|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on May 8, 2018 17:06:31 GMT -8
Our legal system is designed to extract plea deals... at every level, prosecutors are taught to dangle a carrot, and public defenders (and even private lawyers) are encouraged to advise clients to take plea deals. I understand SO many people cannot break the paradigm of "well he plead guilty... he did it". It is simply not necessarily the case. A guilty plea can be a strategic plan, based on circumstances. A calculated risk. We all want to delude ourselves into believing that in all cases, if we were innocent, we'd fight to prove it. The truth is, sometimes life is not fair, and the cards are going to be stacked against you. The reporting done by Eggers, the extra information such as passing a lie test, the mother saying Luke never had opportunity to be alone with the niece and his sports and school schedule kept him away from here nearly all the time, that she was always around and never noticed anything weird, the complaint came originally from an estranged ex wife that didn't have custody of the kid, and ultimately materialized as the brother calling the police after the ex wife persuaded him too, that his counselor stated before this interview Luke always maintained innocence, even when prompted many, many times that it is okay to admit he did it and no more trouble will come and it is part of healing. No matter what Luke always maintained he never did it. The therapist noted she saw no reason to not believe him. There is just so much out there that throws suspicion on the veracity of the claims. Enough that given his character before the accusations came out, we probably owe the kid the benefit of the doubt. If it was a calculated risk, this is the fallout from the "strategy." If it is not true, you fight. You fight until you cannot fight anymore. You fight until the bitter end. It's like the beginning of "Gladiator": You want to turn a plea deal into a "strategy?" Well, having your name be mud is one of the negatives of the "strategy." As for delusion, the narrative that many have fabricated reeks of it. If Luke's ex-aunt wanted to hurt someone, why wouldn't she say that Luke's brother, Josh, sexually assaulted Luke's six-year-old niece? Why not the grandfather? Why Luke? Why did Josh and the former Mrs. Heimlich choose that name among all names? Why would Josh still be upset about it? Why would the niece's mother still be upset about it? Logic dictates the conclusion that Josh, Mrs. Heimlich, and the young Ms. Heimlich all believe that Luke did abominable things to a 4-6 year old. There is no fabrication on the part of either Josh or Mrs. Heimlich. Further, if this was untrue and untrue from the get-go, why did the "real" Luke Heimlich story only come out after the five years was up and the court records were sealed? The logical answer is because they could be refuted prior to the five years. Why won't Luke divulge the entirety of the court records today? The logical answer is because they could be used to refute his current narrative. I have yet to hear a coherent reason why there was a several month delay before the "real" Luke Heimlich story came to light. "There is just so much out there that throws suspicion on the veracity of the claims." Seriously? You add the fact that Luke in his own words "pled guilty" and the stench of the evidence becomes so overpowering that it is surreal to read some of the posts on this board. I am in awe of the amazing logical back-flips being done on this board and in the worst of ways. I always thought that Beaver fans were better. I know some on here are better. However, there are some that are truly fanatics and a part of me is very sad about that. Not being a fanatic here wilky, but I consider coach Casey to be a finer judge of personal character than I will ever be. He had the whole off season to dig to the bottom of this mess and in the end, Luke is his #1 guy. Now all that is left to be said is... GO BEAVS!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 8, 2018 18:19:16 GMT -8
"If it was a calculated risk, this is the fallout from the "strategy." If it is not true, you fight. You fight until you cannot fight anymore. You fight until the bitter end. It's like the beginning of "Gladiator."
