Add new comment

There are plenty of good reasons for your disconnect, OBF, because there are lots of complexities that have gotten skimmed over.  The time gap is actually helpful, because it allows for some helpful perspective.  This is my view:
The DNA and other evidence, of which the DNA is by far the most straightforward, points to three acts.  I won't get too involved, but some level of understanding is necessary.
Act A: The "standard" way of doing things.  DNA evidence that it happened: 100% (anyone can correct me where I'm wrong).  Plausibility that she consented to it: Somewhat plausible.  Plausibility that a young athlete would "assume" consent, in a manner a jury would sympathize with, in light of drunken outing/"groupie" behavior: Very high.  Legal consequences if no consent: Very serious. "Ugh factor": in this world, frankly limited to the extreme drunkenness and uncertainty about consent.
Act B: A "less standard" way of doing things.  DNA evidence: also 100% unless I'm missing something.  Plausibility that she consented: Less plausible.  Plausibility that he "assumed" consent: Less likely, and also less sympathetic to a jury.  Legal consequnces if no consent: Probably somewhat more serious.  "Ugh factor": probably less than it would have been back in the day.
Act C: I've tried to be oblique about this one, but it's not helping.  So, sorry Doc, feel free to edit. Essentially, the charge is that he stood over her unconscious body, possibly removing some of her clothes first, and pleasured himself to the point of DNA ending up in her hair.  She remembers waking up and seeing this happening, although she did not know which one of the three players it was.  DNA evidence: Josh Lueke's DNA was in her hair.  True, it could have gotten there some other way, so not 100%.  But it dovetails with her story, and completely obliterated his original story.  Plausibility that she consented: to my mind, virtually zero.  Plausibility that he "assumed" consent: I can't imagine what would make him think she'd think it was OK.  Legal consequences if no consent: Significantly less.  It is an assault of a sexual nature, but not the R-word.  "Ugh factor": very high, especially since it seems so unlikely that someone would consent.
Sooooo . . .
If it were just Act A and "he said, she said" then you would have a Kobe/Roethlisberger situation.  The stakes are high, the consequences are serere, the facts murky, and the justice system would punt. Lueke would have a black mark but no felony record (exactly as Kobe and Roethlisberger), and the ripples would eventually die out.  Adding Act B in the "he said, she said" scenario, frankly doesn't change it much.  In the worst possible scenario, though, the possibility that a trial would conclude that Act B took place while she was unconscious and without her consent would rightfully mean decades in prison for Josh Lueke, and he could not rule that out.
But Act C is the one thing she remembers distinctly, and the DNA supports her story, and the justice system could move forward on the basis of jurors being likely to concur in the notion that there was no consent or implied consent to that act.  So it is the least murky thing in the whole equation, but it also does not carry the same consquences.
So you end up with a situation where everyone involved realized that a massive effort to have a trial would quite possibly end up with, at best (from the prosecution's point of view), a conviction on only the lesser charge, and that, from Lueke's standpoint, getting the best deal he could on the lesser charge would eliminate the possibility of a conviction on the way, way more serious ones.  So the outcome that occurred was probably close to what would have happened anyway, and saved everyone lots of expense and risk and uncertainty.
But, from the Mariners' standpoint, the legal fact that Act C was the lesser charge created the largest PR headache (due to the "ugh factor").  Who wants a guy on your team who did that?  And who wants to market that guy to soccer moms?  That's why Z glossing over the facts was a legitimate error, and why it truly cost him capital within the org.  I will continue to assert -- you do not need a "PC" agenda to find Act C unsavory, nor to realize that Z was playing with the team's community image (overly "PC" or not) by acquiring Lueke without any notice or red flags to Armstrong.
That's my view.  Many here disagree.  Hope it helps.