U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 04:59 AM
 
2,777 posts, read 757,751 times
Reputation: 7201

Advertisements

At first glance the video looks terrible---naked woman escapes from the motel room and is pulled back forcefully so she could be sexually assaulted. But....if she didn't want sex, why were her clothes removed? I actually didn't read anywhere she said he removed her clothes/underwear---just that he began to touch her over her underwear and then pushed it to the side to assault her. Of course she has the right to take her clothes off and kiss him and then want to stop. But who knows? She reportedly was drunk and on pain pills.

Don't understand why she waited the next day to go to the hospital. They did find bruises and scratches and I think DNA evidence. So it does seem that there was sex and most likely rough sex---but the judge wasn't sure it was an assault:

Citing that the woman invited Cleaves to the bar, and that she "was not concerned enough to let her boyfriend answer the phone when it was ringing" in the gas station, Dowd said she didn't have enough probable cause to bind over the unlawful imprisonment charge.

In the case of criminal sexual conduct, Dowd said she "hadn't heard enough," based on the woman's "dancing all around the questions" and the two male sperm donors found on the woman despite her statement she hadn't had consensual sex in the past 96 hours.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/201...ult_cas_1.html

The cop says she denied that she was assaulted when he got to the motel---but of course there are crooked cops---and this one didn't file the report right away and gave the defendant special treatment, even driving him home that night and after he refused a breathlyzer test didn't charge him even though he was driving while smelling of alcohol...while the victim had to find her own way home. He stated:

She then said that she and the former basketball star began to "mess around," Johnson testified.
He said the woman told him that she took her own clothes off and had sexual relations with Cleaves. At one point in time, she told the officer that she "stepped out for air."
"In fact, you asked her specifically, 'were you assaulted?'" said Cleaves' defense lawyer, Frank J. Manley.
"That is correct. She said no," Johnson testified.

So---it is possible that she did step outside, even half/naked since she was so drunk and stoned. But according to the nurse who treated the alleged victim the next day, the victim said:

"He tried to kiss me. I just gave up. He gives our organization a lot of money," Most claimed the alleged victim told her. "I remember my clothes off, him on top of me, and he started to have sex. I think he had a condom on.
"I pushed him off, rolled off the bed and ran outside in my panties and bra. I fell trying to run, he tried to grab me."

This is the saddest part to me---if she honestly felt she had to submit to kissing because the defendant was a big donor to her employer. She has a mother. She has a boyfriend. It's not like she would be homeless if she got fired from her job.

I admit I'm kind of clueless as to casual hookups---but why do you take off your clothing if all you are willing to do is kiss?

Last edited by jazzcat22; Today at 05:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 05:06 AM
 
50 posts, read 5,487 times
Reputation: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzcat22 View Post
At first glance the video looks terrible---naked woman escapes from the motel room and is pulled back forcefully so she could be sexually assaulted. But....if she didn't want sex, why were her clothes removed? I actually didn't read anywhere she said he removed her clothes/underwear---just that he began to touch her over her underwear and then pushed it to the side to assault her. Of course she has the right to take her clothes off and kiss him and then want to stop. But who knows? She reportedly was drunk and on pain pills.

Don't understand why she waited the next day to go to the hospital. They did find bruises and scratches and I think DNA evidence. So it does seem that there was sex and most likely rough sex---but the judge wasn't sure it was an assault:

Citing that the woman invited Cleaves to the bar, and that she "was not concerned enough to let her boyfriend answer the phone when it was ringing" in the gas station, Dowd said she didn't have enough probable cause to bind over the unlawful imprisonment charge.

In the case of criminal sexual conduct, Dowd said she "hadn't heard enough," based on the woman's "dancing all around the questions" and the two male sperm donors found on the woman despite her statement she hadn't had consensual sex in the past 96 hours.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/201...ult_cas_1.html

The cop says she denied that she was assaulted when he got to the motel---but of course there are crooked cops---and this one didn't file the report right away and gave the defendant special treatment, even driving him home that night...while the victim had to find her own way home. He stated:

She then said that she and the former basketball star began to "mess around," Johnson testified.
He said the woman told him that she took her own clothes off and had sexual relations with Cleaves. At one point in time, she told the officer that she "stepped out for air."
"In fact, you asked her specifically, 'were you assaulted?'" said Cleaves' defense lawyer, Frank J. Manley.
"That is correct. She said no," Johnson testified.

So---it is possible that she did step outside, even half/naked since she was so drunk and stoned. But according to the nurse who treated the alleged victim the next day, the victim said:

"He tried to kiss me. I just gave up. He gives our organization a lot of money," Most claimed the alleged victim told her. "I remember my clothes off, him on top of me, and he started to have sex. I think he had a condom on.
"I pushed him off, rolled off the bed and ran outside in my panties and bra. I fell trying to run, he tried to grab me."