I learned a long time ago that real life is seldom like the movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on May 8, 2018 18:47:22 GMT -8
Further, if this was untrue and untrue from the get-go, why did the "real" Luke Heimlich story only come out after the five years was up and the court records were sealed? The logical answer is because they could be refuted prior to the five years. Why won't Luke divulge the entirety of the court records today? The logical answer is because they could be used to refute his current narrative. I have yet to hear a coherent reason why there was a several month delay before the "real" Luke Heimlich story came to light.I always thought that Beaver fans were better. I know some on here are better. However, there are some that are truly fanatics and a part of me is very sad about that. The entire point of taking a plea deal is that he avoided jail, went to therapy and in five years the whole thing went away. that was literally the entire point of doing it. It was the question of go to trial and risk 2 or more years in jail with no chance of a record expungement, or be on probation and get a record expunged. Why on god's green earth would Luke go yelling from the hill tops about his situation before your 5 years? Talking about it, at all, even to proclaim innocence, is completely contrary to his entire point of taking a plea deal. "His Story" only just came out over the past several months because the story came out at all. I think that is really the only logical reason that is relevant. Listen, I get it... Wilky you believe Luke is guilty and he is besmirching the good name of Oregon State and it hurts you. Fine. I respect that and I know i won't change your opinion. But be careful about tossing us other fans under the bus... or you know, Coach Casey and his decision to allow him to play... as fanatics or misguided. None of us, not you, not me, not anybody have all the facts. We have our opinions based on what we read and interpret. I am interpreting a situation that is murky, and I value the opinion of Coach Casey and use this information to conclude there is a reasonable likelihood he didn't do it. I carry my own biases. Much like BeaverG20, I have had my own experiences with the law, from family members, and from my own previous career working for county government and in addictions and mental health, that gives me a very, very cynical opinion of our justice system. I accept this bias, and it generally allows me to more easily give the accused more benefit of doubt than I think many others would. I feel things maybe be the opposite for you. I seem to recall you stating you were (are?) a lawyer or something related. I can accept you could have a better outlook on our system, and lead you to feel those that plead guilty are invariably actually guilty to some degree or another. It is what it is. Regardless, I think we can all agree this is a crappy situation for OSU. We all wish that, during a historic period for an already very good program, this is a terrible cloud to be hanging over an otherwise amazing period. |
|
dK
Freshman
Posts: 408
|
Post by dK on May 8, 2018 19:19:00 GMT -8
Further, if this was untrue and untrue from the get-go, why did the "real" Luke Heimlich story only come out after the five years was up and the court records were sealed? The logical answer is because they could be refuted prior to the five years. Why won't Luke divulge the entirety of the court records today? The logical answer is because they could be used to refute his current narrative. I have yet to hear a coherent reason why there was a several month delay before the "real" Luke Heimlich story came to light.I always thought that Beaver fans were better. I know some on here are better. However, there are some that are truly fanatics and a part of me is very sad about that. The entire point of taking a plea deal is that he avoided jail, went to therapy and in five years the whole thing went away. that was literally the entire point of doing it. It was the question of go to trial and risk 2 or more years in jail with no chance of a record expungement, or be on probation and get a record expunged. Why on god's green earth would Luke go yelling from the hill tops about his situation before your 5 years? Talking about it, at all, even to proclaim innocence, is completely contrary to his entire point of taking a plea deal. "His Story" only just came out over the past several months because the story came out at all. I think that is really the only logical reason that is relevant. Listen, I get it... Wilky you believe Luke is guilty and he is besmirching the good name of Oregon State and it hurts you. Fine. I respect that and I know i won't change your opinion. But be careful about tossing us other fans under the bus... or you know, Coach Casey and his decision to allow him to play... as fanatics or misguided. None of us, not you, not me, not anybody have all the facts. We have our opinions based on what we read and interpret. I am interpreting a situation that is murky, and I value the opinion of Coach Casey and use this information to conclude there is a reasonable likelihood he didn't do it. I carry my own biases. Much like BeaverG20, I have had my own experiences with the law, from family members, and from my own previous career working for county government and in addictions and mental health, that gives me a very, very cynical opinion of our justice system. I accept this bias, and it generally allows me to more easily give the accused more benefit of doubt than I think many others would. I feel things maybe be the opposite for you. I seem to recall you stating you were (are?) a lawyer or something related. I can accept you could have a better outlook on our system, and lead you to feel those that plead guilty are invariably actually guilty to some degree or another. It is what it is. Regardless, I think we can all agree this is a crappy situation for OSU. We all wish that, during a historic period for an already very good program, this is a terrible cloud to be hanging over an otherwise amazing period. I also have a skeptical view of over zealous authorities including law enforcement, prosecution, and social workers. They too often have tunnel vision and overcharge cases in order to extort plea deals. I know I will sound like a broken record to some but I encourage anyone interested in this case to read up on the Wenatchee child sex ring fraud from the mid 90's. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on May 8, 2018 20:14:16 GMT -8
