Add new comment

to the game here, and so this comment will probably never be read, especially never read by Geoff, who is the person I am really curious as to his response, but here goes anyway...
First an honest question.  Doesn't the agreement to a plea work both ways?  I mean yes Josh Leuke has plead no contest and takes responsibility, and is guilty in the eyes of the law and all that of false imprisonment, but didn't the victim ALSO agree that Josh Leuke is guilty of (and ONLY of) false imprisonment?  In other words, isn't the victims (and prosecutions) willingness and sign off on taking the plea agreement an explicit (not implicit, explicit) admission that there was no rape?  Legally speaking, doesn't the accusation of rape get resolved by this plea?  I am not being rhetorical I really don't know and the answers to those questions definitely affect how I feel about Geoff's writing.
I think that this is where much of the disconnect is, because my assumption is that the above is all true, and so if Geoff wants to speak about the facts and only the facts then he should not ever use the terms (and these are especially highly emotive and charged terms) rape, or accused of rape in his article, because those "facts" have indeed been resolved by the fact of the plea.  IOW, I respect Geoff desire to only speak about the facts because speculation is messy and we can never really know.  But the rape accusation is just as much speculation as the extenuating circumstances that led Leuke to plead out or get into this situation in the night of question in the first place.  So it feels unbalanced and unfair to use the, "Just the fact and only the facts, ma'am" line of reasoning to discount any speculation on Leuke's side of the ledger, but to ignore that reasoning when speculating that a no contest plea to false imprisonment really means he was guilty of rape on the other end.
For what it is worth (not much I know).  In my world view everything that the facts support Leuke really did do (got sloppy drunk and had premarital sex with a girl who was also inebriated) is completely and utterly deplorable and heinous.  I have no problem with him being strung up in the papers a a guy who did something very bad, very wrong on the night in question.  I also have no problem with him being the lever that is used to try and pry the dysfunctional relationships in the front office to the surface or try to expose the M's as nothing more than an expensive investment device for the owners and not a true competitor for a championship.  My only issue is that I would want that reporting to be done in a balanced way, and speculation being allowed on one side (rape), but not on the other (maybe there were extenuating circumstances to the whole night and to the plea) is not balanced in my view.
Of course I am also posting while impossibly tired, so I could be writing completely incoherent dribble right now :)