ADVERTISEMENT

Not Enough Evidence on Tubman

Smashcat

All-American
Gold Member
Mar 13, 2012
76,138
113,900
113
BrowDown þ@brow_down 4m4 minutes ago

Lonny Demaree reporting the grand jury has returned a "no true bill" regarding Lloyd Tubman. Not enough evidence to indict him.
 
Originally posted by Smashcat:
Tweet from Lonny.
lonny demareeksr @ksrlonny · 12m 12 minutes ago



Other than getting on with his life as a free man no decision on what's ahead.
And for him, that's the greatest news of all. I truly never believed he raped her, the story just seemed so.. I dunno how to explain it. False.
I can't think of a girl that would walk their rapist down to the lobby, I don't like the way that the girl's friend, who wasn't even there, was labelled as "witness B" in the police report, I don't know how she can't notice a large man getting naked only a few feet across from her like she stated, and the list goes on.
I believe he's innocent, and my opinion is that he went out for a hook-up with an ex who wanted to get back with him, and she got very angry with him when all he wanted to do was hook up, and not date again. So~ she comes up with this elaborate story.
I mean, it isn't farfetched, it happens all the time.
Anyway, he doesn't have to deal with that now. Let the kid get back into college, and let him play football like he intended. He shouldn't be punished if he isn't guilty, and he's been punished long enough for something that had to come down to a no-true bill.
 
Don't know much about this stuff, but should we expect some kind of appeal from the girls side? Things like this don't typically just go away easily......

If that is the case and you are Stoops, I would think you still have to distance yourself from it. Just until it is completely run through the legal process. I would like nothing more than to welcome him back, but if he is still wrapped up in an appeals process it would probably be better for him to get that taken care of first.

Sure hope he gets clean of this mess though. Like others have stated, the story on this one has always seemed a little far reached. Rape is a bad, bad thing, but also I hate to see a guy drug through the mud and then it all turns out to be a lie. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of women today use this accusation because a guy pisses them off. I'm glad authorities take it seriously though as rape is a bad thing, but lying about being raped is also bad.

This post was edited on 2/11 7:50 PM by KentUcKy-Kats
 
Originally posted by KentUcKy-Kats:
Don't know much about this stuff, but should we expect some kind of appeal from the girls side? Things like this don't typically just go away easily......

If that is the case and you are Stoops, I would think you still have to distance yourself from it. Just until it is completely run through the legal process. I would like nothing more than to welcome him back, but if he is still wrapped up in an appeals process it would probably be better for him to get that taken care of first.
After hearing the evidence involved, a Lexington grand jury has decided not to indict University of Kentucky football player and Seneca High School product Lloyd Tubman on a charge of rape, Fayette County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson said Wednesday night.

He'll face no more charges from the Fayette prosecutor's office, Larson said.





Article
 
I have no idea what Stoops/UK will do. But one thing to consider...his parents may not want him back on UK's campus.
 
Originally posted by KentUcKy-Kats:
Don't know much about this stuff, but should we expect some kind of appeal from the girls side? Things like this don't typically just go away easily......

If that is the case and you are Stoops, I would think you still have to distance yourself from it. Just until it is completely run through the legal process. I would like nothing more than to welcome him back, but if he is still wrapped up in an appeals process it would probably be better for him to get that taken care of first.

Sure hope he gets clean of this mess though. Like others have stated, the story on this one has always seemed a little far reached. Rape is a bad, bad thing, but also I hate to see a guy drug through the mud and then it all turns out to be a lie. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of women today use this accusation because a guy pisses them off. I'm glad authorities take it seriously though as rape is a bad thing, but lying about being raped is also bad.

This post was edited on 2/11 7:50 PM by KentUcKy-Kats
I guess you could if new evidence surfaces. Other than that, what could they appeal?
 
So since he's not going to be charged with a felony I guess this disqualifies him from transferring to UL?
wink.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by Mike-D:

Originally posted by KentUcKy-Kats:
Don't know much about this stuff, but should we expect some kind of appeal from the girls side? Things like this don't typically just go away easily......

If that is the case and you are Stoops, I would think you still have to distance yourself from it. Just until it is completely run through the legal process. I would like nothing more than to welcome him back, but if he is still wrapped up in an appeals process it would probably be better for him to get that taken care of first.

Sure hope he gets clean of this mess though. Like others have stated, the story on this one has always seemed a little far reached. Rape is a bad, bad thing, but also I hate to see a guy drug through the mud and then it all turns out to be a lie. Unfortunately, it seems a lot of women today use this accusation because a guy pisses them off. I'm glad authorities take it seriously though as rape is a bad thing, but lying about being raped is also bad.

