Reported Sexual Assault at Armstrong's House Under Investigation

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

 

84HuskerLaw;

 

You being an attorney must recognize that a polygraph is not something that can be pursued as evidence in a court of law unless of course both sides (Prosecution and Defense) agree to admit it as evidence. Therefore I suspect you are limiting its scope to be used by law enforcement as a tool to find out if the party in question believes the facts that they stipulated in their original complaint to be truthful. The nature of a polygraph test providing fact based results is such that, false positives can be problematic at best.

 

As for the statements you made thereafter, I 100% agree with you that while the legal system has the burden of proof, it is my opinion that (any defendant) is burdened to the extent whereby they must retain an attorney, pay for private investigations and other costly events and details to prove their innocence while being scrutinized to the umpteenth degree to show they are innocent. In other words, unless the defendant has lock down evidence that they were not acting out or involved in the crime they are accused of, they are looked at by the onlookers, jury and public as being the one that has to provide evidence to the contrary. Sad but true! I am in no way trying to say the plaintiff is wrong in this or any other case but rather saying that I agree with you that more times than not, even if you are truly innocent, gaining acquittal is a costly venture (financially and in the public eye).

[jimk]

 

This remark is outragous as I recall that he was charged and perhaps 'convicted' though I don't remember that happening, of an assault for grabbing a woman in a bar, not rape! The unwanted grabbing of her crotch as I recall was the 'assault'. A hell of a long way from 'rape'. Just my opinion and I believe that it is terribly unfair for him to be remembered as a rapist when he is not, as far as I can recall. Let's don't spread false memories about a great Husker player around. We have enough players who have really had serious criminal law problems in the past. We don't need to make up more!

 

 

 

 

A Title IX suit was filed, settled 2 years later with the school paying her $50,000, and Peter/Redmond settling for an undisclosed amount of money out of court. Tom Osborne also apologized to Redding later on, reconciled, and has had her speak to past football teams about violence against women.

 

He wasn't convicted of rape by a jury, but his hands are obviously very very far from clean.

 

 

Phrasing!!!!!

 

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

But..........lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. They are only helpful in a follow-up interview that can be used as leverage against the person who failed said lie detector test. No suspect has ever been named by the way correct? So people are making assumptions on who was involved and then slanting their view towards who they think are the accused.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. I was just perusing an article from the Journal Star about polygraph tests from a few years back that said the tests are admissible if both parties agree to the test before the test is given.

 

That said, they are still widely debated, especially because they can be intentionally/unintentionally manipulated. There was a case a few years back of a man who failed a lie detector test in a murder case, but DNA evidence proved he didn't commit the crime. In later interviews, he said he was extremely nervous and afraid of lying during the test, and an investigator said sometimes those same emotions can appear like someone is lying.

[Savage Husker]

Binge drinking. It's a helluva college epidemic that doesn't get addressed the way it should.

[Smac07]

 

 

This remark is outragous as I recall that he was charged and perhaps 'convicted' though I don't remember that happening, of an assault for grabbing a woman in a bar, not rape! The unwanted grabbing of her crotch as I recall was the 'assault'. A hell of a long way from 'rape'. Just my opinion and I believe that it is terribly unfair for him to be remembered as a rapist when he is not, as far as I can recall. Let's don't spread false memories about a great Husker player around. We have enough players who have really had serious criminal law problems in the past. We don't need to make up more!

 

 

 

 

A Title IX suit was filed, settled 2 years later with the school paying her $50,000, and Peter/Redmond settling for an undisclosed amount of money out of court. Tom Osborne also apologized to Redding later on, reconciled, and has had her speak to past football teams about violence against women.

 

He wasn't convicted of rape by a jury, but his hands are obviously very very far from clean.

 

 

Phrasing!!!!!

 

 

 

DO YOU WANT ANTS?

Because THAT's how you get ANTS?

