After sexual assault acquittal, video emerges of Mateen Cleaves dragging naked woman into motel room (lawyers, Hispanic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A jury of 12 quickly acquitted a case that had been dismissed by an old white woman judge previously but, hey, we got people on here that just know he is guilty based on a video that the aforementioned judge and jury saw.
If you're referring to me, I don't "just know" he is guilty.
I keep asking, and there don't seem to be media resources to answer this question, what were the "lies" that the woman told, and what was the mitigating information the jury considered that caused them to dismiss a video of her trying to escape from him two times?
If you're referring to me, I don't "just know" he is guilty.
I keep asking, and there don't seem to be media resources to answer this question, what were the "lies" that the woman told, and what was the mitigating information the jury considered that caused them to dismiss a video of her trying to escape from him two times?
Do you have a resource for trial information?
Start googling. The case was originally dismissed. The woman was drunk and on opioids. A police officer asked the woman if she had been assaulted and she replied in the negative.
Start googling. The case was originally dismissed. The woman was drunk and on opioids. A police officer asked the woman if she had been assaulted and she replied in the negative.
Yes. I've read all that.
I haven't read what are reported to be "lies" she told the jury.
And I haven't read what made them dismiss the fact (caught on video) that she tried unsuccessfully to escape him and pled for help from a bystander.
I have read that a member of the jury pretty much stated that she consensually got into his car, so that's that. Apparently that constitutes irrevocable consent.
Cleaves attended Michigan State and played on the men's championship basketball team, there have been many allegations that MSU buried sexual assault claims against their big program athletes. Maybe not Cleaves but many of these athletes have received passes on their behavior.
I haven't read what are reported to be "lies" she told the jury.
And I haven't read what made them dismiss the fact (caught on video) that she tried unsuccessfully to escape him and pled for help from a bystander.
I have read that a member of the jury pretty much stated that she consensually got into his car, so that's that. Apparently that constitutes irrevocable consent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Cleaves attended Michigan State and played on the men's championship basketball team, there have been many allegations that MSU buried sexual assault claims against their big program athletes. Maybe not Cleaves but many of these athletes have received passes on their behavior.
If the Motel had a bad reputation of being a "place of business" the woman probably won't be believed. I know I have been to a few Knights Motels, possibly one in that area. I got the impression that it was being used as a "place of business." look at it from google maps, its a cheap motel in a secluded place.
You do realize Cleves was 37 years old at the time of the alleged crime? If has been awhile since he was a MSU student.
Yes he played for Izzo when they won the championship in 2000, just pointing out that he came from a suspect program that was ripe with sexual assault allegations.
One of the first times I had to serve on a jury was for a young girl and an older boy who was being charged with statutory rape. He was 16, and she was 13 or 14.
Went through the trial and it was back to the room for deliberations. We took a vote before doing anything to see where everyone stood. Immediately, the older males (grandpa and dad age) were convinced the boy was guilty. The females were mixed. I voted "not guilty" to start off, because I didn't want to render a "guilty" verdict right off without going over some things, first.
It was a looooong deliberation, because the older males (grandpa types) refused to budge from "guilty" and it turns out it was all based on the fact that it was how the girl looked. Of course when she showed up in court, she was wearing a nice but simple outfit, and they had done her hair to make her look even younger than she was.
And that's all it took to convince the older males that the boy was a guilty predator.
My point is that absolutely juries can and are swayed by how defendant's look both lawyer and defendant themselves, (remember the Menendez brothers?), how the prosecutors look, how the accuser looks, etc.
I'm also making the point that I know females. I am a female. I know that a lot of females are very hateful towards other females for a variety of reasons - I really don't understand it - but, they are.
Not all juries make good decisions, as we've seen many times in the past. Just because a jury said he wasn't guilty doesn't mean he wasn't guilty.
The fact is, as I said earlier, when you see a person running out of a room without a stitch of clothing on them, yelling for help, they are not consenting to anything. It doesn't matter if she was drunk, "willingly" got in a car, or didn't even tell the cops she was assaulted when they came on the scene - a bare naked person running out of a room screaming for help is. not. consenting. There is no way to twist that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.