This post was edited on 2/11 7:50 PM by KentUcKy-Kats
I guess you could if new evidence surfaces. Other than that, what could they appeal?
To my knowledge there is not an appeal for a no true bill. The grand jury turns in a no true bill when there is no way to indict based on the information they have from all parties. Trust me, you do a lot of soul searching and you feel very confident of the party's innocence when you return a no true bill on a rape case. The last thing you want to do is let someone who you think might even slightly be guilty go free. If there was any doubt, this would have been turned over to a judge for trial. Also, by stating no further action will be taken against Lloyd, that tells me they know he is innocent.
 
And yet because he is cleared,he and his parents might want him back at school on UK's campus. Stoops will do the right thing and it should be ok to let him back on the team. He is innocent until proven guilty and he was not proven guilty here. Amazing how many UK fans take a holier than thou attitude about their own players and want to throw them under the bus as soon as they hear something bad has happened. We don't have to be the poster school for dismissing athletes.
 
Originally posted by bigbluedon:
And yet because he is cleared,he and his parents might want him back at school on UK's campus. Stoops will do the right thing and it should be ok to let him back on the team. He is innocent until proven guilty and he was not proven guilty here. Amazing how many UK fans take a holier than thou attitude about their own players and want to throw them under the bus as soon as they hear something bad has happened. We don't have to be the poster school for dismissing athletes.
I really hope he and his family want him back in Lexington, I really want to see him play and succeed!
 
its a good thing that the people in the other thread condemning hiim weren't on the jury, he would already be hung from the gallows.


I have a severe issue with rape even unwanted touching or yelping, anyway, condemn the act not the person before all evidence is brought forward and the process of Justice is allowed to occur.

I hope he is able to continue his life without stigma and hopefully will stay a Cat.
This post was edited on 2/11 8:54 PM by 2bunnies
 
It's not an exoneration, but what it does mean is either (A) the prosecutor realized that the case was crap, and make it clear to the Grand Jury that this case was not a winnable case, and recommended the case be shitcanned, with the Grand Jury agreeing or (B) the prosecutor actually believed that the case was legitimate, presented it as such, and the Grand Jury disagreed. and shitcanned it anyway. (A) is about 10x times more likely, but, either way, this case is as likely as dead as the dodo bird. Jeopardy is not attached, and it could in theory be refilled, but in all likelihood it's the end of the story and Tubman needs to be welcomed back in good graces.
 
Absolutely nothing should keep Tubman from returning to the team. UK should have him on campus tomorrow. If Lloyd doesn't want to come me back, then that's his option although I hope that's not the case.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Very glad for him. But his path back to UK is not clear yet IMO.

He isnt enrolled this semester so he couldn't play in spring practices anyway. Might not be until May or June before Stoops AND Barnhart make a decision. There might be University h
Discipline hearings as well, if the girl pushes.
 
Seriously doubt Tubman returns to UK.

Would be a risk from the university's viewpoint. Hypothetically, what if Tubman is involved in another alleged sexual assault case? And is found guilty? Could UK be sued by the victim's family for allowing Tubman back on campus?

I have very little knowledge of the legal system. But allowing Tubman back on campus maybe a risk UK isn't willing to take.
 
F'n kidding me? UK needs to fight like hell to make sure he's BACK at UK and ASAP.

He has nothing to be ashamed of and UK should have some obligation to make sure his life gets back on track.
 
Originally posted by Robcatt24:

Seriously doubt Tubman returns to UK.

Would be a risk from the university's viewpoint. Hypothetically, what if Tubman is involved in another alleged sexual assault case? And is found guilty? Could UK be sued by the victim's family for allowing Tubman back on campus?

I have very little knowledge of the legal system. But allowing Tubman back on campus maybe a risk UK isn't willing to take.
Why wouldn't Tubman's parents then be able to sue UK for not allowing an innocent man from fulfilling their commitment to providing him with a scholarship?

I agree with the poster above, this is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by gossie21:
^
That is absolute garbage.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
BS.

From what I've read, Tubman wasn't cleared. It was a case of not enough evidence. The girl hasn't recanted her accusation from anything I've read.

So there isn't exactly 100% proof that Tubman is innocent.

While it maybe small, there is a risk allowing Tubman to return.

I hope for both Tubman and the girl that this whole issue is false.

If UK allows him to return, I'll root like hell for him.

But to just assume it's a slam dunk he'll be back is ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by catben:


Originally posted by Robcatt24:


Seriously doubt Tubman returns to UK.

