Ben Roethlisberger, serial rapist?

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

HA!! The Steelers are going to punish him strongly? Are we serious? At most, a 1-game suspension depending on who they play opening week.

Maybe they'll do the thing where he "doesn't start" (but plays every series after the first one).

[stevew]

They were planning on starting Willie Colon and Max Starks as his two tackles. That's punishment enough.

Maybe they'll mix in a few more 7 step drops too.

[Logan]

What the others are saying is that the NFL in a "wink wink" way would establish the suspension but have the team issue it. Doing it this way avoids all those other issues that people have brought up.

[Noop]

I meet Goodell when he came to my job to speak the kids. He is a cool dude but he can be an incredible douchebag when he wants to be. A lot of the players who were at the event commented that while they respect him they hate how he is making the NFL into a league for them. (The person was pointing at the rich white people who also attended the event.)

I thought that was pretty interesting considering the at least 4 of the players were still active and one is considered top at his position.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by stevew

They were planning on starting Willie Colon and Max Starks as his two tackles. That's punishment enough.

Maybe they'll mix in a few more 7 step drops too.

This is funny. I wonder if Ben is traded will he be exposed as a not so great QB.

[Blackadar]

There’s absolutely no precedent for the NFL commish to suspend a player who has never been disciplined by the league, who has not been charged with a crime nor tested positive for illegal substances. None. I think Goodell could find himself in a serious fight with the NFLPA should he try to suspend Big Ben - one that he likely wouldn't win.

The grandstanding DA is just trying to justify the expense of the investigation with his little moral tantrum. He’s trying to justify a full month of police work that ultimately came up empty. But he didn’t want to be overshadowed by the Masters, so he had to wait until that was over before holding his press conference.

I repeat something the DA said in his press conference that’s been overlooked on this board – “we don’t even have for probable cause”. That means he didn’t even have enough evidence to get a search warrant or a Grand Jury indictment!!! That’s extremely telling. If a typical sexual assault took place, the physical evidence taken from the supposed victim should be pretty pronounced. There wouldn’t be such trace amounts of DNA that it couldn’t be tested, there should be quite a bit of it. There should be hair, fibers, obvious bruising, etc. Obviously, it wasn’t. Furthermore, the supposed victim has changed her story multiple times and was too intoxicated to be a credible witness.

When you look at the facts of the case, there’s nothing illegal here that can come close to being proven or even likely. Suspending a player based on rumors and innuendos? Good luck....the Steelers may suspend him, but the NFL won't do anything beyond fine Ben and perhaps say he's in therapy. They'll do that just to get him into the disciplinary program so they can take more stringent action if there's any further issues.

As for the Las Vegas lawsuit, anyone who spent 5 minutes reading her emails knows she's off her fucking rocker.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

When you look at the facts of the case, there’s nothing illegal here that can come close to being proven or even likely.

How can you read through that whole DA interview, and this entire thread, and miss the part(s) about providing alcohol to a minor? It's certainly less of a crime than sexual assault, but it still qualifies as illegal, and has pretty much been proven and admitted to(if not prosecuted). That said, I agree with you (and it seems to be the popular opinion) that the punishment will come from the Steelers, rather than the league itself.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

How can you read through that whole DA interview, and this entire thread, and miss the part(s) about providing alcohol to a minor? It's certainly less of a crime than sexual assault, but it still qualifies as illegal, and has pretty much been proven and admitted to(if not prosecuted). That said, I agree with you (and it seems to be the popular opinion) that the punishment will come from the Steelers, rather than the league itself.

Sorry, but unknowingly buying alcohol for a 20 year old who shouldn't been in a number of bars she visited that night isn't high on the moral crimes meter. These guys are football players, not monks. Should we suspend/fine NFL players for jaywalking?

I've read and listened to the entire DA's transcript. The most telling phrase is still "we didn’t even have probable cause in this case". There's really nothing else of substance there.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the Steelers will do. Big Ben is the leader of the offense and the face of the franchise. They can't throw him under the bus, or make him out to be the villain. If they do, they'll have a mess on their hands when the fans boo every time Ben takes the field, not to mention the locker room ramifications. They could trade Ben, but unless they get top dollar in a trade their fans and the players will be pissed off. This is a team built to win now and it'd be bad for business to let Ben go for a song and then watch him be successful elsewhere (and yes, he is a great QB) while the franchise struggles under Dennis Dixon. The Rooneys have to walk a very fine line.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry, but unknowingly buying alcohol for a 20 year old who shouldn't been in a number of bars she visited that night isn't high on the moral crimes meter. These guys are football players, not monks. Should we suspend/fine NFL players for jaywalking?