This is the saddest part to me---if she honestly felt she had to submit to kissing because the defendant was a big donor to her employer. She has a mother. She has a boyfriend. It's not like she would be homeless if she got fired from her job.

I admit I'm kind of clueless as to casual hookups---but why you take off your clothing if all you are willing to do is kiss?
She sounds like a real pig/loser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:36 AM
 
1,921 posts, read 944,540 times
Reputation: 2533
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Or it shows the forcible restraint of an unstable person (perhaps only temporarily unstable). The forcible restraint and removal to an enclosed area is not inherently kidnapping.
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:54 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,595 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12152
Quote:
Originally Posted by yspobo View Post
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
Not necessarily. But this is why I specifically mentioned "perhaps only temporarily unstable." Your position would assume that--under my hypothetical--the woman became manic/unstable before sexual activity began. I've seen completely calm people go into instant fits of rage/disgust over something they heard or saw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:27 AM
 
9,197 posts, read 5,670,951 times
Reputation: 3909
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I really don't see how whatever her statements were is relevant here. We see what we see.

Whether she initially was embarrassed that she went to a man's hotel room, whether she initially consented to sex, whether she was in fact too drunk to clearly remember all the details, we have video.

Of him chasing her, and dragging her against his will back to his room yelling to a witness for help. TWICE.

To me, that trumps everything else. We SEE what he does, and she's trying her best to get away.

The fact that there were 9 women on the jury isn't a point for justice. Many women will throw other women under the bus same as look at them. She might have gotten a fairer shake if the jury was made up of fathers of young women her age.
On the surface, and using the video as the only point of consideration, it appears quite clear that he was using force against her as she was strenuously attempting to escape him. So, using that evidence only, it seems unconscionable how a jury could reach a not guilty verdict. However, we either have a jury that was simply ignoring the evidence in deference to a local celebrity, or, there is much more to the story that none of us are aware of.

Hypothetically speaking, (Iím not suggesting this is what happened, just a potential explanation to consider) letís ponder the possibility that this woman has a history of mental illness, and alcoholism. People suffering mental illness can act irrationally, and be triggered by anything. Letís say she had spent some time with him throughout the evening, and signaling clear signs of her desire for sexual relations. They proceed to the hotel, and begin having sex (consensual). Moments later, his phone rings, and up pops the picture of some other woman on the screen. She flips out, and becomes irrational, throwing an intoxicated fit. She then proceeds to leave the room and go out into the public view half naked and drunk. He then tries to retrieve her, and bring her back to the room in an attempt to calm her down from the fit sheís throwing. No further sex is engaged in at this point, and he is simply trying to avoid an embarrassing scene by getting her back inside, out of the public view, and calm her down. In that context, did he rape her? The answer would be no, in spite of the video that strongly suggests otherwise.

So, again, we either have a jury that for whatever reason, chose to ignore the evidence of his guilt, and acquitted him because of their own bias, or there is much more to the story than just the video.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:40 AM
 
9,197 posts, read 5,670,951 times
Reputation: 3909
Quote:
Originally Posted by yspobo View Post
If someone is truly unstable enough that the person needs to be restrained then the person isn't capable of consenting to sex. Thus, it would still be rape.
No, the demonstration of instability, be it from mental illness or drug/alcohol intoxication could have occurred after the consensual sex had already been engaged in. If youíre in a bar with a stranger, drinking and fooling around, youíre not going to be able to predict an episode..... Iíve seen people that seemed fine one minute, and out of control moments later .... all it took was that last drink to push them over the edge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:45 AM
 
1,175 posts, read 634,040 times
Reputation: 1758
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
I can't explain it. Perhaps after having consensual sex Mateen made an inappropriate joke about the woman's body and she stormed out in protest? I don't know. But then again I don't have all of the evidence. I think it was clear from the video that the woman didn't want to be in the room with Mateen. But, again, that doesn't prove rape or sexual assault.
This is where some prosecutors make a case for circumstantial evidence. Don't know if they decided to try that here. Circumstantial evidence is a concept I still don't understand though I've tried. Looked at a lot of cases over the years. Our justice system can be pretty murky. One example: how in the world did Scott Petersen get convicted when there wasn't one shred of physical evidence tying him to the crime he was accused of? "Circumstantial evidence" is the answer I most often saw as the reason. Another example: Aaron Hernandez was convicted even though the jury said it had no idea who pulled the trigger - could have been Hernandez, could have been someone else. They convicted him based on a provision in Massachusetts law that says if two or more people are present at the scene of the crime and someone in that group committed the crime, it's not necessary to know who. Everyone is guilty. A different example: there's something called "felony murder". It's a doozy and is coming under a tremendous amount of scrutiny right now. https://theappeal.org/curtis-brooks-...life-sentence/

About the Cleaves case, when I look at the video I have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. For me what's shown on that video is strong circumstantial evidence. But it's also clear that because of the way our justice system is designed a jury can pretty much come to any conclusion it wants to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:00 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,595 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12152
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
On the surface, and using the video as the only point of consideration, it appears quite clear that he was using force against her as she was strenuously attempting to escape him. So, using that evidence only, it seems unconscionable how a jury could reach a not guilty verdict. However, we either have a jury that was simply ignoring the evidence in deference to a local celebrity, or, there is much more to the story that none of us are aware of.

