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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

[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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

[Roy H.]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

As you have about Avery without any evidence.

I say "she didn't go to the police or show any evidence."

You say "He paid her."

You are absolutely correct we have formed opinions here.

I said that he’s the one that paid to have the evidence silenced, because you were arguing that she’s the one who didn’t want the evidence to be public. 

I hope AB didn’t commit a sexual assault, but there’s no way to know. I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they hooked up in some capacity, but that’s really all we really can safely conjecture.  Calling it “hush money at absolute worst”, and indicating that the contact must not be criminal, indicates a strong bias.

[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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

[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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

There’s a difference between “not convicting him” (which nobody without knowledge should do) and completely exonerating him and attacking the alleged victim (which you have done). One is reasonably prudent. The other is biased and potentially misogynistic.

Again:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

How is that not an attack on her character?

[Eja117]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

As you have about Avery without any evidence.

I say "she didn't go to the police or show any evidence."

You say "He paid her."

You are absolutely correct we have formed opinions here.

I said that he’s the one that paid to have the evidence silenced, because you were arguing that she’s the one who didn’t want the evidence to be public. 

I hope AB didn’t commit a sexual assault, but there’s no way to know. I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they hooked up in some capacity, but that’s really all we really can safely conjecture.  Calling it “hush money at absolute worst”, and indicating that the contact must not be criminal, indicates a strong bias.

Saying it's possibly hush money indicates an understanding of reality.  Are you saying no celebrity has ever paid hush money when they haven't committed a crime? He's guilty of borderline criminal behavior by virtue of the fact money went from him to her?

I'm perfectly fine with "He probably did something because he paid her."

But then there's "She wanted no part of police or cross examination so it's probably something other than criminal"

Either you give a man presumption of innocence if both parties don't want to show you evidence or you don't.


Further....it's not like this woman couldn't go to the police....possibly get him convicted....do us all a solid....and then still get money.  The choices weren't exclusive here by any means.

[Roy H.]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

As you have about Avery without any evidence.

I say "she didn't go to the police or show any evidence."

You say "He paid her."

You are absolutely correct we have formed opinions here.

I said that he’s the one that paid to have the evidence silenced, because you were arguing that she’s the one who didn’t want the evidence to be public. 

I hope AB didn’t commit a sexual assault, but there’s no way to know. I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they hooked up in some capacity, but that’s really all we really can safely conjecture.  Calling it “hush money at absolute worst”, and indicating that the contact must not be criminal, indicates a strong bias.

Saying it's possibly hush money indicates an understanding of reality.  Are you saying no celebrity has ever paid hush money when they haven't committed a crime? He's guilty of borderline criminal behavior by virtue of the fact money went from him to her?

I'm perfectly fine with "He probably did something because he paid her."

But then there's "She wanted no part of police or cross examination so it's probably something other than criminal"

Either you give a man presumption of innocence if both parties don't want to show you evidence or you don't.


Further....it's not like this woman couldn't go to the police....possibly get him convicted....do us all a solid....and then still get money.  The choices weren't exclusive here by any means.

“Hush money at absolute worst” ≠ “possibly hush money”

Can we agree on that? Maybe you overstated your case previously.

I don’t have enough evidence to say which party is lying, or even misremembering. It could be hush money, but that’s not the absolutely worst thing that might have occurred here.

[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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

[Eja117]

Again. It's very simple. Either we go around believing accusations without any evidence because of reasons and studies or we don't go around believing accusations without any evidence.  I choose not to believe accusations without evidence.

That's not to say that I think the accuser isn't telling the truth or her version of it. Just that I refuse to convict someone in some court of opinion because of an accusation with no evidence. Certainly not as it relates to crimes.

There’s nothing wrong with that opinion, but it conflicts with your prior words:

That tells me that she basically extorted him for money

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

It’s pretty explicit that you’ve formed an opinion about the accuser and her credibility.

As you have about Avery without any evidence.

I say "she didn't go to the police or show any evidence."

You say "He paid her."

You are absolutely correct we have formed opinions here.

I said that he’s the one that paid to have the evidence silenced, because you were arguing that she’s the one who didn’t want the evidence to be public. 

I hope AB didn’t commit a sexual assault, but there’s no way to know. I think there’s enough evidence to suggest that they hooked up in some capacity, but that’s really all we really can safely conjecture.  Calling it “hush money at absolute worst”, and indicating that the contact must not be criminal, indicates a strong bias.