While you're right that the Times article presents no new information, it does provide information to a wider audience than just Oregonians or college baseball fans. While I still maintain that Luke served his sentence, paid his debt to society (as light as it may have been), and has every right to attend college and play baseball, I do not think that exempts him from people bringing it up. And look, the facts are this - he plead guilty to avoid putting any undue stress on his family, then last year says "I have taken responsibility for my conduct when I was a teenager. As a 16 year old, I was placed on juvenile court probation and ordered to participate in an individual counseling program. I'm grateful for the counseling I received, and since then, I realized that the only way forward was to work each day on becoming the best person, community member and student I can possibly be." Then he goes undrafted and now it's "I never did anything, this is flat out false?" Essentially calling his niece a liar....explain to me how that's not putting additional stress on his family. It's OK to do it now that he might not get drafted? I can't reconcile those things in my head, and I don't think I'll ever be able to. I haven't watched a game he's pitched this year, nor do I plan to. People get bad advice from family, friends and attorneys all the time. One of the key pieces of information conveniently left off of the NYT piece, is the angle of the estranged mom of the victim, and the fact that his brother and sister-in-law were going through a divorce. Also, that LH's mother stated that he had little to no unsupervised access to his niece. Believe what you want - what I know is his record has been expunged, and strange stories frequently come up when a mother and father are fighting over everything, including visitation and custody - in a divorce. Could LH have done it? Absolutely. But the only one's that know for sure, regardless of the plea deal he was talked into, is his niece and himself. Which is the real problem with all of these types of situations. Unless the victim goes immediately to a doctor and gets physical evidence, it is a "he said, she said" type of deal. This wouldn't be the first or last time a kid has been "coached" to say certain things, especially if it is a weapon to hurt her x-husband, to get a little more custody and child support. Just sayin' |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 8, 2018 20:40:18 GMT -8
While you're right that the Times article presents no new information, it does provide information to a wider audience than just Oregonians or college baseball fans. While I still maintain that Luke served his sentence, paid his debt to society (as light as it may have been), and has every right to attend college and play baseball, I do not think that exempts him from people bringing it up. And look, the facts are this - he plead guilty to avoid putting any undue stress on his family, then last year says "I have taken responsibility for my conduct when I was a teenager. As a 16 year old, I was placed on juvenile court probation and ordered to participate in an individual counseling program. I'm grateful for the counseling I received, and since then, I realized that the only way forward was to work each day on becoming the best person, community member and student I can possibly be." Then he goes undrafted and now it's "I never did anything, this is flat out false?" Essentially calling his niece a liar....explain to me how that's not putting additional stress on his family. It's OK to do it now that he might not get drafted? I can't reconcile those things in my head, and I don't think I'll ever be able to. I haven't watched a game he's pitched this year, nor do I plan to. People get bad advice from family, friends and attorneys all the time. One of the key pieces of information conveniently left off of the NYT piece, is the angle of the estranged mom of the victim, and the fact that his brother and sister-in-law were going through a divorce. Also, that LH's mother stated that he had little to no unsupervised access to his niece. Believe what you want - what I know is his record has been expunged, and strange stories frequently come up when a mother and father are fighting over everything, including visitation and custody - in a divorce. Could LH have done it? Absolutely. But the only one's that know for sure, regardless of the plea deal he was talked into, is his niece and himself. Which is the real problem with all of these types of situations. Unless the victim goes immediately to a doctor and gets physical evidence, it is a "he said, she said" type of deal. This wouldn't be the first or last time a kid has been "coached" to say certain things, especially if it is a weapon to hurt her x-husband, to get a little more custody and child support. Just sayin' Your timeline is wrong, which I believe is coloring your analysis. Josh and Mrs. Heimlich got divorced, and Josh got custody. Mrs. Heimlich had visitation rights. When Josh worked, Josh and Luke's parents watched Josh's daughter. This is what provided Luke with access to his niece. I know that Luke's niece believes that Luke molested her. I know that Luke's former aunt believes that Luke molested her daughter and is still upset about it. From the "pro-Luke" Tribune piece, Josh Heimlich called the cops on his 16-year-old brother. And does not talk to Luke anymore. I conclude that Josh is still upset about it. Family is everything. Family is even a bigger deal for a religious family like the Heimlichs. If I am Josh and I call the cops on my brother, that means I am 100% certain that he did it. Luke's niece believes that Luke sexually assaulted her, Luke's aunt believes that Luke sexually assaulted her daughter, and, most damning, Josh Heimlich believes it. I believe that we owe it to Luke's niece to believe her. I believe that we owe Josh and Mrs. Heimlich to believe them and their little girl. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 8, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -8
The entire point of taking a plea deal is that he avoided jail, went to therapy and in five years the whole thing went away. that was literally the entire point of doing it. It was the question of go to trial and risk 2 or more years in jail with no chance of a record expungement, or be on probation and get a record expunged. Why on god's green earth would Luke go yelling from the hill tops about his situation before your 5 years? Talking about it, at all, even to proclaim innocence, is completely contrary to his entire point of taking a plea deal. "His Story" only just came out over the past several months because the story came out at all. I think that is really the only logical reason that is relevant. Listen, I get it... Wilky you believe Luke is guilty and he is besmirching the good name of Oregon State and it hurts you. Fine. I respect that and I know i won't change your opinion. But be careful about tossing us other fans under the bus... or you know, Coach Casey and his decision to allow him to play... as fanatics or misguided. None of us, not you, not me, not anybody have all the facts. We have our opinions based on what we read and interpret. I am interpreting a situation that is murky, and I value the opinion of Coach Casey and use this information to conclude there is a reasonable likelihood he didn't do it. I carry my own biases. Much like BeaverG20, I have had my own experiences with the law, from family members, and from my own previous career working for county government and in addictions and mental health, that gives me a very, very cynical opinion of our justice system. I accept this bias, and it generally allows me to more easily give the accused more benefit of doubt than I think many others would. I feel things maybe be the opposite for you. I seem to recall you stating you were (are?) a lawyer or something related. I can accept you could have a better outlook on our system, and lead you to feel those that plead guilty are invariably actually guilty to some degree or another. It is what it is. Regardless, I think we can all agree this is a crappy situation for OSU. We all wish that, during a historic period for an already very good program, this is a terrible cloud to be hanging over an otherwise amazing period. I also have a skeptical view of over zealous authorities including law enforcement, prosecution, and social workers. They too often have tunnel vision and overcharge cases in order to extort plea deals. I know I will sound like a broken record to some but I encourage anyone interested in this case to read up on the Wenatchee child sex ring fraud from the mid 90's. You negotiate plea deals, just like you negotiate settlements or contracts or anything else. You start with a position and then you negotiate your way to something that you and the other party can live with. The Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions? This does not involve a teenager in foster care, identifying everyone and their brother as sexually abusing her. This does not involve the foster child's father as being the detective in charge of the investigation. This does not involve police interrogating children into giving untruthful testimony. This does not involve recovered or implanted memories. This does not involve a child identifying their parents as guilty of sexual assault. Other than the term "sexual assault," the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions have zero to do with this. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 8, 2018 21:15:19 GMT -8
Luke is not guilty of anything, he is an adjudicated minor. Neither is he not guilty. That is the point of Washington law to allow a minor to be rehabilitated without entering a plea in court. This rehabilitation process is supposed to allow an individual to move on with life with no restrictions. If anyone has a problem with this they need to focus on changing Washington law, not besmirch those who follow it. It does not matter whether anything happened or not at this time. Justice has been served. I personally think the Washington law is very good as it gives minors that made a youthful and immature mistake an opportunity to change their life. Every study performed shows the risk of allowing rehabilitation is the same as someone who never required rehabilitation to the public.
The motives of the former sister in-law are irrelevant. It does nothing to strengthen nor weaken her vantage point. She doesn't need to have a motive. She can honestly believe her version, but that doesn't make it true nor false. The only reason people think it important to know her back story is she is not in a good position to be rational when judging information. Divorce is mostly emotional. Same reason why you cannot trust the judgment of one basing their judgment of a possible pedophile on what the offense is imagined to be. This is purely an emotional judgment. Emotionally judgmental people are the mobs with pitch forks and torches.