Would be a risk from the university's viewpoint. Hypothetically, what if Tubman is involved in another alleged sexual assault case? And is found guilty? Could UK be sued by the victim's family for allowing Tubman back on campus?

I have very little knowledge of the legal system. But allowing Tubman back on campus maybe a risk UK isn't willing to take.
Why wouldn't Tubman's parents then be able to sue UK for not allowing an innocent man from fulfilling their commitment to providing him with a scholarship?

I agree with the poster above, this is ridiculous.
What the hell are you talking about? Scholarships are on a yearly basis. Tubman or anyone else are not promised a 4 year ride.

And UK has their own code of conduct. They are not tied to the legal system.

This is not as cut and dried as some fans want it to be.
 
Originally posted by Robcatt24:
Originally posted by catben:


Originally posted by Robcatt24:


Seriously doubt Tubman returns to UK.

Would be a risk from the university's viewpoint. Hypothetically, what if Tubman is involved in another alleged sexual assault case? And is found guilty? Could UK be sued by the victim's family for allowing Tubman back on campus?

I have very little knowledge of the legal system. But allowing Tubman back on campus maybe a risk UK isn't willing to take.
Why wouldn't Tubman's parents then be able to sue UK for not allowing an innocent man from fulfilling their commitment to providing him with a scholarship?

I agree with the poster above, this is ridiculous.
What the hell are you talking about? Scholarships are on a yearly basis. Tubman or anyone else are not promised a 4 year ride.

And UK has their own code of conduct. They are not tied to the legal system.

This is not as cut and dried as some fans want it to be.
You do realize that for a Grand Jury to not indict Mr. Tubman means that there was NO EVIDENCE to even bring charges. As the saying goes, a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury indictment for a ham sandwich if he needs it. So for Mr. Tubman's case to not even have enough evidence to go to trial, must mean that the case was extremely weak.

So, if the evidence against Mr. Tubman is that weak, how can a "UK code of conduct" prevent him from continuing his education as a member of the UK Football team? Don't you think that Mr. Tubman's life has been permanently affected by these allegations?

You are suggesting that UK has the right to continue to punish him. I'm saying that Mr. Tubman has rights that need to be acknowledged also.

That's what I'm talking about!!
 
The statement by Larson sounds almost like a Freudian slip to me: "We don't try to influence the grand jury. We just put on the evidence and get out of the way, and they have all the evidence that we have, and it's up to them to make that decision. If they choose to indict a case, WE GO AHEAD AND TRY IT OR DEAL WITH IT SOMEHOW."

The last part "deal with it somehow" sounds like he didn't really believe they had a case.

It also sounds to me that this was a pretty thorough defeat of her claim, not sure why she would want to prolong it, she needs to get on with her life also, unless something drastic came up not sure she would fare any better a second time.

As I stated in another thread, IF Stoops, that has to know a lot more about the case than you or me, thinks he is indeed innocent then he should take on any criticism from other nearby fan bases and let him play if Tubman wants to (hope his academic standing isn't hurt too much, there should be an exception for him if it is), and I hope it is Stoops choice and not someone in the athletic department that have made some bad choices in the past, IMO. UL doesn't just have a huge advantage because they will take any proven loser that can play, but because they attract a lot of criminals that haven't been caught yet that know they will have everyone in the Cardinal athletic dept doing their best to cover up any crimes they do commit.

JMO
 
Everyone needs to temper their optimism on this thing. The University Code of Student Conduct makes it clear that this Grand Jury verdict does not preclude student discipline, and he might be found to have committed a sexual assault by a lower standard of proof than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" and sent packing. The standard applied is the same as is applied in most civil trials...proof by "the preponderance of the evidence" meaning the 3 member panel that might hear his disciplinary case need only conclude there is a 51% chance ("it is more likely than not") he violated the Code of Student Conduct. The real question is whether the criminal complainant presses the matter with the University, or has perhaps already moved on herself, and has no desire to interact with the University system. This might all seem "Un-American" but it is pretty well established that colleges and universities can satisfy constitutional requirements for due process acting in this manner when deciding disciplinary matters. I'm not trying to run the kid off, but merely saying he is still probably a fair distance from done with this thing.
 
Originally posted by DACats86:
There should be no reason he cannot rejoin the team.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
I agree. Unless he has broken some team rules or something like that, I don't see why he couldn't.
 
Originally posted by KapitalCat:
I have no idea what Stoops/UK will do. But one thing to consider...his parents may not want him back on UK's campus.
His mother definitely does!!
smokin.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by WildcatofNati:

It's not an exoneration, but what it does mean is either (A) the prosecutor realized that the case was crap,
If the case was crap & no indictment, he is exonerated of a crime, but no poor judgment. Much better position than not guilty after an indictment.
 
