ADVERTISEMENT

Mateen Cleaves found innocent of rape. Say again???

giphy.gif
 
Is this where people claim they’re an expert on the case and know more than the jury because they saw a very short, edited video?

What facts can you tell me about the case?

Probably none...

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/08/24/cleaves-acquitted-but-then-came-the-video/

You're correct....don't know the facts of the case. Do you happen to know the explanation of the video footage? Edited?? Was she not running away from wherever Cleaves wanted her to go? I'm not sure what editing was done or shows?? An explanation indeed would help ease the public perception that I'm seeing.

Having said that, listen...I'm a Flint guy. While I've been an M fan first, I was proud of what the Flintstones accomplished back in the day at MSU. So I'm not a Mateen basher. Just sharing info I came across.
 
So last friday former MSU Spartan star was found innocent of rape in a court of law.
Oh, by the way...here is some video footage taken that evening outside the motel.

https://www.wxyz.com/news/local-new...s-prosecutors-say-this-video-proved-his-guilt

I guess this doesn't prove he raped her.......but not exactly looking like a consensual situation...
It doesn’t make a lot of sense here. He was acquitted, swiftly may I add, even though the jury all got to see that video. That video is horrible, and about as close to evidence as you are gonna get. She is trying to get away. They are naked and he is pulling her back to a motel bedroom. Maybe the jury knows something we don’t? I don’t see a lot of paths where that video can exist and within 2 hours he is acquitted of all charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUfanBorden
You're correct....don't know the facts of the case. Do you happen to know the explanation of the video footage? Edited?? Was she not running away from wherever Cleaves wanted her to go? I'm not sure what editing was done or shows?? An explanation indeed would help ease the public perception that I'm seeing.

Having said that, listen...I'm a Flint guy. While I've been an M fan first, I was proud of what the Flintstones accomplished back in the day at MSU. So I'm not a Mateen basher. Just sharing info I came across.

Yeah the video was explained pretty thoroughly in the court of law where the jury saw it amongst seeing all of the other evidence.

No offense but I’m not going to type out a novel. It was a public trial. If you want to actually learn the facts of what happened it’s all out there for ya to do so. A 9 female person jury acquitted him in just over 2 hours.

There was never a case to begin with, was already thrown out of court by a judge, but a second prosecutor from a different county with political aspirations decided to take it back up again.
 
It doesn’t make a lot of sense here. He was acquitted, swiftly may I add, even though the jury all got to see that video. That video is horrible, and about as close to evidence as you are gonna get. She is trying to get away. They are naked and he is pulling her back to a motel bedroom. Maybe the jury knows something we don’t? I don’t see a lot of paths where that video can exist and within 2 hours he is acquitted of all charges.

Thanks for being honest and not just defending him because he was a star at MSU (see: SpartanJD)
 
  • Like
Reactions: RipThru
It doesn’t make a lot of sense here. He was acquitted, swiftly may I add, even though the jury all got to see that video. That video is horrible, and about as close to evidence as you are gonna get. She is trying to get away. They are naked and he is pulling her back to a motel bedroom. Maybe the jury knows something we don’t? I don’t see a lot of paths where that video can exist and within 2 hours he is acquitted of all charges.

It’s almost as if the jury was presented with all the videos, all the facts, all the witnesses, and came to a conclusion.

You saw...an edited video online...but most know more than them, right?
 
“Here are some additional facts that the jury might have found important about the video. Cleaves argued that he pulled the victim back into the room not to have sex with her but to get her to put on clothes before leaving, as opposed to wandering around outside of a motel, in Flint, intoxicated and naked, at 2:00 in the morning. Indeed, the video -- not the clip shown here that was shortened and edited for maximum dramatic effect, but the full video presented to the jury -- showed that the victim left the room not twice but three times, the third immediately after the second. The third time, the victim was fully clothed; once she's no longer naked in public, Cleaves doesn't attempt to pull her back to the room. Testimony from the victim herself along with other witnesses and evidence presented at trial corroborated Cleaves' non-criminal explanation of the events seen in the video.