It is disingenuous of anyone to say they would fight rather than take a plea deal if they have never experienced this. It usually means they act in defiance of the expert in this situation and the consequences are dire if not successful. This is especially relevant when the consequences are horrible no matter the decision. It is truly a no win situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 8, 2018 21:34:03 GMT -8
People get bad advice from family, friends and attorneys all the time. One of the key pieces of information conveniently left off of the NYT piece, is the angle of the estranged mom of the victim, and the fact that his brother and sister-in-law were going through a divorce. Also, that LH's mother stated that he had little to no unsupervised access to his niece. Believe what you want - what I know is his record has been expunged, and strange stories frequently come up when a mother and father are fighting over everything, including visitation and custody - in a divorce. Could LH have done it? Absolutely. But the only one's that know for sure, regardless of the plea deal he was talked into, is his niece and himself. Which is the real problem with all of these types of situations. Unless the victim goes immediately to a doctor and gets physical evidence, it is a "he said, she said" type of deal. This wouldn't be the first or last time a kid has been "coached" to say certain things, especially if it is a weapon to hurt her x-husband, to get a little more custody and child support. Just sayin' Your timeline is wrong, which I believe is coloring your analysis. Josh and Mrs. Heimlich got divorced, and Josh got custody. Mrs. Heimlich had visitation rights. When Josh worked, Josh and Luke's parents watched Josh's daughter. This is what provided Luke with access to his niece. I know that Luke's niece believes that Luke molested her. I know that Luke's former aunt believes that Luke molested her daughter and is still upset about it. From the "pro-Luke" Tribune piece, Josh Heimlich called the cops on his 16-year-old brother. And does not talk to Luke anymore. I conclude that Josh is still upset about it. Family is everything. Family is even a bigger deal for a religious family like the Heimlichs. If I am Josh and I call the cops on my brother, that means I am 100% certain that he did it. Luke's niece believes that Luke sexually assaulted her, Luke's aunt believes that Luke sexually assaulted her daughter, and, most damning, Josh Heimlich believes it. I believe that we owe it to Luke's niece to believe her. I believe that we owe Josh and Mrs. Heimlich to believe them and their little girl. Your insinuations are wrong. You claim you know what Luke's brother believes. He has had every opportunity to state this, but has not. If you felt there was any chance your child was abused you would alert the authorities. This has very little to do with Josh's opinion of what happened. Your assumptions are foolish and you have no clue what Josh thinks. The only statement about what the niece believes happened, as of today, is what her mother said. The mother said her daughter hardly remembers anything of the ordeal. We do not have third party interview available of the niece nor should we. So all we have to believe is the mother as we don't know the opinion of the others. I don't have any obligation to believe the word of someone when I don't know what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on May 8, 2018 21:37:57 GMT -8
I also have a skeptical view of over zealous authorities including law enforcement, prosecution, and social workers. They too often have tunnel vision and overcharge cases in order to extort plea deals. I know I will sound like a broken record to some but I encourage anyone interested in this case to read up on the Wenatchee child sex ring fraud from the mid 90's. You negotiate plea deals, just like you negotiate settlements or contracts or anything else. You start with a position and then you negotiate your way to something that you and the other party can live with. The Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions? This does not involve a teenager in foster care, identifying everyone and their brother as sexually abusing her. This does not involve the foster child's father as being the detective in charge of the investigation. This does not involve police interrogating children into giving untruthful testimony. This does not involve recovered or implanted memories. This does not involve a child identifying their parents as guilty of sexual assault. Other than the term "sexual assault," the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions have zero to do with this. The fear of conviction when innocent has everything to do with this, you are missing the point. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 8, 2018 22:09:45 GMT -8
