded a liar but is not a rape victim, thank god. 

 

She sued her school district and settled with them, and then the school district sued her after the conviction was overturned and the school district won back both the settlement money and a pretty sizeable punitive judgement.

[Mike in STL]

She sued her school district and settled with them, and then the school district sued her after the conviction was overturned and the school district won back both the settlement money and a pretty sizeable punitive judgement.

Good.

[russsnyder]

Romeo and Juliet Law should not make that statutory rape.

I could be wrong.

I know nothing about the law you speak of.

[russsnyder]

He was 16 at the time. If it were consensual then California's statutory rape laws would technically mean that both are guilty of it, but this is usually not prosecuted.

The case I was thinking of happened in Georgia.

I probably have this case confused with another.

I didn't look up this guy.

[russsnyder]

My natural inclination is to always believe the woman.
But there are exceptions out there, and it would be horrible to be perceived as guilty if you were innocent.

What is the right thing for the organization to do here?
My thought is probably ask a 3rd party to investigate.
Maybe there wasn't enough for criminal charges, but if a 3rd party investigator shows enough 'evidence'... should the Ravens release him? Do you think the Ravens should release him on what is already known? Or without criminal charges being filed, would you be mad if the Ravens made that move?

I think the third party to investigate should be the NFL. I don't think the Ravens should suspend or fine him if the charges were dropped. I don't expect Flowers to incriminate himself at this point. However, the NFL should (and in my opinion, most likely will) investigate. Hopefully, the alleged victim cooperates. If not, I don't see where any punishment can be fairly meted out.

[Slidemaster]

I could be wrong.

I know nothing about the law you speak of.

It's a law that makes it legal for people who are within 3 (or maybe 4 - I forget) years of age of someone who is underage to still have legal consensual sex. It is meant to keep couples who are within a year or two of age from becoming criminals the moment one of them turns 18 before the other.

https://en.m.wikiped..._consent_reform

[Nigel Tufnel]

The case I was thinking of happened in Georgia.

I probably have this case confused with another.

I didn't look up this guy.

 

You're probably thinking of the guy who was profiled on Real Sports.  I forget his name, but I think he's coaching in the NFL now.

 

EDIT:

 

Marcus Dixon - Wikipedia

[russsnyder]

You're probably thinking of the guy who was profiled on Real Sports. I forget his name, but I think he's coaching in the NFL now.

EDIT:

Marcus Dixon - Wikipedia

I think you are correct.

Thanks

[hallas]

It's a law that makes it legal for people who are within 3 (or maybe 4 - I forget) years of age of someone who is underage to still have legal consensual sex. It is meant to keep couples who are within a year or two of age from becoming criminals the moment one of them turns 18 before the other.

https://en.m.wikiped..._consent_reform

 

California didn't (and to my knowledge still doesn't) have any close-in-age exception so an 18 year old could be prosecuted for a 17-under there.  In fact 2 underage people having sex could both be prosecuted for statutory rape in theory, though this isn't usually prosecuted.

[hallas]

There's pretty much no situation where the league should be doing an investigation here.

 

It sucks and I tend to think that where there's smoke there's fire, but at the same time orgs should be sticking to their lane, and I think that the league investigating something that happened away from team facilities, where an investigation by law enforcement was closed, is way outside their lane.

[Mackus]

There's pretty much no situation where the league should be doing an investigation here.

It sucks and I tend to think that where there's smoke there's fire, but at the same time orgs should be sticking to their lane, and I think that the league investigating something that happened away from team facilities, where an investigation by law enforcement was closed, is way outside their lane.

Couldn't disagree more strongly. League should absolutely investigate. May not get anywhere if there is no physical evidence and victim doesn't want to participate, but should at least try to see if there is more info available.

[Ravens2006]

Here's a thing... what makes people think the "league" is somehow MORE qualified to investigate an incident than the actual authorities? The league, to my knowledge, can't subpeona cell records, medical reports, etc. The league can't MAKE a person agree to make a statement, they can't make the woman reveal more than she already has.

