Avery Bradley accused of sexual assault; denies allegations

[Eja117]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

You realize statistics show that only a fraction of sexual assaults are reported, right? There's a multitude of reasons behind that but one of the biggest reasons is the fear of not being believed. This thread is really a perfect microcosm. We have no facts about the victim or the incident, but people think they "know" Avery and can speak to his character, and therefore bend over backwards to believe he couldn't possibly do something like this.

Sexual assault cases are the only crimes where the victim is put on trial. No one has to prove that they were robbed and then explain what they did to get themselves robbed. No one asks what murder victims do to get themselves murdered.

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

[Big333223]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

There are plenty of reasons victims of abuse don't go to the police. Here's a good article about it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

which is a huge problem.

Tough one to solve too.

Totally. And claiming that not going to the police is evidence that an accuser didn't think the attacker had committed a crime, as eja has done, is part of that problem.

[RJ87]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

You realize statistics show that only a fraction of sexual assaults are reported, right? There's a multitude of reasons behind that but one of the biggest reasons is the fear of not being believed. This thread is really a perfect microcosm. We have no facts about the victim or the incident, but people think they "know" Avery and can speak to his character, and therefore bend over backwards to believe he couldn't possibly do something like this.

Sexual assault cases are the only crimes where the victim is put on trial. No one has to prove that they were robbed and then explain what they did to get themselves robbed. No one asks what murder victims do to get themselves murdered.

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

Not all people have faith in the justice system - hence the BLM movement. Any supporter will tell you the outrage is over cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. But politicizing this issue is not what this thread or my initial comment was about.

You seem all to comfortable to say that because she accepted money, she must not believe a crime had occurred while completely dismissing his willingness to actually shell out said money to buy her silence. He agreed to a settlement, why aren't we questioning why such a high character guy isn't seeking his day in court to prove innocence?

[Eja117]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

There are plenty of reasons victims of abuse don't go to the police. Here's a good article about it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

which is a huge problem.

Tough one to solve too.

Totally. And claiming that not going to the police is evidence that an accuser didn't think the attacker had committed a crime, as eja has done, is part of that problem.

I'm kinda a "show me" person.  Another way to say is "Trust but verify".   If we started believing every accusation simply because it is an accusation then we could live in Salem in the late 1600s and I think that was probably a terrible time and place to be. A great time for accusers. But not anyone else.

[Eja117]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

You realize statistics show that only a fraction of sexual assaults are reported, right? There's a multitude of reasons behind that but one of the biggest reasons is the fear of not being believed. This thread is really a perfect microcosm. We have no facts about the victim or the incident, but people think they "know" Avery and can speak to his character, and therefore bend over backwards to believe he couldn't possibly do something like this.

Sexual assault cases are the only crimes where the victim is put on trial. No one has to prove that they were robbed and then explain what they did to get themselves robbed. No one asks what murder victims do to get themselves murdered.

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

Not all people have faith in the justice system - hence the BLM movement. Any supporter will tell you the outrage is over cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. But politicizing this issue is not what this thread or my initial comment was about.

You seem all to comfortable to say that because she accepted money, she must not believe a crime had occurred while completely dismissing his willingness to actually shell out said money to buy her silence. He agreed to a settlement, why aren't we questioning why such a high character guy not seek his day in court to prove innocence?

Because he was never arrested or charged with a crime and the accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence.

[RJ87]

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

Not all people have faith in the justice system - hence the BLM movement. Any supporter will tell you the outrage is over cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. But politicizing this issue is not what this thread or my initial comment was about.

You seem all to comfortable to say that because she accepted money, she must not believe a crime had occurred while completely dismissing his willingness to actually shell out said money to buy her silence. He agreed to a settlement, why aren't we questioning why such a high character guy not seek his day in court to prove innocence?

Because he was never arrested or charged with a crime and the accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence.

Then again, I ask - why not call her bluff?

[Eja117]

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

Not all people have faith in the justice system - hence the BLM movement. Any supporter will tell you the outrage is over cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. But politicizing this issue is not what this thread or my initial comment was about.

You seem all to comfortable to say that because she accepted money, she must not believe a crime had occurred while completely dismissing his willingness to actually shell out said money to buy her silence. He agreed to a settlement, why aren't we questioning why such a high character guy not seek his day in court to prove innocence?

Because he was never arrested or charged with a crime and the accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence.

Then again, I ask - why not call her bluff?

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I never said the accusation isn't believable or that Bradley is Tim Tebow or Mike Pence or completely innocent of all wrong doing or anything.