Luke is not guilty of anything, he is an adjudicated minor. Neither is he not guilty. That is the point of Washington law to allow a minor to be rehabilitated without entering a plea in court. This rehabilitation process is supposed to allow an individual to move on with life with no restrictions. If anyone has a problem with this they need to focus on changing Washington law, not besmirch those who follow it. It does not matter whether anything happened or not at this time. Justice has been served. I personally think the Washington law is very good as it gives minors that made a youthful and immature mistake an opportunity to change their life. Every study performed shows the risk of allowing rehabilitation is the same as someone who never required rehabilitation to the public. The motives of the former sister in-law are irrelevant. It does nothing to strengthen nor weaken her vantage point. She doesn't need to have a motive. She can honestly believe her version, but that doesn't make it true nor false. The only reason people think it important to know her back story is she is not in a good position to be rational when judging information. Divorce is mostly emotional. Same reason why you cannot trust the judgment of one basing their judgment of a possible pedophile on what the offense is imagined to be. This is purely an emotional judgment. Emotionally judgmental people are the mobs with pitch forks and torches. It is disingenuous of anyone to say they would fight rather than take a plea deal if they have never experienced this. It usually means they act in defiance of the expert in this situation and the consequences are dire if not successful. This is especially relevant when the consequences are horrible no matter the decision. It is truly another win situation. Luke used the word "guilty." He said that he "pled guilty" in his most recent interview. That is an admission against interest and to the press, no less. (If Luke is getting legal advice--and he needs it--his lawyer still sucks.) The people on this board can't be cute and play with words anymore. Justice is balance. There was no punishment by the State of Washington, so there de facto is no justice. Justice was not served by the State of Washington. As I am not a resident of the State of Washington, I can really do nothing to attempt to ensure that justice is served going forward. And, at this point, there is little that I can do to attempt to rectify the failure of the State of Washington to mete out justice. There is an argument to be made that justice is irrelevant in this instance because of Luke's age and that rehabilitation is more worthwhile. That would seem to be a worthwhile discussion. However, no one seems to be arguing that. The former sister-in-law does not need to have a motive, but people rarely do not have a motive. And rarely does one's motive defy logic. The divorce was final. If I was the sister-in-law, I could have concocted something much more damaging. Josh and the grandfather would be much better culprits. Plus, if it was a concocted story, how does the sister-in-law benefit by holding onto it for almost five years? How does Josh benefit by continuing to snub his brother? If found "guilty" (Luke's word), Luke faced 40 weeks in juvi. I would not call this "dire." |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 8, 2018 22:33:52 GMT -8
Your timeline is wrong, which I believe is coloring your analysis. Josh and Mrs. Heimlich got divorced, and Josh got custody. Mrs. Heimlich had visitation rights. When Josh worked, Josh and Luke's parents watched Josh's daughter. This is what provided Luke with access to his niece. I know that Luke's niece believes that Luke molested her. I know that Luke's former aunt believes that Luke molested her daughter and is still upset about it. From the "pro-Luke" Tribune piece, Josh Heimlich called the cops on his 16-year-old brother. And does not talk to Luke anymore. I conclude that Josh is still upset about it. Family is everything. Family is even a bigger deal for a religious family like the Heimlichs. If I am Josh and I call the cops on my brother, that means I am 100% certain that he did it. Luke's niece believes that Luke sexually assaulted her, Luke's aunt believes that Luke sexually assaulted her daughter, and, most damning, Josh Heimlich believes it. I believe that we owe it to Luke's niece to believe her. I believe that we owe Josh and Mrs. Heimlich to believe them and their little girl. Your insinuations are wrong. You claim you know what Luke's brother believes. He has had every opportunity to state this, but has not. If you felt there was any chance your child was abused you would alert the authorities. This has very little to do with Josh's opinion of what happened. Your assumptions are foolish and you have no clue what Josh thinks. The only statement about what the niece believes happened, as of today, is what her mother said. The mother said her daughter hardly remembers anything of the ordeal. We do not have third party interview available of the niece nor should we. So all we have to believe is the mother as we don't know the opinion of the others. I don't have any obligation to believe the word of someone when I don't know what it is. Josh Heimlich DID alert the authorities. Josh Heimlich was the individual, who called the police on Luke Heimlich, his brother. My assumption is that Josh Heimlich would not have done that absent compelling evidence that Josh's little brother Luke molested his daughter. Call the foregoing "foolish," if you would like. I would disagree with you and invite you to come up with an alternate theory. I have yet to hear one that makes a lick of sense, but you could surprise me. In all likelihood, there is a third-party interview available. However, it was probably sealed in August 2017, which is why Luke waited until February 2018 to give his first interview about the subject. (Bravo to Luke on that one.) I believe that the evidence available to us tends to point to the conclusion that Luke is, in all probability, "guilty" (Luke's word) rather than innocent of sexually assaulting his 4-6 year old niece. |