[TAKODA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

But..........lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. They are only helpful in a follow-up interview that can be used as leverage against the person who failed said lie detector test. No suspect has ever been named by the way correct? So people are making assumptions on who was involved and then slanting their view towards who they think are the accused.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. I was just perusing an article from the Journal Star about polygraph tests from a few years back that said the tests are admissible if both parties agree to the test before the test is given.

 

That said, they are still widely debated, especially because they can be intentionally/unintentionally manipulated. There was a case a few years back of a man who failed a lie detector test in a murder case, but DNA evidence proved he didn't commit the crime. In later interviews, he said he was extremely nervous and afraid of lying during the test, and an investigator said sometimes those same emotions can appear like someone is lying.

 

 

 

Enhance89. See my post #481

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

But..........lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. They are only helpful in a follow-up interview that can be used as leverage against the person who failed said lie detector test. No suspect has ever been named by the way correct? So people are making assumptions on who was involved and then slanting their view towards who they think are the accused.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. I was just perusing an article from the Journal Star about polygraph tests from a few years back that said the tests are admissible if both parties agree to the test before the test is given.

 

That said, they are still widely debated, especially because they can be intentionally/unintentionally manipulated. There was a case a few years back of a man who failed a lie detector test in a murder case, but DNA evidence proved he didn't commit the crime. In later interviews, he said he was extremely nervous and afraid of lying during the test, and an investigator said sometimes those same emotions can appear like someone is lying.

 

What Are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?

Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

 

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy.

• California lawyers, for instance, can present the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
• Georgia law, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.
• According to Florida lawyers, it is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

The states in which polygraphs are inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. In these states, even if both parties wish to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very rare scenarios).

• Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts.
• Other states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause (to obtain search warrants).

Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion). For a complete list of the state and federal rules regarding polygraphs, you can check here for your state.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html#sthash.LYNjDE02.dpuf

[Stumpy1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

 

84HuskerLaw;

 

You being an attorney must recognize that a polygraph is not something that can be pursued as evidence in a court of law unless of course both sides (Prosecution and Defense) agree to admit it as evidence. Therefore I suspect you are limiting its scope to be used by law enforcement as a tool to find out if the party in question believes the facts that they stipulated in their original complaint to be are truthful, The nature of a polygraph test providing fact based results is such that, false positives can be problematic at best.

 

As for the statements you made thereafter, I 100% agree with you that while the legal system has the burden of proof, it is my opinion that (any defendant) is burdened to the extent whereby they must retain an attorney, pay for private investigations and other costly events and details to prove their innocence while being scrutinized to the umpteenth degree to show they are innocent. In other words, unless the defendant has lock down evidence that they were not acting out or involved in the crime they are accused of, they are looked at by the onlookers, jury and public as being the one that has to provide evidence to the contrary. Sad but true! I am in no way trying to say the plaintiff is wrong in this or any other case but rather saying that I agree with you that more times than not, even if you are truly innocent, gaining acquittal is a costly venture (financially and in the public eye).

 

This is pretty spot on.

 

I know someone that was accused of rape when I was in college. It turned his life upside down for about 3 months and still bothers him to this day. The County Attorney never filed charges because the accuser's story and her actions after the alleged incident made the CA question what was going on. The accused had asked for a polygraph test as long as the accuser took one also. The investigators and CA agreed to it but the accuser refused to take one. When they called the accused, they told him one of the reasons that charges will not be filed is because the accusers story has changed a number of times along with some other evidence that came to light of the accuser. They mentioned that the denial of the polygraph was just the icing on the top.

 

This guy never got an explanation from the accuser on why she accused him but it did come out later that she did make it up. He thought about taking her to court for it but decided to let it be and try and bury the whole thing. Said it's hard to bury because it's something you just can't get over.

[NUance]

Binge drinking. It's a helluva college epidemic that doesn't get addressed the way it should.

 

Yeah! Is there a game this week?? Who do we play??

 

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look I am simply saying if the woman was False Accusing someone she needs to be Vilified, the players will now be the ones seen by anyone without a Husker Bias, as guilty.

As a Husker fan I would like t think that the players are innocent here, but Lack of evidence for a Legal Case and being Innocent are not one in the same!