Hypothetically speaking, (Iím not suggesting this is what happened, just a potential explanation to consider) letís ponder the possibility that this woman has a history of mental illness, and alcoholism. People suffering mental illness can act irrationally, and be triggered by anything. Letís say she had spent some time with him throughout the evening, and signaling clear signs of her desire for sexual relations. They proceed to the hotel, and begin having sex (consensual). Moments later, his phone rings, and up pops the picture of some other woman on the screen. She flips out, and becomes irrational, throwing an intoxicated fit. She then proceeds to leave the room and go out into the public view half naked and drunk. He then tries to retrieve her, and bring her back to the room in an attempt to calm her down from the fit sheís throwing. No further sex is engaged in at this point, and he is simply trying to avoid an embarrassing scene by getting her back inside, out of the public view, and calm her down. In that context, did he rape her? The answer would be no, in spite of the video that strongly suggests otherwise.

So, again, we either have a jury that for whatever reason, chose to ignore the evidence of his guilt, and acquitted him because of their own bias, or there is much more to the story than just the video.
Precisely. There are clearly things we don't know and its not outside of the realm of possibility (or even potentially probability) that a hypothetical like the one you posed could occur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:13 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,595 posts, read 6,550,416 times
Reputation: 12152
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiaLia View Post
This is where some prosecutors make a case for circumstantial evidence. Don't know if they decided to try that here. Circumstantial evidence is a concept I still don't understand though I've tried. Looked at a lot of cases over the years. Our justice system can be pretty murky. One example: how in the world did Scott Petersen get convicted when there wasn't one shred of physical evidence tying him to the crime he was accused of? "Circumstantial evidence" is the answer I most often saw as the reason. Another example: Aaron Hernandez was convicted even though the jury said it had no idea who pulled the trigger - could have been Hernandez, could have been someone else. They convicted him based on a provision in Massachusetts law that says if two or more people are present at the scene of the crime and someone in that group committed the crime, it's not necessary to know who. Everyone is guilty. A different example: there's something called "felony murder". It's a doozy and is coming under a tremendous amount of scrutiny right now. https://theappeal.org/curtis-brooks-...life-sentence/

About the Cleaves case, when I look at the video I have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged. For me what's shown on that video is strong circumstantial evidence. But it's also clear that because of the way our justice system is designed a jury can pretty much come to any conclusion it wants to.
Yes, the case here was somewhat circumstantial. I know it can be a difficult concept to understand (I'm an attorney, so I've had plenty of time to learn what it is), but essentially circumstantial evidence (in the legal sense) is any kind of evidence where a trier of fact (i.e. a jury or judge) has to infer that something happened based on evidence that doesn't not directly show that something happened. For instance, someone breaks into a closed bank and escapes with $50,000 in cash. An eye witness claims to have seen a 5'10" man running from the direction of bank and driving off in a red Ford Mustang, but did not see the man committing any crime specifically. The police--acting on the eye witness' account--arrest 20 minutes later a man in a red Ford Mustang. The man appears to be sweating and out of breath, which leads police to believe that he is the perp; the money is never located. Without the money or other direct evidence tying the man to the bank robbery (i.e. video footage or eye witness testimony where someone actually saw the man stealing the goods), any attempt to tie the man to the crime is based entirely on inference. Specifically, that the man was in a red Ford Mustang and sweating, so some may infer that the man was sweating from running and engaging in the bank heist.

In this case, I write that it is based on somewhat circumstantial evidence because you did have an eyewitness account of what happened (i.e. the accuser, who claimed to have been raped by Cleaves). On its face, that is not a purely circumstantial account as you have eye witness testimony (i.e. direct evidence) from someone who experienced the alleged crime herself. When the jury decided to disregard the accuser's testimony, however, the case in essence became one based on circumstantial evidence, in which the jury had to infer that a rape took place based on video and testimony that does not show a crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:32 AM
 
52,472 posts, read 42,196,618 times
Reputation: 32733
You write stuff like the above...then turn around and claim you're trying to get more information.... That's a whopper. Double whopper, extra cheesy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I don't need to know what happened before and after.

I can see it with my own eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top