|
|
|
Post by gowenbeavs on May 9, 2018 5:17:01 GMT -8
Some may think the whoregian is bias (me included) but the Bend Bulletin is just as bad if not worse. They felt the LH story was so news worthy that they had to cut and paste the NYT times article to the FRONT page of yesterdays paper. Mind you, we have a freaking OSU campus in town. Don't get me started on their sports page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on May 9, 2018 6:28:14 GMT -8
Luke would be well advised to concentrate exclusively on his remaining starts at OSU. They are very likely to be the most meaningful games left in his Baseball career. His coaches and his teammates deserve his undivided focus. |
|
|
|
Post by NativeBeav on May 9, 2018 7:13:06 GMT -8
People get bad advice from family, friends and attorneys all the time. One of the key pieces of information conveniently left off of the NYT piece, is the angle of the estranged mom of the victim, and the fact that his brother and sister-in-law were going through a divorce. Also, that LH's mother stated that he had little to no unsupervised access to his niece. Believe what you want - what I know is his record has been expunged, and strange stories frequently come up when a mother and father are fighting over everything, including visitation and custody - in a divorce. Could LH have done it? Absolutely. But the only one's that know for sure, regardless of the plea deal he was talked into, is his niece and himself. Which is the real problem with all of these types of situations. Unless the victim goes immediately to a doctor and gets physical evidence, it is a "he said, she said" type of deal. This wouldn't be the first or last time a kid has been "coached" to say certain things, especially if it is a weapon to hurt her x-husband, to get a little more custody and child support. Just sayin' Your timeline is wrong, which I believe is coloring your analysis. Josh and Mrs. Heimlich got divorced, and Josh got custody. Mrs. Heimlich had visitation rights. When Josh worked, Josh and Luke's parents watched Josh's daughter. This is what provided Luke with access to his niece. I know that Luke's niece believes that Luke molested her. I know that Luke's former aunt believes that Luke molested her daughter and is still upset about it. From the "pro-Luke" Tribune piece, Josh Heimlich called the cops on his 16-year-old brother. And does not talk to Luke anymore. I conclude that Josh is still upset about it. Family is everything. Family is even a bigger deal for a religious family like the Heimlichs. If I am Josh and I call the cops on my brother, that means I am 100% certain that he did it. Luke's niece believes that Luke sexually assaulted her, Luke's aunt believes that Luke sexually assaulted her daughter, and, most damning, Josh Heimlich believes it. I believe that we owe it to Luke's niece to believe her. I believe that we owe Josh and Mrs. Heimlich to believe them and their little girl. I can appreciate everything you are saying, but for me the bottom line is we just don't know without further evidence. It still boils down to a 6 year old claiming something that may or may not be true. I know a lot of people want to believe that a 5, 6 or 7 year old is incapable of "mis-remembering" something - having kids of my own - I know that is not true. If I was Josh, I would be upset as well. Regarding timeline, I am not sure any of us have the exact timeline - only what we read in the news. What really cheeses me about this? NO ONE WINS - just like in divorce. By dredging all of this up again and again and again only generates lots of energy spent debating what happened or didn't happen six years ago by us the general public, and make pieces of crap like Crapzano, the dead fish wrapper, and others lots of money on clicks. It stinks. It would have been better, IMHO, if the authorities would have not botched his reporting requirement, and the little "o" had left it alone. Better for the niece, better for LH, and better for the university. What I love about many left of center politically is they are all for helping the criminals, rehabilitation, a fresh chance - until it involves something they don't like. Then? He should never be able to move on, it should follow him FOREVER!!!!! Really? Even after the authorities have said he has done everything right since he was accused, and has very little chance of repeating this, assuming he is guilty? The court has actually expunged the record. So, what is the end game here? What would make you happy? Public floggings for the rest of his life? How do you bring closure when the scab is continually ripped off? |
|