Originally posted by Robcatt24:

Seriously doubt Tubman returns to UK.

Would be a risk from the university's viewpoint. Hypothetically, what if Tubman is involved in another alleged sexual assault case? And is found guilty? Could UK be sued by the victim's family for allowing Tubman back on campus?

I have very little knowledge of the legal system. But allowing Tubman back on campus maybe a risk UK isn't willing to take.
I'm going to tip toe around this. With due process, it looks as if Tubman won't be charged with rape. Does that mean UK should just say "hey we are sorry, but you are high risk now. we can't allow you to be a student athlete here."

That's a bunch of crap. Being charged and convicted are two different things. I don't care if Tubman plays for UK or Alabama.
 
Tubman posted a tweet to Barker tonight. First public tweet since October. He must be one relieved kid.
 
Originally posted by Robcatt24:
Originally posted by gossie21:
^
That is absolute garbage.

Posted from Rivals Mobile
BS.

From what I've read, Tubman wasn't cleared. It was a case of not enough evidence. The girl hasn't recanted her accusation from anything I've read.

So there isn't exactly 100% proof that Tubman is innocent.

While it maybe small, there is a risk allowing Tubman to return.

I hope for both Tubman and the girl that this whole issue is false.

If UK allows him to return, I'll root like hell for him.

But to just assume it's a slam dunk he'll be back is ridiculous.
So, it's guilty until proven innocent? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to post until you prove you haven't raped anyone.

This post was edited on 2/11 11:20 PM by UK!!!
 
Originally posted by sluggercatfan:
Originally posted by StillBlue83:
You guys think Stoops will allow him to stay on the team?
Yes ...Why wouldn't he...
Sensitive subject, maybe he would have pressure from higher ups. The girl as far as I know is still at UK, so maybe fear of future problems with her.

I believe Tubman is innocent and should be allowed back, but I know there will be many factors in the decision to let him return.
 
Originally posted by JHB4UK:
Very glad for him. But his path back to UK is not clear yet IMO.

He isnt enrolled this semester so he couldn't play in spring practices anyway. Might not be until May or June before Stoops AND Barnhart make a decision. There might be University h
Discipline hearings as well, if the girl pushes.
Why would there be any university discipline hearing if there is no evidence he did anything wrong??...My guess is the decision by Stoops and MB was already made depending on how the case turned and that he will be returned as a member of the team asap
smokin.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by jauk11:

The statement by Larson sounds almost like a Freudian slip to me: "We don't try to influence the grand jury. We just put on the evidence and get out of the way, and they have all the evidence that we have, and it's up to them to make that decision. If they choose to indict a case, WE GO AHEAD AND TRY IT OR DEAL WITH IT SOMEHOW."

The last part "deal with it somehow" sounds like he didn't really believe they had a case.
I don't think the "deal with it somehow" language has anything to do with the particulars of this case.

He's just stating standard operating procedures.

If the GJ indicts any case, the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office will go to trial OR try to "deal with it somehow" (aka begin plea negotiations).

And the CA doesn't only offer pleas because they think they have a weak case. You never know what a jury will do; what looks like a slamdunk can go the complete opposite direction once its in the jury's hands. If you have an indictment and can get a reasonable plea worked out, you take it more often than not.
 
Originally posted by Wildcatsworld:
Not good enough for the holier-than-thou segment of our fanbase.
Fanbase, my A$$, still have a hard time believing it was Joker's idea to suspend Hartline for the critical bowl game (I will bet a LOT of the team wasn't happy about that, especially seniors) for DRINKING, even though he took a taxi instead of driving while drinking AND he was of legal age. Then they also self reported Jarmon taking a non prescription diet drug ONLY because he wanted to lose weight, NOT to hide a drug problem. When at some schools of lower learning you can have a young woman get an overdose and die in a athletic dorm and no one even hears about it for months. A school that welcomes criminals and covers up for them. Or FSU, where the Heisman winner had a lot more evidence against him. Or TU, where eight thugs can stomp on TWO victims heads, sending at least one of them to the hospital, and NO charges are filed.

Then you do have schools like BYU with their chastity, which kicks star players out for consensual sex, wherever it is.

Come to think of it, shouldn't it have been misuse of University property, aren't those rooms supposed to be used for sleeping only?

But I think BP set the bar pretty high for prosecution for misuse of public funds and facilities with his actions at Arkansas.
This post was edited on 2/11 11:47 PM by jauk11
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT