Jump to content

A.J. Ferrari's case has been dismissed, he will join the Hawkeyes next season


Jimmy Cinnabon

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dogbone said:

It seems the alleged victim didn't want to testify, for whatever reason, so the prosecution dropped the charges or do you have a different read on it?  Obviously we are all speculating but curious your opinion on the legal case (not the alleged assault)

It seems pretty clear that she told the prosecutors she didn't want to testify.  At that stage, prosecutors can subpoena them and try to force them to testify, but will often just drop cases in that scenario.

1.  They don't want a reluctant witness because to affects their ability to win

2. They don't want to retraumatize somebody

or

3. They no longer believe the accused is guilty...this is the most rare occurrence of the 3, as I've often found that prosecutors will continue to believe in my clients guilt long after the victim's story has fallen apart

 

 

Typically this will occur in cases like this one or "regular" domestic violence cases.  Most often it's because the victim has had a change of heart after they see what the person they've accused is facing.  They'll then say "I just wanted him/her to get help, not go to prison" and then ask for the charges to be dropped.  The second most common occurrence is what the alleged victim's attorneys are alleging here, that they don't want to be retraumatize and just want to move on with their lives; often the victims are constantly facing social media attacks on their character from the accused's family (or in a case like this where the accused is [relatively] high profile), from the family of the accused OR fans of said (again, relatively) high profile person.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

>>>I've often found that prosecutors will continue to believe in my clients guilt long after the victim's story has fallen apart<<<

I wonder if the system could be adequately changed to take away prosecutors' incentives to be like that, and disincentives not to be.   There's honor in seeing to it that justice is served, after all.   But when it costs taxpayers a bundle just to reach that realization, I suppose admitting one's been wrong is not good for prosecutors' future budget approvals, or those of the police.   Plus there are risks of being pursued for malicious prosecution, depending upon the jurisdiction.  Arizona's state bar authorities now risk owing the accused party's attorneys fees if there's an unfavorable verdict, due to fairly recent reforms.   I am unaware of how much that reform may have reduced prosecutors' self-justifying bullying.   Conservatives in that state still complain about how difficult it is to find lawyers to embrace their electoral challenges causes.   Kari Lake (a recent gubernatorial candidate there who did not prevail) says she'd be relieved just to be able to attract "Better Call Saul" to represent her cases & causes.    In moving back to the criminal realm from the administrative, hopefully public defenders and other criminal defense attorneys are not penalized at least indirectly for their standing up for justice.   The thought of having a single innocent person rot away in prison due to a timid lack of attorney aggressiveness is upsetting.    The Richard Gere movie Red Corner (a well done film from the late 1990s) covers this issue (and more) after he is wrongfully accused of murder... in mainland communist China.    A humble female public defense lawyer there takes on his cause though, at great personal risk.   That said, keep on keepin' on.   And may A.J. Ferrari's future be bright and great for amateur wrestling, etc.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2023 at 2:38 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

My club house?  According to you:
 

But thanks for the close-up of that sign.   I nevertheless like the low property tax associated with the place.   

    Well, I came here to discuss trying to help wrestling rebound and grow so... Ciao.   

And just curious, but how do YOU think that's going? Using Ann Coulter's absurd "46% of sexual assault claims," were proven to be false?

 

I'm also fairly certain Holm left DNA, just not in the genital region of his accuser because what he was doing was INCREDIBLY weird. He waited until this girl and her boyfriend had sex, passed out, started performing oral sex on her while...also "gratifying" himself and left DNA in the vicinity, just not on her. 

 

She woke up, started screaming and the other Wrestlers there threw him out(I believe his teammate was apologizing profusely for him). I don't get why Jordan Holm was brought up at this point, but not sure why you'd be defending him...OTHER than this sign is pretty accurate;

He-Man Woman-Haters Club | Our Gang Wikia Wiki | Fandom

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Then may the Ferrari brothers work to deserve great things in life, while benefiting the wrestling community.   

Yes, I hope Angelo has great success as I don't believe he's assaulted or shot at anyone's house.

 

AJ, even assuming this girl(who nobody knows and has not benefited from this in ANY way) was lying because...that's just what those women do, he's already proven himself to be a massive dirtbag who should absolutely get what's coming to him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2023 at 3:20 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Unfortunately our legal system gives folks alternatives that result all too often in "no contest" (or even guilty) pleas by innocent folks.    Would you plead guilty and accept an 8 year sentence instead of potentially getting convicted and serving an 80 year one?    Fortunately the Duke lacrosse players took their chances, lawyered up and proved their innocence.   The stripper who accused them was found to have jizz in her undies from how many different dudes that day?   Ugh...   Nevertheless, the lacrosse season had been canceled that year.   

 

If I was accused of a rape? One of the most cowardly things a man can do?

No, I would not plead guilty under any circumstances if I was innocent. 

And he was NEVER getting anything close to 80 years. You're not the guy who hears "the charges carry penalties as long as 80 years and 250K in fines if found guilty," and think 80 years is actually realistic are you?

 

I mean, I kinda had my answer when you used Anne Coulter as a source and suggested that 40% of rape accusation's are made up, but...but I'm still wondering if there's a couple brain cells you can rub together. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2023 at 3:34 PM, VakAttack said:

Oh good.  We're referencing Ann Coulter.  Quick perusal of her "lawyerly article", GTFOH.

I wasn't sure if I should use the laughing emoji on this response or what. It's funny because of the absurdity of it, but it's also...not the funniest topic.

