The elephant in the room returns

I think we as a society need to get our thoughts straight -- on exactly what Coach May pointed out.

Here in VA, the big push over recent years has been the restoration of felons' rights.  "They've paid their debt to society, they're being disenfranchised," etc.  On the other hand, the folks behind that push NEVER want to give back the right to bear arms.  So even the advocates still want to treat the ex-cons as second-class citizens, forever. 

But along comes Michael Vick, and he abused/killed dogs, and suddenly the talk is that he should never be permitted to draw an NFL paycheck ever again.  It reminded me of the joke about people who will eat hamburgers but not venison.  ("I can't bring myself to eat a CUTE animal, but those big fat ugly ones are OK on my plate!")  It seems that we don't do a very good job of sorting out what we really think and developing sound and consistent rules.  What Michael Vick did was nowhere nearly as heinous as the crimes of many others, but people frothed at the mouth like he had been a serial killer.  Because, hey, dogs are cute!

The point is, we have laws and courts and judges and juries for a reason.  And we have a democratic republic system of government, so that each and every one of us gets to weigh in on what the rules ought to be.

If you adopt rules, enforce them, and then the guy is left free to try to make a living, then WHY CAN'T HE GO MAKE THE BEST LIVING HE CAN MAKE?

The guy is going to be living somewhere.  He's going to breathe and walks the streets of some neighborhood.  He's going to live near someone's children.  Does it help that situation any to render him unemployed and unemployable?  What if making millions helps him to get psychiatric treatment, so as to fend off his illicit urges more effectively?  What if being under the public microscope helps to keep him in check?

I guess I just don't understand this attitude that pro sports are off limits to ex-cons.  Or even for wife beaters, for that matter.  If they belong in jail, by all means, put them there.  If you've already decided to free them, then ... THEY ARE FREE.

Quite candidly, the NFL's problem is that they started cowtowing to the ESPN PC talking heads, and now the confusion of all their causes du jour is killing them.  If I were to replace Roger Goodell, I would hold a press conference to announce that I was going to run a football league as an entertainment venue, and that as far as I was concerned, the business venture was not there to serve as anyone's political platform, no matter what their point of view.  Employees can go do as they please, but only on their own time and in their own place.  I don't think players should be using game time to make political statements, any more than I let my secretary use my law firm's blog to vent her views.  Whether or not I agree with her is beside the point.  I don't pay her to hurt my business by running off half my clientele.

The very last thing MLB needs is to follow the NFL down this rathole.  Let the courts decide how much the guy should be punished.  And keep the workplace out of it.

This is a cut and paste from the article posted by Enjoying the ride:

"But we shouldn't miss that 30 MLB clubs desperate to win games passed on Heimlich in the draft.

To them, that little girl mattered."

In my perspective and experience, this could be right there with either the dumbest or most naive judgements a reporter could make.  I would tend toward the view not one of those 30 teams made the decision not to draft because "that little girl mattered." If anything, her situation was far down on any list, if on the list at all.

This truly is MLB ownership not wanting their brand "tarnished" or their having to address the media, the general public as well as a portion of their fan base if they made the decision to pick this pitcher. Just as they had Congress pass the "save America's Pastime" law to save money on MILB salaries, this decision was about brand and $$$$.

To suggest the reason to be "that little girl mattered" seems questionable, at best,  in my view.

infielddad posted:

This is a cut and paste from the article posted by Enjoying the ride:

"But we shouldn't miss that 30 MLB clubs desperate to win games passed on Heimlich in the draft.

To them, that little girl mattered."

In my perspective and experience, this could be right there with either the dumbest or most naive judgements a reporter could make.  I would tend toward the view not one of those 30 teams made the decision not to draft because "that little girl mattered." If anything, her situation was far down on any list, if on the list at all.

This truly is MLB ownership not wanting their brand "tarnished" or their having to address the media, the general public as well as a portion of their fan base if they made the decision to pick this pitcher. Just as they had Congress pass the "save America's Pastime" law to save money on MILB salaries, this decision was about brand and $$$$.

To suggest the reason to be "that little girl mattered" seems questionable, at best,  in my view.

