Former Bill, Marcellus Wiley accused of rape

[Just Jack]

Former NFL Pro Bowler Marcellus Wiley accused of raping two women at Columbia University

 

Quote

Former NFL Pro Bowler Marcellus Wiley is facing new allegations that he raped two women while attending Columbia University in the 1990s. The two accusers filed lawsuits last week claiming Wiley attacked them in separate incidents in his dorm room in 1994 when he was a star two-way player for the Columbia Lions, playing both running back and defensive end. Wiley, 50, had already faced assault allegations from other female students.

 

[Saint Doug]

Garbage time takes on a new meaning. 

[ddaryl]

in 1994 ???  these women need to come forward a lot sooner then 3 decades later. 

[Wacka]

Isn't  6here a statute of limitations?

[ddaryl]

@loyal2dagame  Why the vomit emoji for what I posted. Why did these women not come out sooner with the acusation ????
same goes to you @Bruffalo

all I said is they needed to come forward sooner not over 30 years later.  How are you going to prove this at this point? There will have to be witnesses

Edited 13 hours ago by ddaryl

[chongli]

9 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Isn't  6here a statute of limitations?

 

From google Ai:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/18/us/new-york-law-rape-statute-of-limitations-extended/index.html

 

"In New York, the statute of limitations for rape cases has been extended, with second-degree rape having a 20-year limit and third-degree rape a 10-year limit, while ***** in the first degree has no statute of limitation"

[MJS]

4 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

@loyal2dagame  Why the vomit emoji for what I posted. Why did these women not come out sooner with the acusation ????

we are talking over 30 years later 

Yeah, the longer time goes by, the harder and harder it is to provide evidence. But, justice is better served late than never. If he did it, he deserves to be punished for it. But they need to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

[ddaryl]

Just now, MJS said:

Yeah, the longer time goes by, the harder and harder it is to provide evidence. But, justice is better served late than never. If he did it, he deserves to be punished for it. But they need to prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

 

I do agree, and I never posted he didn't. I just do not understand 3 decades later... You will need lots of witnesses to testify because physical evidence is pretty much gone.

[Bruffalo]

32 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

in 1994 ???  these women need to come forward a lot sooner then 3 decades later. 

There wasn't nearly as much of a support structure for women to come forward in the early 90s as there is today. Maybe they finally felt empowered enough to do so with other allegations about NFL players being brought to light. 

 

As a society we should encourage individuals or victims of crimes to come forward (especially if the perpetrator is in positions of power or notoriety). That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance.   

[The Firebaugh Kid]

Tough situation after that much time has passed. Eek. 

"I went to Columbia, dawg" is my only memory of that dude. 

[Bruffalo]

12 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

@loyal2dagame  Why the vomit emoji for what I posted. Why did these women not come out sooner with the acusation ????
same goes to you @Bruffalo

all I said is they needed to come forward sooner not over 30 years later.  How are you going to prove this at this point? There will have to be witnesses

I responded above, but calm down homie. It was less than 3 minutes after I emoted on your post. 

[ddaryl]

6 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

There wasn't nearly as much of a support structure for women to come forward in the early 90s as there is today. Maybe they finally felt empowered enough to do so with other allegations about NFL players being brought to light. 

 

As a society we should encourage individuals or victims of crimes to come forward (especially if the perpetrator is in positions of power or notoriety). That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance.   

If they were attacked of course, but 30 years later also lends to the thought of gold digging. It will have to play out... and we will have to hear the evidence....but woman have had support for this for quite awhile so I still find 30 years later too long to be able to do much about it. Like I said physical evidence is gone at this point.

5 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

I responded above, but calm down homie. It was less than 3 minutes after I emoted on your post. 

Yes and I noticed it cause I was on the forum and asked after I got the notificaion cause I do not understand the negative emojis on this one. 

Edited 13 hours ago by ddaryl

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

when I see it was over 30 years ago. I'm very skeptical. very.