[Mackus]

Here's a thing... what makes people think the "league" is somehow MORE qualified to investigate an incident than the actual authorities? The league, to my knowledge, can't subpeona cell records, medical reports, etc. The league can't MAKE a person agree to make a statement, they can't make the woman reveal more than she already has.

Not more qualified, just not beholden to quite the same rules and burden of proof. Also the team and league may have zero idea what even happened at this point. None of us even know what sort of physical altercation was alleged or how the gun came into play. So find that out if you can. Then figure out what role you think Zay played. I would only need to be like 75% confident Zay did something wrong (more or less depending on how bad that something is) in order to act on him. That may be similar to the burden of proof for a charge/indictment, but it's certainly well below what's needed for a conviction.

I'd want to be know more if I were the Ravens and NFL. As a fan, I want to know more or at least be sure the team knows as much as possible. I don't exactly trust the Ravens to act on that info, so that's a bit of a different beast.

[jamesdean]

I know one thing- at least at some point, there was probably evidence of the incident on someone's phone. Whether it was the girl's, Flowers or his brother's is up for conjecture but nobody's life is private today, especially someone in their age range.

[bmore_ken]

Here's a thing... what makes people think the "league" is somehow MORE qualified to investigate an incident than the actual authorities? The league, to my knowledge, can't subpeona cell records, medical reports, etc. The league can't MAKE a person agree to make a statement, they can't make the woman reveal more than she already has.

Yeah I'm trying to think of  what would make her tell the NFL more than she told police. seems like a waste of time for them to get involved to me. Just my opinion. 

[hallas]

Not more qualified, just not beholden to quite the same rules and burden of proof. Also the team and league may have zero idea what even happened at this point. None of us even know what sort of physical altercation was alleged or how the gun came into play. So find that out if you can. Then figure out what role you think Zay played. I would only need to be like 75% confident Zay did something wrong (more or less depending on how bad that something is) in order to act on him. That may be similar to the burden of proof for a charge/indictment, but it's certainly well below what's needed for a conviction.

I'd want to be know more if I were the Ravens and NFL. As a fan, I want to know more or at least be sure the team knows as much as possible. I don't exactly trust the Ravens to act on that info, so that's a bit of a different beast.

The fact that they're beholden to fewer rules means that their investigation would have less credibility than one carried out by actual law enforcement.

As for the gun drawn, there is absolutely zero that they can do to compel Zay's brother, someone who's not even affiliated with the league, to give truthful testimony, nor is there any way they can tie that back to Zay unless they have text evidence. And even if they have text messages about it, they have no way of obtaining them.

[Mackus]

The fact that they're beholden to fewer rules means that their investigation would have less credibility than one carried out by actual law enforcement.

As for the gun drawn, there is absolutely zero that they can do to compel Zay's brother, someone who's not even affiliated with the league, to give truthful testimony, nor is there any way they can tie that back to Zay unless they have text evidence. And even if they have text messages about it, they have no way of obtaining them.

Less credibility is fine. I'm not sending Zay to prison, just deciding if I want to employ him or not. I don't need 100% certainty to act.

Private investigators exist and serve a purpose. Maybe they run into the same walls that the police investigation did (assuming that's what happened), but maybe they don't. I'd want to try to find out more info about what occurred if I'm the Ravens or the NFL. I wouldn't just give up because it might be difficult.

[Ravens2006]

Yeah I'm trying to think of  what would make her tell the NFL more than she told police. seems like a waste of time for them to get involved to me. Just my opinion. 

 

Yeah, and I'm not saying any of this to "bury" the issue. But we only really know the VERY little bit that we know. Folks can make up any one of 100 scenarios as to how those involved got there. We only know what we know, and the folks who have the most resources to officially investigate the matter decided there's not enough there to pursue further. If she did suddenly tell a private investigator more than she told the actual police, and presented some damning evidence to him that she didn't present to police... at this point there would be a lot of question raised as to "why".

 

Unless something else develops, it seems like a brief domestic issue that nobody wants to pursue further.  Given that state, folks can't do much more about it than move on in my opinion.