I wasn't making any kind of moral judgment, just disputing your suggestion that nothing illegal could be proven or likely happened. That said, even taking it completely out of the context of the sexual assault case, it's a (now high profile) crime involving alcohol and an underage woman. I think both of those factors make the distinction pretty easy to make (and one that might already be made in writing, within players contracts, the league's Personal Conduct Policy and/or Substance Abuse Policy).

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've bought alcohol for various minors probably dozens of times in my life, and (badly) flirted with a number of drunk women/girls that were 10-or-more years younger than me at a hundred different times, so I'm not trying to make any sort of grand moral judgment regarding those issues, I just don't agree that there's not any proof or evidence of misconduct to punish Roethlisberger.

Regarding the fans, I'll definitely be interested to see how they respond towards him, as this thing evolves.

[Dr. Sak]

Art Rooney News Conference Set For 2:30 P.M. - News Story - WPXI Pittsburgh

[DaddyTorgo]

i'd gain some newfound respect for the Steelers organization if they at least "slapped him on the wrist" for this (and all the other stuff), but I fear it will just be a news conference along the lines of "well the DA investigated and isn't filing charges. ben is our QB and we'd like to move foward into the season and put this behind us."

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But I also don't see the NFL suspending a white Super Bowl MVP Quarterback playing on a major team.

This is why I'm more prone to suspend him.

Labor disputes are around the corner and if one of the chips I want to play consists of putting in conduct clauses, I want to try to make sure that the player's association knows that conduct that the league deems deterimental to it's image are not going to be swayed by position or race.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If I was pressed for a guess about today's news, I'd go with some version of "the team has expressed their concerns to Ben & he's on notice that any other issues could lead to significant action".

Either that or "after consultation with Ben, we're supporting him as he enters treatment for personal issues and expect him to return by week 5 of the regular season".

[JPhillips]

I'm hearing unconfirmed reports that Rooney is going to allege that Roethlisberger groped him in the training room.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm hearing unconfirmed reports that Rooney is going to allege that Roethlisberger groped him in the training room.

And then Arnold Palmer threw them both out.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

And then Arnold Palmer threw them both out.

I thought it would be Pumpy, but at least someone made the correct reply.

[Ragone]

Lost in all this, Steelers fans can no longer make fun of bengal's fans for having a criminal element on their team. I don't think any bengals ever tried to sexually assault anyone.

I didn't read every page of this thread, but apparently there is a 3rd woman from awhile back...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...rger-incident/

[MikeVic]

Every team has a criminal element.

[Ragone]

true, but steeler's fans took pride in bashing the poor bengals for all their criminal woes..

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Every team has a criminal element.

Except for the Rams, I believe. My understanding is that you need actual players in order to have a criminal element.

[MikeVic]

I thought every fan took pride in bashing the Bengals' criminal woes. Isn't there a thread here somewhere to that effect?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Lost in all this, Steelers fans can no longer make fun of bengal's fans for having a criminal element on their team. I don't think any bengals ever tried to sexually assault anyone.

I didn't read every page of this thread, but apparently there is a 3rd woman from awhile back...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...rger-incident/

Note that the attorney quickly backed off his statements a few short hours later.

"Mr. Manion did not mean to express or imply that he has any information that Mr. Roethlisberger engaged in any illegal behavior"

Let me know when Ben is arrested for sexual assault. Besides, it's not like the Bengals didn't have any retorts before: Santonio, Bam Morris, Plex, Jeff Reed, Davenport...

[Ragone]

Bam Morris's/plex's and davenports problems all happened elsewhere for the most part.. all things most steeler's fans will bring up if you try to downplay their criminal element

(I live next door to the biggest steeler fan on the planet i believe, i've had this arguement before)

Regardless of all this, nobody will ever know what really transpired, but it sure does look bad.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Ragone

Bam Morris's/plex's and davenports problems all happened elsewhere for the most part.. all things most steeler's fans will bring up if you try to downplay their criminal element

(I live next door to the biggest steeler fan on the planet i believe, i've had this arguement before)

Regardless of all this, nobody will ever know what really transpired, but it sure does look bad.

I don't think it looks bad...it looks like a witch hunt.

If intercourse happened, there would be DNA evidence galore. There wasn't enough to even test. If a sexual assault happened, it should be fairly easy to tell...yet hospital workers couldn't make that determination. And though they found perhaps something, they couldn't tell when or how it was done on a sexually active female. How is it that she can't remember if she had sex 30 minutes ago, but somehow realizes it hours later? At this point, there's no physical evidence at all that can corroborate her non-drunk account.

How is it that all the law-and-order types don't believe the two cops who didn't see anything and were part of Ben's entourage that night? How is it that we'd believe a statement that said Ben was making crude sexual remarks all night yet omits her own sexual comments, including wearing something with the initials "DTF" which stands for Down to Fuck? How is it that, by all accounts, every member of that party, including Big Ben, were reacted totally "stunned" by the accusation? How is it that the wildly inconsistent statements by her friends (including one that said the bodyguard physically dragged the girl into the bathroom) aren't being pointed out?

Did something happen in that bathroom? Who the fuck knows? Did it happen the way the supposed victim described? Looking at the physical evidence, that's highly unlikely. From the physical evidence, there's a better chance that it happened the way Ben described the incident. That's probably unlikely too in the grand scheme of things. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle - a drunken, unfulfilled, semi-sexual encounter between two 20-somethings.

As I said, at this point it's a witch hunt. And it's going to come back to bite the NFL in the ass, because some fan is going to figure out that if they can get the opposing star player in any kind of semi-compromising situation (even one that is ultimately fictitious), there's a chance that player will be raked over the coals and suspended, giving the fan's team a better chance at winning.

[thesloppy]

More detail for anybody who wants it:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...isberger1.html

...uhhh, I was interested, but I think I'll let someone else do the digging through 23 pages of scribbles.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Except for the Rams, I believe. My understanding is that you need actual players in order to have a criminal element.

Leonard Little.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

More detail for anybody who wants it:

Ben Roethlisberger's Bad Play - April 15, 2010

...uhhh, I was interested, but I think I'll let someone else do the digging through 23 pages of scribbles.

ESPN did it for you. Ben Roethlisberger exposed himself to victim, she said no - ESPN

People have been charged, heck convicted, on way less than this. Of course they weren't wealthy or played in the NFL.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...sberger17.html

XXXXXX became upset with Roethslisberger. This was in response to a comment that Roethlisberger made when he purchased a round of shots for the girls in the VIP room. Roethlisberger stated "All my bitches, take some shots"

Well....everything else aside, I have to thank Ben for adding that to my lexicon. Unfortunate that in my case, it will likely be directed at other 40-yr-old men, and/or family members.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

ESPN did it for you. Ben Roethlisberger exposed himself to victim, she said no - ESPN

People have been charged, heck convicted, on way less than this. Of course they weren't wealthy or played in the NFL.

This is in the same statement that she claims he had sex with her despite the existence of any DNA evidence, which is pretty much impossible.

So if that's enough to get people charged or convicted, then I'm claiming that you exposed yourself to me. Now it's time for the police to come and drag you away!

[molson]

I love the new slicked-back longer hair look for Ben. It just fits all these stories about him. He's such a massive douchebag.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This is in the same statement that she claims he had sex with her despite the existence of any DNA evidence, which is pretty much impossible.

So if that's enough to get people charged or convicted, then I'm claiming that you exposed yourself to me. Now it's time for the police to come and drag you away!

Ben admitted to sexual contact with the woman. So while they didn't have DNA evidence, I doubt Ben would lie about that (and potentially incriminate himself).

And if nothing was taking place, why did his bodyguards block the door to the bathroom and pretend they didn't know what was going on? Is this normal if two people are not having sexual contact and just debating the latest health care bill?

They probably would have trouble convicting a guy who can spend millions on lawyers of this crime. And the victim probably didn't want to get dragged through the ringer of Pittsburgh fanboys destroying her life. But I still believe if it was you or me in that situation (or a black NFL star), we'd probably be charged.

And maybe it isn't sexual assault, but the whole thing sounds real bad and there is just way too much smoke around this guy to not have some fire. Ben is a sexual predator in my book.

[rowech]

Well...we have a 28 year old guy trying to get a bunch of 20 year old girls drunk to have sex with one of them. Illegal? Sure as hell is...giving 20 year old girls drinks? How is that not at least a punishment of some sort? Slime ball? Most definitely.

[thesloppy]

I gotta argue another distinction:

It's not quite correct to say they didn't have any DNA evidence, they didn't have sufficient DNA evidence.

Initial examination of the sexual assault kit submitted in this case by technicial at the GBI Crime Lab revealed the presence of male DNA.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by rowech

Well...we have a 28 year old guy trying to get a bunch of 20 year old girls drunk to have sex with one of them. Illegal? Sure as hell is...giving 20 year old girls drinks? How is that not at least a punishment of some sort? Slime ball? Most definitely.

So Ben is now responsible for the girl having a fake ID??!?!?!?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I gotta argue another distinction:

It's not quite correct to say they didn't have any DNA evidence, they didn't have sufficient DNA evidence.

Sex is going to leave sufficient DNA evidence, even if you have a dick the size of Mini-Me.

She was walking around with a charm with the initials DTF - "down to fuck". I'm not sure we can assume this was a lady of high virtue, though I'm really trying to steer clear of casting aspersions.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So Ben is now responsible for the girl having a fake ID??!?!?!?

A fake ID has nothing to do with it. You serve alcohol to a minor, your screwed.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sex is going to leave sufficient DNA evidence, even if you have a dick the size of Mini-Me.

She was walking around with a charm with the initials DTF - "down to fuck". I'm not sure we can assume this was a lady of high virtue, though I'm really trying to steer clear of casting aspersions.

Did she allege intercourse? It sounds like he was just waving his dick around, probably brushing up against her.

[RainMaker]

Come on, he's a fucking scumbag. Just because you don't want to see Charlie Batch under center doesn't mean you have to defend sexual predators.

Fake ID is not an excuse when it comes to supplying minors with alcohol. There is often insufficient DNA evidence in rape cases. And from the reports, the charm seemed like an inside joke between her and her friends. But I guess blaming the victim is common. Well if she didn't want to get raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Did she allege intercourse? It sounds like he was just waving his dick around, probably brushing up against her.

She said they had sex. Ben said they had sexual contact. The only one that seems to not think they had sex is Blackadar.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Did she allege intercourse? It sounds like he was just waving his dick around, probably brushing up against her.

Yes, she claimed they had intercourse. Of course, that was on her 3rd version of the events.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Come on, he's a fucking scumbag. Just because you don't want to see Charlie Batch under center doesn't mean you have to defend sexual predators.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/...hers_accu.html

(backs away slowly, whistling)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Come on, he's a fucking scumbag. Just because you don't want to see Charlie Batch under center doesn't mean you have to defend sexual predators.

Fake ID is not an excuse when it comes to supplying minors with alcohol. There is often insufficient DNA evidence in rape cases. And from the reports, the charm seemed like an inside joke between her and her friends. But I guess blaming the victim is common. Well if she didn't want to get raped, why did she wear a short skirt?

And you fuck goats. Since I wrote it, it must be true. After all, that's what you seem to believe.

Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Please note this is a much lower standard than the one to convict, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Now if the DA - someone who had access to more facts than ANY of us - says that there is not a reasonable belief that Ben committed a crime, when why would you?
Or is now the DA in on it?

As for the buying drinks, if Ben is buying alcohol in the bar, isn't it the bar's responsibility to ensure she's of legal age? Since when did a patron of the bar become responsible for checking the ID of the other patrons? Frankly, it's statements like that that show you're pretty much off your rocker on this one.

FYI, Dennis Dixon is the #2 now.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/...hers_accu.html

(backs away slowly, whistling)

I was thinking more along the lines of Tawana Brawley rape allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for the buying drinks, if Ben is buying alcohol in the bar, isn't it the bar's responsibility to ensure she's of legal age? Since when did a patron of the bar become responsible for checking the ID of the other patrons? Frankly, it's statements like that that show you're pretty much off your rocker on this one.

Again (for like the fourth time), the DA also said Ben was pretty much guilty of supplying alcohol to a minor, but that it would still require the victim's testimony to convict, and would also involve prosecuting her for underage drinking, so they didn't prosecute either crime (and that his office doesn't handle misdemeanors anyway).

Using the exact logic you applied earlier in your post, why wouldn't you believe the DA if he implied it was Ben's responsibility, since he's obviously a little closer to the case than you or I? Is the DA off his rocker?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And you fuck goats. Since I wrote it, it must be true. After all, that's what you seem to believe.

Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Please note this is a much lower standard than the one to convict, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Now if the DA - someone who had access to more facts than ANY of us - says that there is not a reasonable belief that Ben committed a crime, when why would you?
Or is now the DA in on it?

Eyewitness testimony is usually enough for probable cause (and you have more than even that here). But prosecutors still have discretion, and this girl didn't want to go through with it, it would have been a media circus, and it probably would have resulted in an acquittal, so I can definitely understand why they let it go. Depending on the jurisdiction, prosecutors decline to prosecute up to 70-80% of charges referred to them. This one is an easy one to pass on.

Or in other words, a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute doesn't always say much about guilt, or the strength of the evidence.

And sure, all we know for sure is that he was trying to get 20-year olds drunk, and he got one of them into a small room, had his posse guard the entrance, there was some kind of sex act, and the girl was upset about it afterwards. He's certainly a douchebag. And the odds of someone like that crossing some boundaries with women from time to time is pretty close to 100%.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Is the DA off his rocker?

Having watched this guy up close for quite a few years we might not want to go down that road.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And you fuck goats. Since I wrote it, it must be true. After all, that's what you seem to believe.

If I did, unlike Ben, my sexual conquests of this divine beast would be consensual.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Probable cause is defined as "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Please note this is a much lower standard than the one to convict, which is beyond a reasonable doubt. Now if the DA - someone who had access to more facts than ANY of us - says that there is not a reasonable belief that Ben committed a crime, when why would you?
Or is now the DA in on it?

Actually the DA said one of the biggest reasons for not pressing charges is that the girl and her family did not want to go further with charges. Can't blame her when Steelers fans drop their morals to defame a 20-year old girl so they can have a shot at the playoffs.

The DA didn't think they could win. That has nothing to do with belief. Many people are not charged simply because the DA does not believe they can win with the evidence they have.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for the buying drinks, if Ben is buying alcohol in the bar, isn't it the bar's responsibility to ensure she's of legal age? Since when did a patron of the bar become responsible for checking the ID of the other patrons? Frankly, it's statements like that that show you're pretty much off your rocker on this one.

I'm just stating the law. Not sure how that can put me off my rocker. As someone who worked at a bar, fake IDs are no excuse for serving alcohol to a minor. Thinking someone is 21 is not excuse for serving alcohol to a minor. Even being told the person is 21 is not an excuse to serve alcohol to a minor. This was a college bar I worked at and they would do busts and they would right tickets to students in booths who had minors with them that were drinking (the person 21 or over would buy a pitcher and bring it back for everyone to drink). The bar frequently got fined for serving minors even if they had a great fake ID.

The law may suck and it may be unfair, but it's the law. Assumption is not an excuse for breaking it in this case.

[JediKooter]

I heard they are going to make him cut off his mullet.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If I did, unlike Ben, my sexual conquests of this divine beast would be consensual.

Your bias is noted.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually the DA said one of the biggest reasons for not pressing charges is that the girl and her family did not want to go further with charges. Can't blame her when Steelers fans drop their morals to defame a 20-year old girl so they can have a shot at the playoffs.

The DA didn't think they could win. That has nothing to do with belief. Many people are not charged simply because the DA does not believe they can win with the evidence they have.

The girl's wishes are entirely irrelevant to this case. If the DA had evidence, he's compelled to press charges. That's his duty as DA.

It's not just that the DA didn't think he could win. He said multiple times that he did not have probable cause. There's a big fucking difference between the two. Probable cause is defined as "there is a reasonable belief that the person committed a crime". That's the very definition of the term. So when he says he doesn't have probable cause, it precisely means that he does not have a reasonable belief that Ben committed the crime. In other words, he couldn't even legally charge him with the crime, never mind actually win the case.

As for defaming the girl, please point to something that I've posted about her that's inaccurate. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, we have a girl that stalked Ben from bar to bar, got hammered, has no idea what happened and then later made a false claim. If there was something tangible to her claim, then I'd be all for running Ben out of town. But if you get your head out of your ass and actually look at the facts, the statements and the physical evidence, you'd quickly realize why no charges were brought.

But I guess it's just easier to be part of the ignorant lynch mob and yell "off with his head". It's probably more fun too, but I don't believe on stringing people up based on false rumors and innuendo.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

If the DA had evidence, he's compelled to press charges. That's his duty as DA.

That's not true at all.