Former Bill, Marcellus Wiley accused of rape

[Johnny Bravo]

33 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.   

"That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance."

 

I don't understand this.  We should encourage people to make accusations of rape whether or not the guy is innocent?  We only need to go back 2 years to Matt Araiza to see the consequences of this sort of attitude.  Matt Araiza lost two years of his career and his reputation because a woman lied about being raped by him. 

 

For point of reference, the FBI says the 8% of all rape accusations are PROVEN false.  That isn't that the accused was not convicted because there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt...it's that it was proven that the accuser was wrong or lying in making the accusation in the first place.

 

As far as the support structure in the 90s versus today, when has there ever been a reluctance to believe rape accusations?  If your claim was about something like sexual harassment, I'd probably agree with you that society has changed for the better.  But rape?  It used to be a capital crime.  Men used to be executed for raping a woman-that's how seriously it has always been taken.

 

I believe that reluctance to come forward with a rape accusation today is more a product of the situation not being rape as traditionally understood.  I think these situations are more an instance of drunken hook ups with next day regret in which the accuser shares culpability with the accused.

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

What?!

 

They speak English in What?

[Simon]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

They speak English in What?

 

What?!

[HomeskillitMoorman]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

"That's immaterial to whether not he's innocent in this particular instance."

 

I don't understand this.  We should encourage people to make accusations of rape whether or not the guy is innocent?  We only need to go back 2 years to Matt Araiza to see the consequences of this sort of attitude.  Matt Araiza lost two years of his career and his reputation because a woman lied about being raped by him. 

 

For point of reference, the FBI says the 8% of all rape accusations are PROVEN false.  That isn't that the accused was not convicted because there was a reasonable doubt about his guilt...it's that it was proven that the accuser was wrong or lying in making the accusation in the first place.

 

As far as the support structure in the 90s versus today, when has there ever been a reluctance to believe rape accusations?  If your claim was about something like sexual harassment, I'd probably agree with you that society has changed for the better.  But rape?  It used to be a capital crime.  Men used to be executed for raping a woman-that's how seriously it has always been taken.

 

I believe that reluctance to come forward with a rape accusation today is more a product of the situation not being rape as traditionally understood.  I think these situations are more an instance of drunken hook ups with next day regret in which the accuser shares culpability with the accused.

 

 

 

There's a huge difference in support structure. Look at what happened with the Catholic Church. Many even did come forward at the time and were either hushed up, weren't taken seriously, or brushed under the rug because of how powerful it was at the time. Or someone like Harvey Weinstein. And specifically in sports we've seen how powerful coaches and administrators can make things go away, like at Penn St. 

 

I agree that it does absolutely exist where women make these claims for money or exploitation and that should be dealt with harshly if it's proven. But I also think there are reasons for why people don't come forward at the time. Maybe sometimes it takes for them to meet someone else who went through the same thing, I don't know. But I would say things are different now. 

[Johnny Bravo]

36 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. 

Is it shaming the victim to have a healthy skepticism of an accusation based on the timing?  Does the crime for which someone is accused mean we just believe everything is the accusation is terrible enough.  How about juries...can they find a man innocent even if it could cause another woman to think twice about coming forward?

 

I think your second question refuting the gold digger accusation is a fair one.  However, it is worth considering that the case is a lawsuit and not a criminal trial.  Any lawyers feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but in this case Wiley would not be facing any jail time AND the criteria for finding him liable is much lower than at a criminal trial.  So basically, the woman is pursuing her case against Wiley in a venue where he doesn't need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where he stands no risk of being sent to prison, and where she gets a check if she prevails with that lower burden of proof.

 

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't even consider these factors when discussing this incident for risk of shaming the accuser.  I say that is an irresponsible dereliction of our duty to exercise our judgement.

 

 

 

 

[Mister Defense]

1 hour ago, ddaryl said:

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

 

THIRTY years later, 30, and they were adults at the time.

 

Accusations like this make no sense.

 

There is almost no fair way to now evaluate the veracity of this story, THIRTY years later.

 

Extremely unfair to Wiley, as he is now stained for life.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

3 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

There's a huge difference in support structure. Look at what happened with the Catholic Church. Many even did come forward at the time and were either hushed up, weren't taken seriously, or brushed under the rug because of how powerful it was at the time. Or someone like Harvey Weinstein. And specifically in sports we've seen how powerful coaches and administrators can make things go away, like at Penn St. 

 

I agree that it does absolutely exist where women make these claims for money or exploitation and that should be dealt with harshly if it's proven. But I also think there are reasons for why people don't come forward at the time. Maybe sometimes it takes for them to meet someone else who went through the same thing, I don't know. But I would say things are different now. 

These are good points and good examples-especially the Church and Penn State.  I'll have to consider them some more.

 

Thanks!

[JohnNord]

1 hour ago, Just Jack said:

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

 

 

I had thought he addressed these

allegations from Columbia already.   Pretty sure he said they were thrown out on YouTube

[Bruffalo]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

Is it shaming the victim to have a healthy skepticism of an accusation based on the timing?  Does the crime for which someone is accused mean we just believe everything is the accusation is terrible enough.  How about juries...can they find a man innocent even if it could cause another woman to think twice about coming forward?

 

I think your second question refuting the gold digger accusation is a fair one.  However, it is worth considering that the case is a lawsuit and not a criminal trial.  Any lawyers feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but in this case Wiley would not be facing any jail time AND the criteria for finding him liable is much lower than at a criminal trial.  So basically, the woman is pursuing her case against Wiley in a venue where he doesn't need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, where he stands no risk of being sent to prison, and where she gets a check if she prevails with that lower burden of proof.