Well to be fair, the reporter doesn't directly say why she mattered, only that she did. The cynic in me would agree that your interpretation of why is correct, but the (perhaps naive) idealist hopes maybe there was something more fundamental going on. 

It doesn’t matter what actually happened. What matters is how the story js perceived by the public. What matters is how public perception affects a MLB team’s image and bottom line. 

I dont understand why Coach Casey thought a year of time and another good college season would make the problem disappear. What Heimlich needs is a PR strategy. Maybe he didn't have time between baseball and academics. Hes supposed to be a cery good student.

Heimlich has to do something significantly positive in the community and have it PR’ed to death. His opportunity comes when enough people and the MLB baseball community sees a person with a good side who made a mistake. His opportunity maybe comes when he stops denying he did it (not enough people will believe him) and demonstrates he’s a good person. His only other option is hire a lawyer and prove his family railroaded him. 

Heimlich is supposed to be a good student. He's capable of having a successful business career. He might be better off changing his name and moving to some other part of the country. But if I was part of his circle right now I would be cincerned about depression and suicide.

"He might be better off changing his name and moving to some other part of the country."

agreed

Josh Hamilton v. Matt Bush v. Luke Heimlich (just my take)

Josh Hamilton - He has an addiction. At the time the Rangers decided to give him a shot the on,y person he had directly harmed was himself. I say directly because addiction can cause a lot of indirect pain to family. I have no idea what kind of father he has become. But he didn’t have kids at the time. 

Matt Bush - Bush did directly harm someone. He killed someone because he was drunk. Unfortunately our society doesn’t take a harsh enough view of drunk driving. A lot of people drive buzzed. As the ad says buzzed driving is drunk drinking. I believe a lot of people look at Bush and think, “There but for the Grace of God go I.”  

My father died in a drunk driving accident. He was the drunk. He was an alcoholic who refused to get help. He refused to accept he had a problem. His line was, “If I drink at the Elks Club I’m a drunk. If I drink at the country club I’m a sport.” It was the third car he had totaled. He sideswiped another car head on and lost control of his car. One time he rolled his car to avoid a head on driving on the wrong side of a divided highway. Some people were appalled my reaction to his death was, “At least he killed himself and no one else.”

Luke Heimlich - He directly harmed someone. Given his age and the little girl’s age the perception is he should have known better and she’s an innocent victim. Based on an admission of guilt he committed one of the most heinous crimes in society. Even convicts detest child molestors more than snitches. 

As I previously stated I believe Heimlich’s opportunity is to to something that creates positive PR. Then he can say as a kid he did a horrible thing, But he’s a better person now. Denial isn’t going to work. Forgiveness after the right actions might.

As you can see I’m not against Heimlich getting a chance. But it’s not going to be easy. Every time he moves up in the minors he woukd have to do a press conference. When he gets promoted to the majors he woukd have to do a press conference. Then it would happen in every major league city. 

Heimlich’s only hope is a constant PR regret/I’m a decent person now tour. How would he hold up mentally?

I think if I were him, I would simply say this: 

"That has all been reported on, the truth is fully out, and I've said all that I can say about it.  I accepted my punishment.  But nothing new has happened.  There is nothing to add to the record.  You certainly may reprint what has been printed before if you like, but there's no reason to keep talking about it, because  there's really nothing I can add.  I'm here to play baseball, just like any other ex-con who needs a job as a way to make a living.  All I want is a chance to earn my keep, and prove that I can be a better person."

Now, I wouldn't let him near MY children.  But in an era when we're being told it's wrong even to ask job applicants if they've ever been convicted of a felony ("ban the box" that is typically to be checked or not checked), we need to decide how we really feel about ex-cons.  Are we really trying to give them a fresh start?  Or is that all BS?

I, for one, am glad that this thread has continued and that there is now some decent collection here of information and background to the story.  I wish more people would take time to drill down and find out more background for all of these difficult scenarios, both sides of the story or debate, before opinions are formed.  Our country would be in a hell of a lot better spot if everyone researched the big issues we are facing instead of making quick decisions based on the blue or red popular opinion/political stance vs things like fact and future consequence.

Anyway, back to this particular issue...

It is a given and should be the case that we are particularly bothered by anything that harms children.  So, my perspective today is certainly not without primary concern for the well-being of the young girl.