I wonder if in this guys mind(which I guess is to say Anne Coulter's) does this now go in the "false accusations" category?

 

Is that all it takes? A women who doesn't want to testify? I'd LOVE to know how they quantify what makes up a "false accusation?" Are we being honest and limiting it to the Trevor Bauer, Brian Banks, Quintez Cephus type cases or is it just a girl who finds herself the subject of a great deal of public scrutiny and now no longer wants to get on a stand and testify?


I will say, the 46% of the accusations in the Military being found to be false is...so persuasive. We all know what a GREAT job they do with sexual assault allegations(Fort Hood, Vanessa Guillen) and what an intellectually honest arbiter of truth Anne Cunter is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2023 at 6:19 PM, WildTurk said:

You should sit this one out. I said "Lawyer"

To be fair to idiots all around, you don't need to be a lawyer to know that a victim cannot "withdraw" charges. That it's ALWAYS the state. You can prosecute a DV even if the Wife is no-cooperative, you can prosecute a rape even if the victim is not cooperative.


It's obviously going to be very difficult and it rarely happens. You make a complaint to the Police, you tell them what happens, they investigate, a lot of shit happens, THEY decide if they'll press charges. 

Insofar as it's up to the victim of any crime to press charges, the Police(or the DAs office) may ask "do you want to press charges," and if they say no, they probably won't as their case is often largely be based on a victims testimony other pieces of evidence to support the claim, but most people should understand our legal system enough to know it's the state that brings the charges.

Civil Court=Depp vs Heard
Criminal Court= State vs Holm(For example since he was brought back up as one of those poor guys who was found guilty of sexual assault). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2023 at 4:57 PM, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Ann Coulter's reasoning & research skills are considerable.  She didn't get to practice law by being a twit.   As for research, it costs to create it.  Not just money, either.   There are those who hate anyone who threatens their political narrative about what victims certain groups of folks supposedly are.    There are costs involved with opposing such people, who often have too much time on their hands and who get offended easily.   

You might want to ask Dan Masterson's daughter what she thinks about the ease with which men can be maligned and convicted based on a purported rape victim's (money-motivated) testimony.    

Wasn't Coulter a lawyer for about 5 minutes...and mostly corporate law at that?

Then she went into politics and became just a ridiculous, over the top personality?


And why would I want to ask a rapist daughter anything? And the accuser was facing Masterson and that tiny little TOTALLY by the book, non-intimidating little entity known as the "Church of Scientology." They're WELL known for not intimidating or harassing accusers, right?

It was also three accusers including his ex-girlfriend. But to be clear, HE is just another "victim" of these women?

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I'm also fairly certain Holm left DNA, just not in the genital region of his accuser because what he was doing was INCREDIBLY weird. He waited until this girl and her boyfriend had sex, passed out, started performing oral sex on her while...also "gratifying" himself and left DNA in the vicinity, just not on her.   She woke up, started screaming and the other Wrestlers there threw him out(I believe his teammate was apologizing profusely for him). I don't get why Jordan Holm was brought up at this point, but not sure why you'd be defending him...OTHER than this sign is pretty accurate;

Around a decade ago I read that Holm decided to sleep in a bed at some party.   Either before or after his landing on the mattress, someone else (a gal) crawled in with him.   I don't clearly recall if the article I'd read said they got together and then the boyfriend showed up, or what.  Or maybe it said he says he innocently slept then awakened and departed only to get accused of stuff later.    He maintains his innocence though, judging from more recent articles that I've read.   That's disturbing for me.   Plenty of innocent people have been executed, and plenty more (including female teachers, babysitters and neighborhood-embracing moms) have been falsely accused of being inappropriately affectionate (to use a euphemism).   Our legal system purportedly embraces the ideal of letting 10 guilty people go free so that no innocent people will go to prison.  But sometimes innocents get convicted, as you know.   It's disturbing.   Juries should have members who are willing to seek and view reasonable doubt where it exists.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

   Juries should have members who are willing to seek and view reasonable doubt where it exists.   

No that is not the way our system works or should.  Have you ever served?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

To be fair to idiots all around, you don't need to be a lawyer to know that a victim cannot "withdraw" charges. That it's ALWAYS the state. You can prosecute a DV even if the Wife is no-cooperative, you can prosecute a rape even if the victim is not cooperative.). 

But he is on video record threatening to kill someone and did in fact almost kill 3 to 4 people, so its ok to convict in the court of public opinion, correct?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is funny watching keyboard warriors debate with an actual lawyer in a field they know actually nothing about.

This thread is popcorn worthy.

That said, I think it should be moved to Non-Wrestling Topics at this point?  @BobDole, what do you say?  They aren't talking wrestling.  Wrestling hasn't been talked about... basically at all.

  • Fire 1

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, nhs67 said:

It is funny watching keyboard warriors debate with an actual lawyer in a field they know actually nothing about.

This thread is popcorn worthy.

That said, I think it should be moved to Non-Wrestling Topics at this point?  @BobDole, what do you say?  They aren't talking wrestling.  Wrestling hasn't been talked about... basically at all.

I agree, but keyboard warriors never have a problem debating me in my field (despite knowing nothing about it outside of movies or tv) or giving me advice about how to do my job.  Pretty common on the internet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said:

I agree, but keyboard warriors never have a problem debating me in my field (despite knowing nothing about it outside of movies or tv) or giving me advice about how to do my job.  Pretty common on the internet!

What is your field?

"I know actually nothing.  It isn't even conjecture at this point." - me

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...