I am saying currently there's more evidence that he didn't commit a crime than that he did.

I mean ....hey....why not just believe all accusations all the time?

[Eja117]

Hey Roy....out of curiosity...now that the non disclosure agreement has been broken does Avery get his money back? 

[Roy H.]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

You realize statistics show that only a fraction of sexual assaults are reported, right? There's a multitude of reasons behind that but one of the biggest reasons is the fear of not being believed. This thread is really a perfect microcosm. We have no facts about the victim or the incident, but people think they "know" Avery and can speak to his character, and therefore bend over backwards to believe he couldn't possibly do something like this.

Sexual assault cases are the only crimes where the victim is put on trial. No one has to prove that they were robbed and then explain what they did to get themselves robbed. No one asks what murder victims do to get themselves murdered.

People ask what people did to get murdered all the time. Maybe you missed the whole Black Lives Matter thing.

This is really simple. We have a justice system. In it people get charged with crimes. Then evidence is presented to a jury assuming it goes to trial.  There is a presumption of innocence until that happens.

Either we live in that world or we live in a world where we presume guilt because of a TMZ report with an anonymous source.

I'm comfortable with my choice. 

One thing we can't do is start picking and choosing based on convenience, virtue signaling, and bias. We can't choose to demonize this guy over here, but in the mean time completely ignore that the Clintons have been accused of far worse.   

You have to look at the actions of the accuser. People that choose not to go to the police or have no evidence or have evidence to the contrary can't possibly be expected to be believed on the same level as accusers that reacted immediately and clearly.

Not all people have faith in the justice system - hence the BLM movement. Any supporter will tell you the outrage is over cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. But politicizing this issue is not what this thread or my initial comment was about.

You seem all to comfortable to say that because she accepted money, she must not believe a crime had occurred while completely dismissing his willingness to actually shell out said money to buy her silence. He agreed to a settlement, why aren't we questioning why such a high character guy not seek his day in court to prove innocence?

Because he was never arrested or charged with a crime and the accuser doesn't want us to see the evidence.

Correction: the accused doesn’t want us to see the evidence.

[KGs Knee]

This should be a lesson for anyone in Avery's position, don't waste your money on a NDA. It will eventually come out, regardless.

[Roy H.]

Hey Roy....out of curiosity...now that the non disclosure agreement has been broken does Avery get his money back?

It depends upon 1) who breached the contract and 2) if there’s a remedy included in the contract for disclosure.

[Big333223]

This just strikes me as really different than say the Rothlisburger thing. That woman was held behind a locked door with guards and went to the police within 24 hours I thought.

I see this as hush money at absolute worst and hush money isn't sexual assault.

Hush money could be sexual assault. Look at all the Weinstein stuff.

Then go to the police. If you don't go to the police not only was he not convicted, not only was he not charged, not only was he not arrested....I mean did she even file a complaint or anything at all? Just tells me she didn't think he had committed a crime serious enough to pursue at the time.

There are plenty of reasons victims of abuse don't go to the police. Here's a good article about it:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

which is a huge problem.

Tough one to solve too.

Totally. And claiming that not going to the police is evidence that an accuser didn't think the attacker had committed a crime, as eja has done, is part of that problem.

I'm kinda a "show me" person.  Another way to say is "Trust but verify".   If we started believing every accusation simply because it is an accusation then we could live in Salem in the late 1600s and I think that was probably a terrible time and place to be. A great time for accusers. But not anyone else.

Nowhere did I say that all accusations should be believed.

Claiming that not going to the police is evidence that a victim didn't think a crime occurred is a well-debunked misnomer. By doing so, you are the one making a baseless assumption.

[KGs Knee]

Do we know who approached the other with the idea of payment for silence? Has it been verified it was Avery?

[Roy H.]

Do we know who approached the other with the idea of payment for silence? Has it been verified it was Avery?

Here’s what TMZ says:

After the incident, the woman contacted Bradley and accused him of assaulting her. The two sides came together to work out a deal to keep her quiet and prevent her from releasing any video, photos or audio.

So, it’s not clear.

[KGs Knee]

Do we know who approached the other with the idea of payment for silence? Has it been verified it was Avery?

Here’s what TMZ says:

After the incident, the woman contacted Bradley and accused him of assaulting her. The two sides came together to work out a deal to keep her quiet and prevent her from releasing any video, photos or audio.

So, it’s not clear.

That seems bizarre that she would contact him before contacting the police if it was assault. Who does that?

But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and besides, I don't trust TMZ too much to begin with. I just don't understand why she would do that.

That certainly needs to be cleared up.