That said, we have a young man who has professed his innocence at every step, including consistently passing multiple lie detector tests and going through a lengthy process with a professional psychologist who reports back that the young man seems consistent and genuine in his claims of innocence.  He has character support and belief of hundreds of family and friends, including family, many of whom are affected directly with ties to the girl as well.  He has been a constant positive role model since, there are no other victims and the girl doesn't remember the incident.  It has become clear fact that his guilty plea was only to avoid a potentially worse scenario for both him and the girl.  Thus, the only "inconsistencies" in the story seem to have a very clear explanation defending his claims of innocence.  On top of all this, the kid was a 15 y.o. home schooled in a strong Christian environment and by all accounts, a very good kid, not a street-smart heartless banger or a rebellious kid with emotional issues when this allegedly happened.  The girl, by all accounts, is doing very well, fortunately.  This, too, doesn't mesh with the typical outcome of someone who was sexually molested by a family member.  They have both been through enough with this.  If we can't find enough here to suggest that both should be free to carry on with their lives with whatever direction they choose without continued criticism and public backlash toward the young man, then it's a dam shame, IMO.  And, I really don't have concern for whether that path for him is baseball or something else but he deserves the opportunity at this point.  

Any team that signs him will have to ignore the Twitter mob.  I doubt any team is prepared to do that.

Midlo Dad posted:

I think if I were him, I would simply say this: 

"That has all been reported on, the truth is fully out, and I've said all that I can say about it.  I accepted my punishment.  But nothing new has happened.  There is nothing to add to the record.  You certainly may reprint what has been printed before if you like, but there's no reason to keep talking about it, because  there's really nothing I can add.  I'm here to play baseball, just like any other ex-con who needs a job as a way to make a living.  All I want is a chance to earn my keep, and prove that I can be a better person."

Now, I wouldn't let him near MY children.  But in an era when we're being told it's wrong even to ask job applicants if they've ever been convicted of a felony ("ban the box" that is typically to be checked or not checked), we need to decide how we really feel about ex-cons.  Are we really trying to give them a fresh start?  Or is that all BS?

It appears to me our judicial system needs to be revamped to include escalation.  First time offender gets 6 months, second time offender gets 3 years, 3+ time  10+ years.  This is the only way us as a society can say "they did their time".  I don't understand why a drunk driver can get 5 DUI's and still have his license.  The penalty should fit the crime, if the crime is repeated it should be a stiffer penalty. If the penalties were stiffer one would HOPE they would happen less.  Do you take that risk of driving buzzed if you know you will be without your license for 5 years?

I don't know what's going on where you live, but in my state it works pretty much like that already, and has for as long as I've been around and then some!

"Do you take that risk of driving buzzed if you know you will be without your license for 5 years?:

This seems to happen far too often, as a matter of fact.

Taking a separate situation, in our area an elite college athlete was convicted a raping an unconscious woman.  After hearing all the information from probation sources, the Judge sentenced him to 6 months in County jail. He got out after 3 months. He is now, also, a registered sex offender, a part of the conviction which tails him for life.

The judge was just recalled in an election because the sentence was too lenient vs the crime, in the Court of public opinion.

Colin Kaepernick did not  commit a crime and he is out of work as a professional athlete, soon to be followed it appears by Eric Reid, a safety who also took a knee.

There are times the sentence in the Court of Public Opinion can be more oppressive than within the Court System.  Especially now, with sex crime issues, there are times the latter very much influences the former.

Heck, an Eagles player was shown kneeling in prayer by a network in an effort to discredit himself and his teammates as a way to  to "highlight" the political issue surrounding the Anthem.

As I have posted before, I have tremendous empathy for the girl/young woman.  Saying she does not remember does not mean she won't remember. If she does, the impact can be so significant.

On the other hand, the Court of Public opinion can be very harsh and unforgiving... and very misguided, too.

CaCO3Girl posted:

Midlo Dad posted:

I think if I were him, I would simply say this: 

"That has all been reported on, the truth is fully out, and I've said all that I can say about it.  I accepted my punishment.  But nothing new has happened.  There is nothing to add to the record.  You certainly may reprint what has been printed before if you like, but there's no reason to keep talking about it, because  there's really nothing I can add.  I'm here to play baseball, just like any other ex-con who needs a job as a way to make a living.  All I want is a chance to earn my keep, and prove that I can be a better person."