 

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't even consider these factors when discussing this incident for risk of shaming the accuser.  I say that is an irresponsible dereliction of our duty to exercise our judgement.

 

 

 

 

 

There's a philosophical distinction between the court of public opinion and an actual trial setting. One is beholden to the presentable facts and must make a judgement based on those facts (and those facts alone in an ideal world). The other is an amalgamation of preconceived notions and opinion, which let's be honest, generally aren't the best informed. 

 

 I also stay away from the "believe all accusers" mantra that you're trying to pin me on. What I said had little to do with belief one way or another. I want people to feel empowered to come forward if they choose to do so, and that we societally shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit our view of what's appropriate for a "true" victim's behavior.

 

Having snap judgement skepticism based on the amount of time that's passed before reporting isn't an effective way of finding out truth vs. fiction.  

Edited Thursday at 02:25 PM by Bruffalo

[Bray Wyatt]

35 minutes ago, Simon said:

 

What?!

 

Say what again!!!

[BuffaloBillyG]

It's a no win situation.

 

Unless there is video or some kind of overwhelming witness testimony not only is it hard to prove something like this 30 years later it's just as hard to DISPROVE it as well. 

 

Let me be clear. If he did it I hope he's found guilty and held accountable. There is no room for behavior like this in society. Not today, not tomorrow, not 30 years ago.

 

But, waiting 30 years means anything that could be used to clear his name if he's not guilty is washed away as well. It doesn't matter if he did it or not ..his obituary is written. He will always be "accused rapist" Wiley. If he's innocent it removes his ability to present his best possible defense to clear his name. 

[Johnny Bravo]

14 minutes ago, Bruffalo said:

 

There's a philosophical distinction between the court of public opinion and an actual trial setting. One is beholden to the presentable facts and must make a judgement based on those facts (and those facts alone in an ideal world). The other is an amalgamation of preconceived notions and opinion, which let's be honest, generally aren't the best informed. 

 

 I also stay away from the "believe all accusers" mantra that you're trying to pin me on. What I said had little to do with belief one way or another. I want people to feel empowered to come forward if they choose to do so, and that we societally shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit our view of what's appropriate for a "true" victim's behavior.

 

Having snap judgement skepticism based on the amount of time that's passed before reporting isn't an effective way of finding out truth vs. fiction.  

I agree with a lot of this.

 

One point of disagreement though.  You are saying you stay away from the "believe all accusers" mantra.  You say you want people to come forward and your prescription to help bring this about seems to be that everyone else needs avoid doing anything that looks like skepticism lest another accuser see that and be hesitant to come forward.  Functionally, I don't see a difference.  One doesn't need a "believe all accusers" outlook if he acts and speaks in the ways you suggest...his actions end up being the same.

 

I say that since no one here (or anywhere as far as I can tell) suggesting that Wiley's accusers not have access to the court and police systems.

[loyal2dagame]

1 hour 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

The women involved with Bill Cosby waited 30+ years to come out. They were telling the truth. Time doesn't matter. Whether or not the allegations are true should be the only thing that does. 

[TBBills Fan]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

What?!

SAY WHAT AGAIN!

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

What?!

Say what again, I dare you  I double dare you mother *****, say what one more goddamn time

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

2 hours ago, The Firebaugh Kid said:

Tough situation after that much time has passed. Eek. 

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

 

Yeah... like if someone were to ask me if XXXX said something about an incident with Wiley the day after it occurred - and that date of this alleged conversation was even 10 years ago, i would not be able to definitively say anything.  I also think defense cross examination would expose me as an unreliable witness.  

[Just Jack]

1 hour ago, JohnNord said:

I had thought he addressed these

allegations from Columbia already.   Pretty sure he said they were thrown out on YouTube

 

That was another accuser, back in 2023.  These are new ones. 

[julian]

1 hour ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

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. 

I know todays NFL salaries are incredibly insane, but Wiley still has a net worth North of 5M, that’s more than 99% of the population and still plenty enough of pot to piss in for a wrongdoer to take advantage of.

 

 That being said, who the fawk knows these days. Hopefully the truth prevails, Shannon Sharp just a couple days ago stated he won’t even get into an elevator alone with a women lol.

 

 Probably good advice for men who have resources and notoriety.

[Beast]

One of the easiest crimes to claim and one of the hardest to prove the further away you get from the actual alleged incident.

Edited Thursday at 03:37 PM by Beast

[JP51]

2 hours ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

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

Agreed! Its such a quandary, unless there is proof etc... its always he said she said... who do you believe... you sympathize with women who were victimized being ashamed or afraid to accuse... and understand as best you can (being a man) what that must be like... but the converse is like looking at Matt Ariaza, or the Duke U lacrosse rape accusations etc..., there are people with alterior motives, or memories that are impaired and falsely accuse...  so just balancing that out... in the he said she said space... 30 years is a long time to finally come out and accuse I am not saying they are lying... but I am not convinced that they are telling the truth either... color me skeptical... 

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, ddaryl said:

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

 

3 hours 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

 

"The victim, a Barnard student, later reported the incident to a Columbia University administrator who urged her not to file a criminal complaint and that if she pursued one, Jane Doe “would be known as the girl who destroyed a black man’s NFL dream.”

 

 

all you had to do was read the article...