This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
She FELL!!
If he had his bodyguards with him, I think they would vouch that she did in fact fall by accident.
She accused him of assaulting her in the bathroom. He admitted to sexual contact. The alone part I guess is not settled, but it sounded like no one else was in the bathroom with them. His friends (cops from Pennsylvania) were interviewed and they stated they saw nothing indicative of an assault. It didn't sound like they were in the bathroom either.
That says a ton about you that you are a "big Irvin fan". He is one of the most pathetic human beings that has ever played football.E_Smith said:
I'm a fan of him as an athlete, not as a human being. I think there is a distinction. Also, I don't think I'm as judgmental as you sound.
There are those people who fornicate with 20 something college girls and those who are jealous of those who do.
He didn't admit to sexual contact.Anonymous sources have alleged he admitted to "contact". Huge difference.We have no idea if they were ever alone
There certainly are. However, this guy is more than happy to go home to his wife of 17 years and 9-month-old little boy. Amazing as it may sound to you, some of us truly think his actions sound stupid, not enviable.
Not to mention you're not facing possible criminal charges & what could be an expensive civil suit.
Do you check the IDs of girls at a bar to see if they are 21?Also, it wasnt a women's bathroom. The VIP section has a uni-sex bathroom, that I believe is just one toilet. They went in together apparently.3nOut said:I agree. That was his biggest mistake that night. In order:
1. Not having his bodyguards around and watching while making out with her (at minimum). What was he thinking being alone with her?
2. Going after a 20 year old
3. Not helping her after she got hurt
4. Going into the womn's bathroom
5. Making 'contact' with her without her consent
you have a link? I haven't heard any report that they went in together.Do you check the IDs of girls at a bar to see if they are 21?Also, it wasnt a women's bathroom. The VIP section has a uni-sex bathroom, that I believe is just one toilet. They went in together apparently.3nOut said:I agree. That was his biggest mistake that night. In order:
1. Not having his bodyguards around and watching while making out with her (at minimum). What was he thinking being alone with her?
2. Going after a 20 year old
3. Not helping her after she got hurt
4. Going into the womn's bathroom
5. Making 'contact' with her without her consent
Well, I'm assuming they went in together. The bathroom seems to be a simple one-person bathroom similar to what I've experienced in VIP sections. Although some VIP areas have multiple single toilet uni-sex bathrooms with a bouncer who let people into the area etc.you have a link? I haven't heard any report that they went in together.Do you check the IDs of girls at a bar to see if they are 21?Also, it wasnt a women's bathroom. The VIP section has a uni-sex bathroom, that I believe is just one toilet. They went in together apparently.3nOut said:I agree. That was his biggest mistake that night. In order:
1. Not having his bodyguards around and watching while making out with her (at minimum). What was he thinking being alone with her?
2. Going after a 20 year old
3. Not helping her after she got hurt
4. Going into the womn's bathroom
5. Making 'contact' with her without her consent
You did notice the words "reportedly" and "sources" in that link right?
Yes, I did. You did notice your statement: "Anonymous sources have alleged he admitted to "contact." Huge difference." Right?
You can still go out to clubs and bars at 28 without raping or assaulting girls.
True, but when you're a "celebrity" who has a pending civil suit it's probably a good idea not too.
This probably goes to Irvin's point somewhat, but he could still go out, he just needed to have learned from his previous and pending situation. No way should he have gone into a bathroom alone with this girl and no way should he have been recruiting a harem essentially and making advances on 20+ girls and blowing the ones off who seemed to just want photos. That's just dumb.True, but when you're a "celebrity" who has a pending civil suit it's probably a good idea not too.
The old one was shut down last night. I'm in favor of having a thread open to post the latest news/discussion on the case. But lets not call Ben that name yet!
Roethlisberger's very capable and aggressive lawyer has not denied this story in several days. If that report was false the lawyer would have been all over the media denouncing it. This is what his lawyer said:
The lawyer denied sexual assault occurred. He did not deny sexual contact occurred.
This might be the worst post I've seen on this board so far this year.
You're entitled to your opinion.Not surprised that you would think that.
I'm not disagreeing totally, I understand your thought process.However, depending on the information available to Garland, there may be no reason to make any type of statement beyond what he initially made simply to refute rumors and conjectures.
http://www.ajc.com/news/gbi-revisits-scene-of-360890.htmlThe quotes are of the anonymous source, not Roethlisberger.
This is about to get very ugly.
I'm not arguing this didn't happen, but again what is the source that the author is quoting?Is it based on the KDKA report?It's an important point.This may very well be true, but it's not clear yet that this is a fact.
It's confirmed by his lawyer not denying it when he was denying that a sexual assault occurred. Roethlisberger saying he had sexual contact with the accuser is a huge, huge detail which is damaging to Roethlisberger's public image and may be damaging to his defense in a criminal case as well. If there was any way at all possible to deny that Roethlisberger said it, the lawyer would have done so.
Didn't Garland make his initial statement on the 9th?Didn't the KDKA report emerge on the 10th?Are you saying because Garland has not come forward with another statement by today (the 12th) that that serves as some sort of tacit agreement the KDKA report is accurate?I don't know about that.
Look, it all comes down to how much faith you put into KDKA's reporting. But reporters are paid to report real news, not fake news. And its all we have to go on at this point. I wouldn't necessarily agree, however, that Garland would refute the story that he admitted to sexual contact just yet. Any statement by the lawyer as to the facts of the case could be prejudicial to his case--whether positive statements of facts or negative refutations. A blanket statement that "there was no sexual assault" is all that is needed. If Ben's defense is that the contact was consensual, then it may not be damaging to state there was sexual contact. Of course, it could be damaging in the sense that it could give authorities more reason to charge him because it somewhat corroborates her story.
Big Ben sounds like a world class PUA.
I disagree with this guy that the Steelers have to release Ben if he is charged in order to stay on the "high ground." What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Basically this anchor thinks that sports teams have to fire players based on rumor, innuendo, and unproven allegations. Perhaps the Steelers should release him in the name of smart business (maybe, maybe not), but I don't think it has anything to do with the "high ground."
This is consistent with what I've been told about Ben by people who have encountered him out and about around Pittsburgh. He's apparently a pretty arrogant dude.
I agree. Just being charged is not grounds to release him. Grounds to suspend him sure
He could have patted her on the butt. He could have kissed her. There are lots of scenarios that constitute "sexual contact" that don't make him the sexual monster some people are making him out to be. consistent with all that I know as well.