Now, I wouldn't let him near MY children.  But in an era when we're being told it's wrong even to ask job applicants if they've ever been convicted of a felony ("ban the box" that is typically to be checked or not checked), we need to decide how we really feel about ex-cons.  Are we really trying to give them a fresh start?  Or is that all BS?

It appears to me our judicial system needs to be revamped to include escalation.  First time offender gets 6 months, second time offender gets 3 years, 3+ time  10+ years.  This is the only way us as a society can say "they did their time".  I don't understand why a drunk driver can get 5 DUI's and still have his license.  The penalty should fit the crime, if the crime is repeated it should be a stiffer penalty. If the penalties were stiffer one would HOPE they would happen less.  Do you take that risk of driving buzzed if you know you will be without your license for 5 years?

Yep, yes you do, if you are an addict. 

From what I read in the news drunk drivers often keep driving even after losing their driving privileges.

Do you take that risk of driving buzzed if you know you will be without your license for 5 years?

Addicts often don’t see the downside. They often can only see the high. The  worst that ever happened to my alcoholic father was he wasn’t allowed to drive from the time he arrived home from work until he left for work the next day. 

At one point he was put on blood thinners. His doctor told him no way, no how could he be on this medication and drink. What a joke! Telling a lifelong alcoholic not to drink. Even warning him it could kill him didn’t matter. 

My father died in a drunk/medication intoxication driving accident. The combination of alcohol and blood thinners induced passing out. He sideswiped an oncoming car, veered off the road, slammed into the side of a brick building, was tossed from the car and landed on his head. He was too intoxicated to remember to buckle his seat belt and lock his door. 

No I’m sorry’s necessary. I was only glad he didn’t kill the people in the oncoming car. The frat boy never grew up. It finally caught up with him.

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

No, I don’t think the maybe’s fall short. That was the point of my post. 

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

This right here is exactly why the kid doesn't have a chance. He plead guilty so he's guilty. Yet in the SI article Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law says innocent people plead guilty all the time. But this poster wouldn't believe that if you wrote her quote on paper and nailed it to his forehead. Like I said in the other post  if the girl came forward and admitted lying no small amount of people would just refuse to accept it. 

At this point I actually hope the kid is guilty because he's never going to get past this. Hate to think of this happening to an innocent man  

cabbagedad posted:

I, for one, am glad that this thread has continued and that there is now some decent collection here of information and background to the story.  I wish more people would take time to drill down and find out more background for all of these difficult scenarios, both sides of the story or debate, before opinions are formed.  Our country would be in a hell of a lot better spot if everyone researched the big issues we are facing instead of making quick decisions based on the blue or red popular opinion/political stance vs things like fact and future consequence.

Anyway, back to this particular issue...

It is a given and should be the case that we are particularly bothered by anything that harms children.  So, my perspective today is certainly not without primary concern for the well-being of the young girl.

That said, we have a young man who has professed his innocence at every step, including consistently passing multiple lie detector tests and going through a lengthy process with a professional psychologist who reports back that the young man seems consistent and genuine in his claims of innocence.  He has character support and belief of hundreds of family and friends, including family, many of whom are affected directly with ties to the girl as well.  He has been a constant positive role model since, there are no other victims and the girl doesn't remember the incident.  It has become clear fact that his guilty plea was only to avoid a potentially worse scenario for both him and the girl.  Thus, the only "inconsistencies" in the story seem to have a very clear explanation defending his claims of innocence.  On top of all this, the kid was a 15 y.o. home schooled in a strong Christian environment and by all accounts, a very good kid, not a street-smart heartless banger or a rebellious kid with emotional issues when this allegedly happened.  The girl, by all accounts, is doing very well, fortunately.  This, too, doesn't mesh with the typical outcome of someone who was sexually molested by a family member.  They have both been through enough with this.  If we can't find enough here to suggest that both should be free to carry on with their lives with whatever direction they choose without continued criticism and public backlash toward the young man, then it's a dam shame, IMO.  And, I really don't have concern for whether that path for him is baseball or something else but he deserves the opportunity at this point.  