Lack of evidence and falsely accusing are not one in the same either.

This ^^^ I work in the criminal justice system and I pray that this young woman seeks out the help she needs, you see too many times a woman who feels that she wasn't done justice turn to the wrong things to cope.

 

Unless nothing criminal happened and she tried to make it look like it did. How about those who may have been falsely accused and have had their futures put in peril? It can go both ways. I don't know who is right or wrong, but wish I knew more facts about what happened. Something should happen one way or the other IMO.

 

How though, exactly? There's not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges, but that doesn't mean a crime never happened. This woman could very well not remember the incident and 100% believe she's a victim. If that's the case, she should not be vilified.

 

I think everyone here should just stop suggesting what should or shouldn't happen.

 

I feel the woman needs to be given a polygraph in cases of 'he said, she said' as far as rape is concerned. If she fails, then no charges should be filed and no report publicly made of anything about the entire matter. Keep things totally quiet until she passes the test. Then the police should approach the accused and proceed vigorously, but confidentially, to corroberate the crime. Release the names, places and times and so on ONCE the events are relatively well substantiated by the lie detector test, the accused has had an opportunity to provide his or her side of the story, allibi, etc. Anyone accused of a felony should be given a reasonable opportunity to clear him or herself before the publication of the arrest or formal criminal charges are filed. Far too many people assume based on the mere fact of charges being filed, that the accused is guilty! This is NOT true. Sadly, however, juries are certainly very heavily leaning for the prosecution and the presumption of innocense is all but ignored. Any accused who fails to affirmatively provide evidence on innocense will likely be convicted with very flimsy minimal evidence. Testimony of just one witness is often all that is required to convict of serious felony offenses. Even murder. If you are ever involved in the criminal justice system, you will become aware of how difficult your chances are of winning an acquittal. 90% plus of cases end in convictions. The defense attorney has a long, uphill battle in almost any case!

 

But..........lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. They are only helpful in a follow-up interview that can be used as leverage against the person who failed said lie detector test. No suspect has ever been named by the way correct? So people are making assumptions on who was involved and then slanting their view towards who they think are the accused.

 

I don't believe this is accurate. I was just perusing an article from the Journal Star about polygraph tests from a few years back that said the tests are admissible if both parties agree to the test before the test is given.

 

That said, they are still widely debated, especially because they can be intentionally/unintentionally manipulated. There was a case a few years back of a man who failed a lie detector test in a murder case, but DNA evidence proved he didn't commit the crime. In later interviews, he said he was extremely nervous and afraid of lying during the test, and an investigator said sometimes those same emotions can appear like someone is lying.

 

What Are the State Laws Concerning Polygraph Admissibility?

Almost every state fits into one of two categories; those that find them completely inadmissible and those that allow their admission with "the stipulations of both parties" (meaning both you and the prosecutor agree to admit the test results as evidence).

 

States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy.

• California lawyers, for instance, can present the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
• Georgia law, on the other hand, allows defendants who suffer damage because of a false result on a polygraph test (which are somewhat frequent) to sue the polygraph operator for damages and attorneys fees.
• According to Florida lawyers, it is the one state that does require some people to submit to polygraph tests (previously convicted sex offenders), but even then those test results cannot be used against them in court, and are for use only within the course of their therapy.

The states in which polygraphs are inadmissible include New York, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. In these states, even if both parties wish to enter polygraph test results into evidence, it is forbidden (except in very rare scenarios).

• Some states, like New York and Texas, forbid their use completely in all employment and law enforcement contexts.
• Other states, like Massachusetts, do not allow them to be entered as evidence, but CAN use them as supporting probable cause (to obtain search warrants).

Federal courts have their own rules on when to allow the admission of polygraph evidence (it is usually at the judge's discretion). For a complete list of the state and federal rules regarding polygraphs, you can check here for your state.

- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html#sthash.LYNjDE02.dpuf

 

Unless I missed it, and going off what Takoda said, it sounds like Nebraska is one of the courts that allows polygraph tests with two consenting parties.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I'd say this one has run it's course.