Saying it's possibly hush money indicates an understanding of reality.  Are you saying no celebrity has ever paid hush money when they haven't committed a crime? He's guilty of borderline criminal behavior by virtue of the fact money went from him to her?

I'm perfectly fine with "He probably did something because he paid her."

But then there's "She wanted no part of police or cross examination so it's probably something other than criminal"

Either you give a man presumption of innocence if both parties don't want to show you evidence or you don't.


Further....it's not like this woman couldn't go to the police....possibly get him convicted....do us all a solid....and then still get money.  The choices weren't exclusive here by any means.

“Hush money at absolute worst” ≠ “possibly hush money”

Can we agree on that? Maybe you overstated your case previously.

I don’t have enough evidence to say which party is lying, or even misremembering. It could be hush money, but that’s not the absolutely worst thing that might have occurred here.

Originally I said I saw the money as hush money at worst.  Worst in the sense that the worst indicator of Avery's character (in favor of hers). 
Then I offered that you have to accept the possibility that it's hush money. 

You just said it could be hush money so we seem to agree there on some level.

[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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

You seem to be acting like the things people do aren't actually indicators of choosing or wanting to do that.

That's essentially what happened right?  She decided not to go to the police. She needs to own that. Then her people called him for money right?  Isn't that what happened?  I mean he didn't wake up the next morning like "I made a big mistake and feel terrible" right? 

I mean people are talking about Avery's character here and how he is a fraud of a Christian so fine.
Let's give her the same assume the worst about her character treatment we're giving Avery.
Either she is doing something with a married man and a crime wasn't committed and she still wanted to get paid and then the non disclose she agreed to ended up being worth nothing

or

He did commit a crime and she know that, but rather than help all us convict a criminal and get him off the streets she opts to get paid (which she could have anyway) and then non disclose she agreed to ended up not being worth anything.

I think I am justified saying I wouldn't really want to have anything to do with either of these people. You can be best friends with them if you want but I'd rather not. Call me judgmental, but I definitely wouldn't want my brother dating her, and I definitely wouldn't want my sister dating him.

[nickagneta]

Just so we are all clear here, there has been no indication on who originally asked for this to be settled by a payout for a NDA. Been a lot of speculation that it was the accuser but it could easily have come from Bradley.

[Eja117]

Just so we are all clear here, there has been no indication on who originally asked for this to be settled by a payout for a NDA. Been a lot of speculation that it was the accuser but it could easily have come from Bradley.

Is that a common thing? Somebody reaches out and says "hey I feel bad. Can I please give you money"?  If that happens it implies it's hush money, right?

[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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

You seem to be acting like the things people do aren't actually indicators of choosing or wanting to do that.

That's essentially what happened right?  She decided not to go to the police. She needs to own that. Then her people called him for money right?  Isn't that what happened?  I mean he didn't wake up the next morning like "I made a big mistake and feel terrible" right? 

I mean people are talking about Avery's character here and how he is a fraud of a Christian so fine.
Let's give her the same assume the worst about her character treatment we're giving Avery.
Either she is doing something with a married man and a crime wasn't committed and she still wanted to get paid and then the non disclose she agreed to ended up being worth nothing

or

He did commit a crime and she know that, but rather than help all us convict a criminal and get him off the streets she opts to get paid (which she could have anyway) and then non disclose she agreed to ended up not being worth anything.

I think I am justified saying I wouldn't really want to have anything to do with either of these people. You can be best friends with them if you want but I'd rather not. Call me judgmental, but I definitely wouldn't want my brother dating her, and I definitely wouldn't want my sister dating him.

You're acting as if going to the police is an automatic conviction. It isn't. You're also not acknowledging the toll these trials take on accusers. I'll use the Kobe example again, charges ended up being dropped but a lot of people still think he did it. Once you start to read the statements and get into the case, its easy to see why people think that. Initially, the accuser in that case cooperated but once her mental health history started to become a topic as well her sex life and she started to receive death threats, she refused to testify.

[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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

You seem to be acting like the things people do aren't actually indicators of choosing or wanting to do that.

That's essentially what happened right?  She decided not to go to the police. She needs to own that. Then her people called him for money right?  Isn't that what happened? I mean he didn't wake up the next morning like "I made a big mistake and feel terrible" right? 