 

I wouldn't put too much credence in the lie detector tests. Apparently he was not allowed to be specifically questioned about his niece. Every question was preceded by "Not including [the niece], have you ever..."  Detailed here:  https://portlandtribune.com/pt...for-beavers-baseball

I’m not sure why some people are attempting to retry the case on this site. It was done to death last year. The facts are 1) he admitted to the crime and 2) he wasn't drafted.

It doesn't matter if he didn't do it unless he can get the charges dropped. Chances are any process of legally clearing his name (if doable) would take time past being a pro baseball prospect. How does he move forward from a baseball perspective? Or is any hope of a baseball career over? 

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

Good that he wasn't drafted. Regading the denying I would even give him a slight pass because I believe this comes from his agent after not being drafted last year after not denying it but baseball really doesn't need that. It is bad enough they have guys like Bush, Chapman, reyes, Kang and others but heimlich was even worse.

Looks like they have leagues in China and Croatia. Maybe one of the two. I could see a Chinese team taking him and being like "victim of the corrupt American legal system".  I don't believe Japan would touch him. 

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

SomeBaseballDad posted:

Looks like they have leagues in China and Croatia. Maybe one of the two. I could see a Chinese team taking him and being like "victim of the corrupt American legal system".  I don't believe Japan would touch him. 

If whether or not he'd be drafted was up in the air for two drafts, I don't see why an indy team wouldn't pick him up.  Realistically there'd be zero media attention to the team.  The only time the media constantly covered an indy team was when JD Drew joined the St Paul Saints and that was because of the hype.  Luke was at best a late 1st rounder and at worst a 3rd rounder.  

I've never seen so many people who know so little about a situation have such polarizing opinions on it. Someone brought Monica Lewinsky into this...really? She was a 22-24 year old adult woman when that went down. How is that even relevant to a 15 year old boy convicted of child molestation?

I don't think anyone can come on here and act holier than thou and state this kid should/shouldn't get a shot. Things will play out, and his life will go on, likely outside of baseball.

Really May? A Clinton reference? You are better than that, but maybe not.

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

This right here is exactly why the kid doesn't have a chance. He plead guilty so he's guilty. Yet in the SI article Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law says innocent people plead guilty all the time. But this poster wouldn't believe that if you wrote her quote on paper and nailed it to his forehead. Like I said in the other post  if the girl came forward and admitted lying no small amount of people would just refuse to accept it. 

At this point I actually hope the kid is guilty because he's never going to get past this. Hate to think of this happening to an innocent man  

Interesting that you would include only 1/2 of Frazier's quote from the article in a way to try and discredit my input.

"Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual."

No matter how this gets cut, he is lying to someone. Either he lied to the legal system and Judge when he, in his own handwriting, admitted to touching the girl, or, he is lying in the more recent interview.

I have no joy in seeing MLB being praised for taking the "high" road when it is purely a dollars and brand issue to them. In fact, I tend to agree with Coach Casey that Texas coming out in advance with a PR statement they would not draft him is nothing to praise.

As RJM noted, the guilty plea is there. As noted in a prior post, he served his sentence and that needs to be recognized...as long as he is not around his daughter. If someone wants to pound their chest about his innocence or being a victim of the system, they are free to do it on a message board.  But, the core issue, in my view, is this...how do you act when it is with your daughter. Frazier's quote noted above does not give any answers.

infielddad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

This right here is exactly why the kid doesn't have a chance. He plead guilty so he's guilty. Yet in the SI article Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law says innocent people plead guilty all the time. But this poster wouldn't believe that if you wrote her quote on paper and nailed it to his forehead. Like I said in the other post  if the girl came forward and admitted lying no small amount of people would just refuse to accept it. 

At this point I actually hope the kid is guilty because he's never going to get past this. Hate to think of this happening to an innocent man  

Interesting that you would include only 1/2 of Frazier's quote from the article in a way to try and discredit my input.

"Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual."

No matter how this gets cut, he is lying to someone. Either he lied to the legal system and Judge when he, in his own handwriting, admitted to touching the girl, or, he is lying in the more recent interview.

I have no joy in seeing MLB being praised for taking the "high" road when it is purely a dollars and brand issue to them. In fact, I tend to agree with Coach Casey that Texas coming out in advance with a PR statement they would not draft him is nothing to praise.