[Bruffalo]

1 minute ago, ddaryl said:

If they were attacked of course, but 30 years later also lends to the thought of gold digging. It will have to play out... and we will have to hear the evidence....but woman have had support for this for quite awhile so I still find 30 years later too long to be able to do much about it. Like I said physical evidence is gone at this point.

Obviously it's easier for the prosecution or civil suit if they've come forward sooner, I don't think that even needs to be said. When you criticize someone for coming forward after the (in your mind) appropriate timeframe it has a chilling effect. Some other victim may say "well I might as well not even bother" if the immediate public reaction is to shame the victim for not being prompt enough. 

 

As to the "gold digger" point, you can argue the opposite and it makes just as much sense. Wouldn't they have a much better shot to extract value out of this guy when he actually was earning an NFL salary? Why would you wait 30 years after someone's high earning career had ended? Baseless speculation just isn't helpful. 

[Johnnycage46]

1 hour ago, ddaryl said:

in 1994 ???  these women need to come forward a lot sooner then 3 decades later. 

 

Why? And what timeframe do you suggest? There are many, many reasons victims do not come forward and when they do, there are various reasons why they (in some cases) wait many years to do so.

[Mr. WEO]

23 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

If they were attacked of course, but 30 years later also lends to the thought of gold digging. It will have to play out... and we will have to hear the evidence....but woman have had support for this for quite awhile so I still find 30 years later too long to be able to do much about it. Like I said physical evidence is gone at this point.

Yes and I noticed it cause I was on the forum and asked after I got the notificaion cause I do not understand the negative emojis on this one. 

 

Rest assured the time for gold digging would have been back when Wiley might have had a bit of gold left in his pocket---you know, 30 years ago....

 

You keep harping on an assumption of lack of evidence.  Let the DA worry about that. 

[Sweats]

15 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

Obviously it's easier for the prosecution or civil suit if they've come forward sooner, I don't think that even needs to be said. When you criticize someone for coming forward after the (in your mind) appropriate timeframe it has a chilling effect. Some other victim may say "well I might as well not even bother" if the immediate public reaction is to shame the victim for not being prompt enough. 

 

As to the "gold digger" point, you can argue the opposite and it makes just as much sense. Wouldn't they have a much better shot to extract value out of this guy when he actually was earning an NFL salary? Why would you wait 30 years after someone's high earning career had ended? Baseless speculation just isn't helpful. 

 

 

 

And i actually agree with a large portion of this......

 

If the allegations are false and people are "gold diggers", then why come after the guy 30 years later when he probably doesn't have too much of a pot to piss in. I mean, you'd probably want to go after him when he was actually earning a significant NFL paycheck.

 

So, all of this is just screaming to me that these women do have some validation that "something" happened 30 years ago and my thinking is that i would tend to lean to this mindset.

I can't see too many women coming forward with a false narrative, looking for a free handout from a guy with probably very little money left when his NFL heyday would have been the time to do it, so it tells me these women may actually have a point of rightful allegation of one point or other. 

[OJ Dingo]

But Marcellus Wiley don't like to be ***** by anybody except Mrs. Wiley

[SoTier]

20 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

There wasn't nearly as much of a support structure for women to come forward in the early 90s as there is today. Maybe they finally felt empowered enough to do so with other allegations about NFL players being brought to light. 

 

As a society we should encourage individuals or victims of crimes to come forward (especially if the perpetrator is in positions of power or notoriety). That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance.   

 

Well said.  I will add that it's not uncommon for victims of some kind of physical/psychological trauma to block the memory the trauma.  We call it PTSD, and we mostly associate it with soldiers in combat situations, but it can happen to anyone.  Sometimes, victims bury the memory of trauma so deep that they don't consciously remember it, but suffer from the hidden memories rattling around in their subconscious for years without even understanding why they're having flashbacks or nightmares or unprovoked fits of rage, etc. 

[Simon]

5 minutes ago, OJ Dingo said:

But Marcellus Wiley don't like to be ***** by anybody except Mrs. Wiley

 

What?!