I mean people are talking about Avery's character here and how he is a fraud of a Christian so fine.
Let's give her the same assume the worst about her character treatment we're giving Avery.
Either she is doing something with a married man and a crime wasn't committed and she still wanted to get paid and then the non disclose she agreed to ended up being worth nothing

or

He did commit a crime and she know that, but rather than help all us convict a criminal and get him off the streets she opts to get paid (which she could have anyway) and then non disclose she agreed to ended up not being worth anything.

I think I am justified saying I wouldn't really want to have anything to do with either of these people. You can be best friends with them if you want but I'd rather not. Call me judgmental, but I definitely wouldn't want my brother dating her, and I definitely wouldn't want my sister dating him.

No, I'm acknowledging that the things people do could be indicators of a variety of things.

And no, we don't know that "her people" called Avery to ask for money. It's possible that happened but there are, again, plenty of other possibilities that you are refusing to consider. We just don't know.

[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.

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.

Going to the police is evidence you think a crime was committed. So...not going to the police....is at the very least not evidence that you think a crime was committed and may very well be evidence that you think a crime wasn't committed.

I don't owe the accuser my blind belief without seeing evidence. So if you choose not to show it to me by not going to the police......presumption of innocence goes to Mr. Bradley.

No one is saying you have to blindly believe anything. The problem is you're making assumptions about the accuser's behavior.

Not going to the police isn't evidence of anything. There are plenty of reasons a victim might not go to the police as has already been outlined in this thread. The fact that we don't know what happened is further reason to not jump to the conclusions you are jumping to.

I shouldn't give Bradley presumption of innocence? Technically I should give him the presumption of evidence even if she did go to the police. But she didn't.

I never said you can't presume Bradley's innocence. I said you can't presume the accuser's opinion of the event based on the fact that she didn't go to the police. Not going to the police is not evidence of anything.

But you as the accuser can't be given any presumption of truth if you refused to show it to people.

Again, there are plenty of reasons why someone who goes through something like this would not want to be public about it. Once more:

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

I didn't say there aren't reasons.

You've claimed her not going to the police is evidence she only wants money or that she doesn't really believe he committed a crime. That is not true. There are lots of other potential reasons. Reasons you ignore so you can reach your proffered conclusion about her character.

I haven't said anything about her character. I've stated there's no evidence to me that Avery committed a crime because she didn't want us to see the evidence.
I also don't think I ever said "she only wants money".  Perhaps she also wanted some sort of closure and privacy. But she didn't want to be cross examined. We know that as fact. She wanted no part of a trial.  So I can't convict him for her the way you do.

You are making assumptions about her character when you say things like "That tells me that she basically extorted him for money." There is no evidence that this is the true but you've made the assumption anyway. Meanwhile you're accusing me of convicting Avery when I've never said a word suggesting I know anything about his guilt or innocence.

It is also not a "fact" that she "didn't want to be cross examined." That is is yet another assumption you make based on this debunked idea that not going to the police is evidence of something. It isn't.

You seem to be acting like the things people do aren't actually indicators of choosing or wanting to do that.

That's essentially what happened right?  She decided not to go to the police. She needs to own that. Then her people called him for money right?  Isn't that what happened?  I mean he didn't wake up the next morning like "I made a big mistake and feel terrible" right? 

I mean people are talking about Avery's character here and how he is a fraud of a Christian so fine.
Let's give her the same assume the worst about her character treatment we're giving Avery.
Either she is doing something with a married man and a crime wasn't committed and she still wanted to get paid and then the non disclose she agreed to ended up being worth nothing

or

He did commit a crime and she know that, but rather than help all us convict a criminal and get him off the streets she opts to get paid (which she could have anyway) and then non disclose she agreed to ended up not being worth anything.

I think I am justified saying I wouldn't really want to have anything to do with either of these people. You can be best friends with them if you want but I'd rather not. Call me judgmental, but I definitely wouldn't want my brother dating her, and I definitely wouldn't want my sister dating him.

You're acting as if going to the police is an automatic conviction. It isn't. You're also not acknowledging the toll these trials take on accusers. I'll use the Kobe example again, charges ended up being dropped but a lot of people still think he did it. Once you start to read the statements and get into the case, its easy to see why people think that. Initially, the accuser in that case cooperated but once her mental health history started to become a topic as well her sex life and she started to receive death threats, she refused to testify.

I hope she went to the police about the death threats.