As RJM noted, the guilty plea is there. As noted in a prior post, he served his sentence and that needs to be recognized...as long as he is not around his daughter. If someone wants to pound their chest about his innocence or being a victim of the system, they are free to do it on a message board.  But, the core issue, in my view, is this...how do you act when it is with your daughter. Frazier's quote noted above does not give any answers.

 

 

 

I didn't include any of her quotes because I assume it's copyrighted material  

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

This right here is exactly why the kid doesn't have a chance. He plead guilty so he's guilty. Yet in the SI article Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law says innocent people plead guilty all the time. But this poster wouldn't believe that if you wrote her quote on paper and nailed it to his forehead. Like I said in the other post  if the girl came forward and admitted lying no small amount of people would just refuse to accept it. 

At this point I actually hope the kid is guilty because he's never going to get past this. Hate to think of this happening to an innocent man  

Interesting that you would include only 1/2 of Frazier's quote from the article in a way to try and discredit my input.

"Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual."

No matter how this gets cut, he is lying to someone. Either he lied to the legal system and Judge when he, in his own handwriting, admitted to touching the girl, or, he is lying in the more recent interview.

I have no joy in seeing MLB being praised for taking the "high" road when it is purely a dollars and brand issue to them. In fact, I tend to agree with Coach Casey that Texas coming out in advance with a PR statement they would not draft him is nothing to praise.

As RJM noted, the guilty plea is there. As noted in a prior post, he served his sentence and that needs to be recognized...as long as he is not around his daughter. If someone wants to pound their chest about his innocence or being a victim of the system, they are free to do it on a message board.  But, the core issue, in my view, is this...how do you act when it is with your daughter. Frazier's quote noted above does not give any answers.

 

 

 

I didn't include any of her quotes because I assume it's copyrighted material  

Good reason to only reference 1/2 of her thoughts, for sure.

hsbaseball101 posted:

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

HA!!!  

CaCO3Girl posted:

hsbaseball101 posted:

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

HA!!!  

What an insightful post!  Did you get someone to help you with that ? The statements made by hsbaseball101 are his opinions and that's all they are. They are no more (or less) valid than many other opinions about this case. And since you brought it up RJM, nobody is retrying this case in this thread & nobody is professing the innocence of the accused. What has been stated is, that given the circumstances surrounding the accusation & the strange course of action taken by the family, that there is a possibility that no wrongdoing took place.  That's all.

adbono posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

hsbaseball101 posted:

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

HA!!!  

What an insightful post!  Did you get someone to help you with that ? The statements made by hsbaseball101 are his opinions and that's all they are. They are no more (or less) valid than many other opinions about this case. And since you brought it up RJM, nobody is retrying this case in this thread & nobody is professing the innocence of the accused. What has been stated is, that given the circumstances surrounding the accusation & the strange course of action taken by the family, that there is a possibility that no wrongdoing took place.  That's all.

And that Clinton had an affair with the very adult intern named Monica Lewinsky...that nugget comes from the esteemed Coach May, who will be leading the next HSBBWEB alt-right prayer meeting this Sunday ay 9am

adbono posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

hsbaseball101 posted:

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

HA!!!  

What an insightful post!  Did you get someone to help you with that ? The statements made by hsbaseball101 are his opinions and that's all they are. They are no more (or less) valid than many other opinions about this case. And since you brought it up RJM, nobody is retrying this case in this thread & nobody is professing the innocence of the accused. What has been stated is, that given the circumstances surrounding the accusation & the strange course of action taken by the family, that there is a possibility that no wrongdoing took place.  That's all.

The possibility he didn't do it would involve retrying the case. I doubt a team drafting him and stating they don't believe he did it would sell well against an admission of guilt and public opinion. 

