Former Bill, Marcellus Wiley accused of rape

[Jauronimo]

5 minutes ago, thronethinker said:

Is it coincidence that all of this gets brought up right after his public spat with Ryan Clark? In the end that whole situation was because Marcellus wasn’t lock step with what others thought he should be with the MVP debate. 

Accusations of rape were brought up as retaliation of supporting Allen over Lamar?  That is what you're suggesting?

[Augie]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So someone can wait just to see if someone they met a long time ago comes into money and then bring a suit alleging that something happened THREE DECADES ago. Wonderful. 

 

He came into money about 28 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t just about money. I know people who have had traumas follow them. It’s not simple, and it wasn’t about money. Why is there an immediate assumption that they are gold diggers? 

[Johnny Bravo]

3 hours ago, Simon said:

Exactly

It's pretty weak sauce to quote one part of my post without the supporting context.  In fact, it's more work to select only a portion of the quote, so I guess that wasn't accidental.  If the evidence doesn't support @Simon's point, I guess you are okay with just changing the evidence.  Well done, you win🙄

[Gugny]

18 minutes ago, thronethinker said:

Is it coincidence that all of this gets brought up right after his public spat with Ryan Clark? In the end that whole situation was because Marcellus wasn’t lock step with what others thought he should be with the MVP debate. 

Yeah, there’s no way a woman could have been raped. 
 

That’s preposterous. 
 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

So someone can wait just to see if someone they met a long time ago comes into money and then bring a suit alleging that something happened THREE DECADES ago. Wonderful. 

his money is likely nearly gone, so no your scenario is improbable 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

He came into money about 28 years ago. Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t just about money. I know people who have had traumas follow them. It’s not simple, and it wasn’t about money. Why is there an immediate assumption that they are gold diggers? 

Augie….I didn’t say that’s what it’s about. I simply posed the scenario as a hypothetical that I figured people could relate to. 

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Augie….I didn’t say that’s what it’s about. I simply posed the scenario as a hypothetical that I figured people could relate to. 

 

I’m sorry if that sounded like I was accusing you personally. It just seems there’s a lot of gold digger talk. If they are really after his money, why didn’t they go after him when he got the big contract in 1997. You’re the one who brought up waiting 30 years until someone came into money. That’s not what happened here. The laws are as they are for a reason. The problem, of course, is proving anything after all that time. 

 

 

.

Edited Friday at 08:24 PM by Augie

[thronethinker]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

Yeah, there’s no way a woman could have been raped. 
 

That’s preposterous. 
 

Never said she didn’t get raped. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Augie said:

 

I’m sorry if that sounded like I was accusing you personally. It just seems there’s a lot of gold digger talk. If they are really after his money, why didn’t they go after him when he got the big contract in 1997. You’re the one who brought up waiting 30 years until someone came into money. That’s not what happened here. The laws are as they are for a reason. The problem, of course, is proving anything after all that time. 

 

 

.

Could it be because a civil suit is all about collecting money? Just sayin! 

[Augie]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Could it be because a civil suit is all about collecting money? Just sayin! 

 

Then why wait? You don’t have to wait 30 years to file a civil lawsuit.  He got paid in 1997. They could have had their money a long time ago. Could it be that they were truly traumatized? Could it be that they needed time to heal and grow strong enough to talk about it? 

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Then why wait? You don’t have to wait 30 years to file a civil lawsuit.  He got paid in 1997. They could have had their money a long time ago. Could it be that they were truly traumatized? Could it be that they needed time to heal and grow strong enough to talk about it? 

Then why file a lawsuit? Why not just resign yourself to the fact that something happened? Nobody is going to convince me that bringing a lawsuit THIRTY years after you allege something happened to you is OK. It’s ridiculous! 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Then why file a lawsuit? Why not just resign yourself to the fact that something happened? Nobody is going to convince me that bringing a lawsuit THIRTY years after you allege something happened to you is OK. It’s ridiculous! 

 

Well then, I feel that some offenses are so heinous that they deserve justice, if only 15 minutes of public scorn. We can just disagree. 

 

Where did you stand on the whole Bill Cosby thing? Was that water under the bridge too? 

 

 

.

Edited Friday at 09:47 PM by Augie

[Johnny Bravo]

11 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Then why wait? You don’t have to wait 30 years to file a civil lawsuit.  He got paid in 1997. They could have had their money a long time ago. Could it be that they were truly traumatized? Could it be that they needed time to heal and grow strong enough to talk about it? 

You are asking “why wait” as though there are no plausible reasons beside trauma.  I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s what could have happened…

 

Maybe now our culture is full of people predisposed to believe any accusation regardless of the absence of any evidence.  And they will shout down and shame anyone who even questions their claims.  So the climate is much more conducive to making that claim now.

 

This thread is full of people saying the same things now about people questioning the claims of Wiley’s accuser that they did about people question Matt Araiza’s accuser.  

 

Now we KNOW that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if Araiza hadn’t stopped at an ATM that night he could be in jail.

 

It is frustrating because there is no humility or introspection about past rushes to judgement, just more of the same preaching against apostates who even dare to raise questions about these new claims.

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

You are asking “why wait” as though there are no plausible reasons beside trauma.  I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s what could have happened…

 

Maybe now our culture is full of people predisposed to believe any accusation regardless of the absence of any evidence.  And they will shout down and shame anyone who even questions their claims.  So the climate is much more conducive to making that claim now.

 

This thread is full of people saying the same things now about people questioning the claims of Wiley’s accuser that they did about people question Matt Araiza’s accuser.  

 

Now we KNOW that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if Araiza hadn’t stopped at an ATM that night he could be in jail.

 

It is frustrating because there is no humility or introspection about past rushes to judgement, just more of the same preaching against apostates who even dare to raise questions about these new claims.

 

I’m sorry, I think that made me a little dizzy…..

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

You are asking “why wait” as though there are no plausible reasons beside trauma.  I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s what could have happened…

 

Maybe now our culture is full of people predisposed to believe any accusation regardless of the absence of any evidence.  And they will shout down and shame anyone who even questions their claims.  So the climate is much more conducive to making that claim now.

 

This thread is full of people saying the same things now about people questioning the claims of Wiley’s accuser that they did about people question Matt Araiza’s accuser.  

 

Now we KNOW that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if Araiza hadn’t stopped at an ATM that night he could be in jail.

 

It is frustrating because there is no humility or introspection about past rushes to judgement, just more of the same preaching against apostates who even dare to raise questions about these new claims.

You got me there. I have absolutely no idea where you went there. 

9 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Well then, I feel that some offenses are so heinous that they deserve justice, if only 15 minutes of public scorn. We can just disagree. 

 

Where did you stand on the whole Bill Cosby thing? Was that water under the bridge too? 

 

 

.

My opinion is pretty much the same. Why wait thirty years to accuse anyone? No matter who it is. 

[Johnny Bravo]

4 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Well then, I feel that some offenses are so heinous that they deserve justice, if only 15 minutes of public scorn. We can just disagree. 

 

Where did you stand on the whole Bill Cosby thing? Was that water under the bridge too? 

 

 

.

I will admit I was skeptical of Cosby’s accusers too for many of the same reasons I am skeptical now.  I changed my opinion as we learned more about the case-particularly his testimony in his civil case.

 

The lesson from Cosby and Araiza is to be humble, admit we don’t know everything, scrutinize the claims, and learn the facts before we form an opinion.

 

My skepticism about the current claims isn’t my opinion about Wiley’s guilt or innocence, it is just a hurdle that the evidence presented at trial will have to overcome.

[Johnny Bravo]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You got me there. I have absolutely no idea where you went there. 

That’s odd.  I didn’t think it would be hard to follow.

 

I’ll try again.

 

There was a past similar case to this one discussed on this message board.  We know now that the accuser made up that entire account.  The people who demanded that the accuser be believed then are demanding the same thing now.  Worse, they still accuse anyone who even raises questions about the allegations of all order of misogyny, ignorance, etc.

 

 

[BringBackFergy]

Soooo f’ing amazing that you guys spend more than 5 minutes on this story. Nobody knows what happened. Let the court system figure it out. Meanwhile, one side blames another side, people get banned/suspended, over something without concrete facts. Tiring. 

[BillsShredder83]

On 3/20/2025 at 8:21 AM, ddaryl said:

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

Yeeeep.  I know isht like this happens, but if you wait 30 years to do something the cops cant prove or disprove anything.  Im not for tearing down peoples reputations without them being given a chance to fight....... in court these girls have no chance.  In public Marcell is now a "rap-e-ist" in a non-insignigicant amount of peoples eyes.

 

Test: find someone to do the 1 word association game with and say "Duke lacrosse".  Those boys were COMPLETELY exonerated 100%.  Were on a sports forum, and I bet someone reading this right now is thinking "they were?"  Yes, they were.  The accuser is in jail for killing her bf.

 

IDK how we solve the problem, but I know 30years is too long. i also know when 2 drunk adults meet at the bar and consensually get down; one party doesnt get to wake up/change mind their mind retroactively after the fact, and say the other is an R-word.  The bar to use that  word is so low now, that it doesnt mean anything to hear anymore.  That word used to be able to insta-mute a whole room of people, just by showing up

[Johnnycage46]

This thread is really shining a light on some folks. It's actually super helpful going forward!