Packer Player Under Investigation In Sexual Assault

[retailguy]

The question is (for me at least) what does CMIII know that I don't know?

Until I know, I will defer to him, as I suspect he knows the true story.

[3irty1]

First of all, until we have all the facts it's just speculation. Secondly, to say that the women are older and should know better has nothing to do with this. When someone says no, age doesn't matter. Then again, of all the years i've known you, your derogatory comments toward women certainly do not surprise me.

This is the new sexism. Getting all protective and worked up enough to throw mud over some speculation by a guy on the internet who has a picture of Borat for a face. Women make up more than half of the world population. They don't need your protection--Is it you or JH that is treating them like the weaker sex?

[Scott Campbell]

Mathews was accused of roiding and denied it, but the press must have been terrifying for a kid hoping to be drafted, so, him publicly criticizing Underwood throws up a bunch of red flags. Either CMIII is a real prick, or Underwood is.

I like CM's comments. I think they send a pretty strong message to both Underwood and the rest of the team.

[pbmax]

We all saw the injustice done to Chumura when the girl's hymen was still intact.

Not this again. The hymen was partially intact. That condition can exist after intercourse. There are some women who need a doctor to completely separate the tissue.

Chmura provided and encouraged minors to consume alcohol. He then was alone in a bathroom with one, partially clothed. Notice that Mark said he would explain the truth about the entire circumstance and the bathroom at a later time (I don't believe he testified) and he has never done so that I am aware.

Regardless of her consent, or the inconsistent versions of the story told by people who were there, Chmura should have been nowhere near this girl or this party. Be mad at the prosecutor if you wish for bringing charges he could not prove. Chmura got exactly what his behavior deserved. Public condemnation. Very rarely is there such a clear cut case of legal innocence and public idiocy.

An assault can occur absent sexual intercourse and absent explicit threat of force. Why is it that so many posters are afraid of this fact? You need to have explicit consent or be very sure of your partner's wishes. This is not hard to do. Its easier to do if you do not try to pick up girls in bathrooms at parties where the underage are consuming alcohol.

There are some laws in the country about Statutory Rape and legal ages of consent (or the total years difference between the two parties) that can lead to ridiculous charges of crimes. There was an example of one a few years ago in Georgia or Alabama that ensnared a football or basketball player. But the sexual assault laws are not hard to navigate for people above the age of consent.

Or just have this contract handy:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219422&title=love-contract

[pbmax]

First of all, until we have all the facts it's just speculation. Secondly, to say that the women are older and should know better has nothing to do with this. When someone says no, age doesn't matter. Then again, of all the years i've known you, your derogatory comments toward women certainly do not surprise me.

This is the new sexism. Getting all protective and worked up enough to throw mud over some speculation by a guy on the internet who has a picture of Borat for a face. Women make up more than half of the world population. They don't need your protection--Is it you or JH that is treating them like the weaker sex?

So speculation so one sided it allows the poster to declare the result virtually conclusive is OK on the internet.

But pointing out the flaws in the conclusion is not OK on the internet?

[pbmax]

Is it just me or is the worst that Matthews says about the situation the word "dampened"?

He doesn't seem to be throwing Underwood under a very heavy bus, in that case. I do agree he is clearly separating out all the others from whatever involvement they might have had in the evening.

[Scott Campbell]

Damn, these girls are 31 and 33. I'm sorry, but Underwood is a 23 year old guy. Using common sense, if anyone is young and dumb here, it's Underwood. These are two grizzled vets, out on the town, like they probably have been a hundred times. They're alone, in a hotel room, with Brandon Underwood, getting sexually assaulted together.

31 and 33 is old enough to know how to say no and old enough to know they could get money out of this. I've never read one of these that read like a complete set up until this one. If Underwood did it, shame on him. Just reading what's available though, it sounds very suspicious.

First of all, until we have all the facts it's just speculation.

Well, we have some facts that make it seem a little unusual to me. 2 on 1 left me scratching my head. And their ages raised my eyebrows. But I'm not going to jump to any conclusions yet, but admit to being perplexed. Hopefully the authorities can conclusively get to the truth - whichever way that falls.

[Scott Campbell]

Is it just me or is the worst that Matthews says about the situation the word "dampened"?

He doesn't seem to be throwing Underwood under a very heavy bus, in that case. I do agree he is clearly separating out all the others from whatever involvement they might have had in the evening.

Underwood admitted to having sex with the two women. I suspect that is all that CM is commenting on, and I consider his statements totally appropriate given the uncertainty about the rest of what happened.

[Joemailman]

Have the women changed the part of their story that claims 2 men were involved? If 2 men were involved, why is only Underwood under investigation?

[Scott Campbell]

The question is (for me at least) what does CMIII know that I don't know?

Until I know, I will defer to him, as I suspect he knows the true story.

We all know that Underwood had sex with the 2 women, as he admitted it to investigators already. Given that everything else is uncertain, I think CM's comments are totally appropriate.

[pbmax]

Have the women changed the part of their story that claims 2 men were involved? If 2 men were involved, why is only Underwood under investigation?

I have not read it, but posted somewhere else was the claim that they had changed their statement at some point. But I have no source material.

[Tarlam!]

We all know that Underwood had sex with the 2 women, as he admitted it to investigators already. Given that everything else is uncertain, I think CM's comments are totally appropriate.

I think CMIII commenting on another player's sexual decisions to be inappropriate. He singles out "one player". I wouldn't have any issue with it except for that.

I can really understand how undesirable it is to have one's name associated with any criminal investigation. I can understand all six "cleared" players being firstly anxious then just pissed off that they were detained for questioning, especially at that hour.

I don't know Underwood, I don't know what went down in the Dells, I don't know shit. I highly doubt CMIII chooses to call out a young Bert if similar allegations were made.

[Scott Campbell]

I think CMIII commenting on another player's sexual decisions to be inappropriate. He singles out "one player". I wouldn't have any issue with it except for that.

I'd agree if it hadn't happened at company related function. He didn't single out anyone, and never used his name.

[vince]

Is it just me or is the worst that Matthews says about the situation the word "dampened"?

He doesn't seem to be throwing Underwood under a very heavy bus, in that case. I do agree he is clearly separating out all the others from whatever involvement they might have had in the evening.

It's quite possible that Matthews doesn't know what went on behind closed doors and just wants to get himself and the others out of the limelight here, so he said what he did. But he didn't say anything whatsoever to shed any light on Underwood's possible innocence. Here are the words he did say...

"black eye"
"mistake"
"unfortunate"
"wipe our hands clean"
"none of us that were here today were involved"
"the alleged actions of one individual put us in a bind"
"it is what it is"
"it aggravates us"
"we hope the best for him but that's really all we can do"

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Perhaps it would be costly to Matthews reputation to support him in public at this point, and maybe Matthews is simply distancing himself from the infidelity, but he clearly could have gone to bat for him when his teammate is down if he thought it was appropriate.

Matthews let Underwood hang in the wind here. That's obviously not evidence of his guilt, but he did nothing whatsoever to suggest he's innocent. You would think a man of integrity would stick up for an innocent man.

[Scott Campbell]

.............but he clearly could have gone to bat for him when his teammate is down if he thought it was appropriate.

How exactly do you go to bat for a guy who admitted to having sex with 2 women at a company related function?