GaryMe posted:

adbono posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

hsbaseball101 posted:

TPM posted:

adbono posted:

The charges of abuse in this case were levied by a woman that was bitter about losing the custody of her children in a divorce case. Suppose that (after the fact) she wanted to contest that court ruling. Is there more alarming way to get the court's attention than to allege that abuse is taking place on the watch of the custodial parent? No, there is not. That is the most damaging allegation that can be made. However, just because something  is alleged doesn't mean it is true. Women don't usually lose custody of their children unless there is documented case of mental illness or substance abuse - or both.  It is not out of the question that the charges were concocted as a ploy by an unstable woman to gain custody of her kids. If a woman is demented enough to do such a thing (and I have seen it happen) its not much of a reach to think she would also coach a young child on what to say that would give weight to the charges. These are the things that manipulative people do. It may have appeared to an unbiased party that there was a pretty strong case against the accused - even if it was a case based on lies. Something as emotionally charged as this subject affects the whole family - no matter what the truth is. Maybe the (religious) family was really afraid of what publicity about this story would do to them.  Maybe the family made a bad choice of legal counsel. Maybe the attorney they hired wasn't good at arguing a case in front of a jury. Maybe he wanted to settle. Maybe he gave them bad legal advice - and they took it. Maybe the family panicked. Maybe the family took a calculated risk that blew up in their face because of a clerical error. Maybe a 16 year old kid was convinced to fall on the sword for the sake of the family. That is a lot of maybe's. I will give you a couple more - maybe nothing ever happened and maybe the kid actually is innocent.  Its as likely as any other speculation.  What a shame that would be! 

In most states, it's almost impossible for a mother to lose custody of her children.  My ex sister in law told the court that the children ( who were very young at the time) were afraid of their father.  Proven later when the girls got older  that it came out the mother was telling the girls all kinds of things to make them afraid. 

People do crazy things and a very unstable individual might just do whatever necessary not to lose their kids. 

Don't ever under estimate what a mom will do to keep her children.

The mother doesn't strike me as one who'd be so vindictive.  She agreed to give her ex husband primary custody of their daughter twice.  There was nothing difficult about their divorce or custody agreement.  She considered having primary custody once, but then decided against it a month later.  And she wasn't the one who went to the police.  The mother first went to her husband (ex) who confronted his brother Luke and then they both had a meeting with their parents.  The brother determined that Luke had the opportunity to and did commit a crime.  He's the one who reported his own brother to the police, who then decided to charge the kid.  The mother has never aggressively pursued charges with police nor has she ever pursued news outlets to get her story out.  She never even went to this with her lawyer (who may have been a mandated reporter, and if Luke's lawyer was bad, hers was far worse as she could've had custody from the very beginning AND half of her ex's paycheck).  They all came to her and she refused to speak to most of them.  Both her and her ex-husband still believe that a crime was committed.  The girl apparently doesn't remember much about it now, but her memory was clear at the time.  Though the mother has the opinion that Luke should never have been allowed to play baseball, not once did she picked up the phone to dial his school to get him off the team.  So I feel like she's the most passive personality in this family in regards to this case.  

HA!!!  

What an insightful post!  Did you get someone to help you with that ? The statements made by hsbaseball101 are his opinions and that's all they are. They are no more (or less) valid than many other opinions about this case. And since you brought it up RJM, nobody is retrying this case in this thread & nobody is professing the innocence of the accused. What has been stated is, that given the circumstances surrounding the accusation & the strange course of action taken by the family, that there is a possibility that no wrongdoing took place.  That's all.

And that Clinton had an affair with the very adult intern named Monica Lewinsky...that nugget comes from the esteemed Coach May, who will be leading the next HSBBWEB alt-right prayer meeting this Sunday ay 9am

What we don't need here is personal attacks. Especially personal  attacks against people’s politics and religion. 

I have been lurking, reading comments, and reading the linked articles.  Truthfully, the situation is a tragedy, and on one hand, he did admit to the crime; on the other hand, I believe he had some REALLY bad legal advice, and was nudged by his family to admit to something that he has stated numerous times he did not do.  Since his family thought this was the easiest way to go, record would be sealed, grand daughter wouldn't have to testify, least amount of punishment in light of the proposed punishments, potential to lose the case (because once your accused of that crime, you are guilty in this country.), etc., it appears they pushed their son into a bad deal.  Not to mention the kid was 13 - 15 years old!  

I for one cannot condemn a kid for life, especially since he has shown signs of functionality in our society after his punishment.  He will carry a stigma with him for the rest of his life, and that is quite a punishment in and of itself.  I wish they would let the boy play.  Sign him as a free agent with stipulations for constant counseling.

