Add new comment

Actually, what's a shame is that we did do all the things you've suggested, SABRMatt. We just didn't find the news you were hoping for. We talked to everybody who was pertinent to this case. Josh Lueke's coaches were not pertinent to it. Nor were his teammates who weren't in the apartment with him, or at the bar. Their opinions/beliefs about Lueke's character have zero to do with the facts of the case. You should know, that the teammates and friends who were with Lueke that night and gave statements to police have NOT corroborated any story of a consensual relationship or even flirting between the pair. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but your appeals to "talk to both sides" have been done and still do not provide the answer you obviously want. Maybe I should have written that part into the story, that Lueke's friends and teammates did not corroborate his latest version of the truth.
But again. we're not here to try a case that Lueke himself did not want to go to trial with.
The lengths to which you and others on this site are going to twist this into some kind of legal, ethical or moral debate are beyond ridiculous. If you have problems with the legal system the way it's run, that's not my problem. Not every story about a guilty party in a court case requires some in-depth philosophical look at our legal system. If you don't like it, change it. But dude, quit taking shots at my morality, or else, come up with something factually stronger than your wish for Lueke to be innocent. You can believe what you want according to your own biases. But again, there are no facts in this case to support what you and Jeff, it appears, wants. Other than to simply argue for argument's sake, on behalf of a pitcher you both clearly want on the team for his on-field ability (as Jeff had written even before this story came out) I still don't see your point.
I'm done. You can keep twisting and twisting and twist some more, but there has never been, and still is not, any reason to bring up the fact that Lueke may have been innocent. Just like I never wrote that he "may" have been guilty.
I gave you the facts. There was evidence against him. He lied four different times to police over a nine-month period and only talked of consensual sex after the DNA evidence was presented. There are no teammates or friends who witnessed any consensual flirting or contact between the pair ahead of the alleged rape. The victim's statements have never been contradicted by actual evidence and her story remained conssitent throughout. And Lueke pled no contest to a lesser felony charge in the case.
The only spin on those facts is your own and the spin of those on this site who either have a problem with the legal system or the media. Not saying problems don't exist with both, but to apply them to this case, with no other supporting evidence, is just plain lame pseudo-intellectualism. I've read far better stuff on this site, and not just when it was saying good things about me.