CaCO3Girl posted:

HA!!!  

Are you saying all women are vindictive?  If so you got me on that one.  

infielddad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

SomeBaseballDad posted:

infielddad posted:

For all of the maybe's, don't you think they fall very short when you know that he plead guilty, in his own handwriting, to a felony count of molestation?  He would have been asked questions by the Judge to make sure he acted voluntarily and confirmed he committed the act:

There are no "maybe's" to these facts:

"Heimlich ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of molestation between February 2011 and December 2011, a period in which he was 15. Prosecutors dismissed the other charge as part of a plea bargain.

Heimlich acknowledged guilt in his own handwriting.

"I admit that I had sexual contact" with the girl, Heimlich wrote."

This right here is exactly why the kid doesn't have a chance. He plead guilty so he's guilty. Yet in the SI article Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law says innocent people plead guilty all the time. But this poster wouldn't believe that if you wrote her quote on paper and nailed it to his forehead. Like I said in the other post  if the girl came forward and admitted lying no small amount of people would just refuse to accept it. 

At this point I actually hope the kid is guilty because he's never going to get past this. Hate to think of this happening to an innocent man  

Interesting that you would include only 1/2 of Frazier's quote from the article in a way to try and discredit my input.

"Among experts on juvenile sex offenders, the disconnect between the two Lukes is not surprising. "Either the kid didn't do it or he did it and he's in some form of denial: Neither one is unusual," said Carolyn Frazier, a juvenile defense lawyer and assistant professor at Northwestern's School of Law. "To be innocent and plead guilty to something is not unusual."

No matter how this gets cut, he is lying to someone. Either he lied to the legal system and Judge when he, in his own handwriting, admitted to touching the girl, or, he is lying in the more recent interview.

I have no joy in seeing MLB being praised for taking the "high" road when it is purely a dollars and brand issue to them. In fact, I tend to agree with Coach Casey that Texas coming out in advance with a PR statement they would not draft him is nothing to praise.

As RJM noted, the guilty plea is there. As noted in a prior post, he served his sentence and that needs to be recognized...as long as he is not around his daughter. If someone wants to pound their chest about his innocence or being a victim of the system, they are free to do it on a message board.  But, the core issue, in my view, is this...how do you act when it is with your daughter. Frazier's quote noted above does not give any answers.

 

 

 

I didn't include any of her quotes because I assume it's copyrighted material  

Good reason to only reference 1/2 of her thoughts, for sure.

I also didn't reference the rest of her quotes because they have nothing to do with my point. That being one's single minded belief he must be guilty because he plead guilty. Because of the nature of the crime it invokes such strong emotions that people lose the ability to keep and open mind. Or to accept the fact the kid has paid his dues as set forth by a court of law and let him live his life. 

The debate and disagreement in this thread is the exact reason no team drafted him. He is toxic from a PR perspective. He might go the Indy route or maybe even to a league overseas, but I don’t see an MLB team welcoming this type of debate and division. No matter what people think about the process that lead him to this point in his life, the only documented fact is that he pleaded guilty to probably the most despised crime in our society. Tough to come back from that. 

GaryMe posted:

I've never seen so many people who know so little about a situation have such polarizing opinions on it. Someone brought Monica Lewinsky into this...really? She was a 22-24 year old adult woman when that went down. How is that even relevant to a 15 year old boy convicted of child molestation?

I don't think anyone can come on here and act holier than thou and state this kid should/shouldn't get a shot. Things will play out, and his life will go on, likely outside of baseball.

Really May? A Clinton reference? You are better than that, but maybe not.

I'm not sure he will ever be able to live a normal life. He is a nationally known child molester who was a famous baseball player. Why would any company ever hire him? Or a woman marry him? His life literally could be over at age 20. 

I don't know if could continue living in his situation. If he really didn't do it it would have been terrible by his family literally ending his life with this but I can't see why his family would do that to him. Now I don't know the exact situation but usually if there are rumors like this it is true especially if he actually did confess. You don't confess such a thing easily.

Now it is bad that he was just 15 and he now likely won't ever get a second chance in life but then again the kid also doesn't get a second chance and probably can't have a health life either. Not an easy situation.