Most importantly, credibility concerns played a critical role in this case, and you are not privy to the myriad credibility issues the jury was exposed to. The victim has at various times claimed that she was kidnapped early on in the evening, held against her will, and raped. This version of events did not mesh well with evidence showing that, among other things, the victim invited Cleaves out for the night, not the other way around (text message exhibits), and that the victim initiated the sexual encounter with Cleaves, not the other way around (the victim's own testimony). Video tape footage showed the victim arriving at the motel, doing her makeup in the mirror in the car, and entering the motel on her own. The victim testified that once in the motel room she voluntarily began kissing Cleaves. She testified that she voluntarily took her own clothes off. She testified that she voluntarily initiated intercourse with Cleaves. She testified that she did not at any point in time indicate 'no' to Cleaves about sexual intercourse. After the incident, she testified that she told other witnesses, including the police, that no sexual assault had occurred. This is just a summary of a tiny fraction of the evidence presented at trial."
 
I had heard the portion about him wanting to get her back to the room to get clothes on her.
Thanks for providing the info that was put out during the trial. Regardless....sad situation for all involved.
 
“Here are some additional facts that the jury might have found important about the video. Cleaves argued that he pulled the victim back into the room not to have sex with her but to get her to put on clothes before leaving, as opposed to wandering around outside of a motel, in Flint, intoxicated and naked, at 2:00 in the morning. Indeed, the video -- not the clip shown here that was shortened and edited for maximum dramatic effect, but the full video presented to the jury -- showed that the victim left the room not twice but three times, the third immediately after the second. The third time, the victim was fully clothed; once she's no longer naked in public, Cleaves doesn't attempt to pull her back to the room. Testimony from the victim herself along with other witnesses and evidence presented at trial corroborated Cleaves' non-criminal explanation of the events seen in the video.

Most importantly, credibility concerns played a critical role in this case, and you are not privy to the myriad credibility issues the jury was exposed to. The victim has at various times claimed that she was kidnapped early on in the evening, held against her will, and raped. This version of events did not mesh well with evidence showing that, among other things, the victim invited Cleaves out for the night, not the other way around (text message exhibits), and that the victim initiated the sexual encounter with Cleaves, not the other way around (the victim's own testimony). Video tape footage showed the victim arriving at the motel, doing her makeup in the mirror in the car, and entering the motel on her own. The victim testified that once in the motel room she voluntarily began kissing Cleaves. She testified that she voluntarily took her own clothes off. She testified that she voluntarily initiated intercourse with Cleaves. She testified that she did not at any point in time indicate 'no' to Cleaves about sexual intercourse. After the incident, she testified that she told other witnesses, including the police, that no sexual assault had occurred. This is just a summary of a tiny fraction of the evidence presented at trial."

Source? That doesn’t sound like her actual testimony at all.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/20...fies-in-mateen-cleaves-sex-assault-trial.html
 
I had heard the portion about him wanting to get her back to the room to get clothes on her.
Thanks for providing the info that was put out during the trial. Regardless....sad situation for all involved.

You’re responding to a huge MSU slappy that has cited a blog with no author listed and a quote with no citation. Take that for what it’s worth.
 
You’re responding to a huge MSU slappy that has cited a blog with no author listed and a quote with no citation. Take that for what it’s worth.

This isnt an academic thesis here big guy. Cleaves was completely exonerated in a court of law in what amounted to a quick acquittal and an embarrassment for the prosecutor. Laughing

But yet here you are saying you know more about the case than them because you saw a single edited video.

Your tribalism is whats wrong with this country right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarCock29
I don’t actually believe that you think Cleaves did nothing wrong here so you’ve gotta be trolling.
 
“Here are some additional facts that the jury might have found important about the video. Cleaves argued that he pulled the victim back into the room not to have sex with her but to get her to put on clothes before leaving, as opposed to wandering around outside of a motel, in Flint, intoxicated and naked, at 2:00 in the morning. Indeed, the video -- not the clip shown here that was shortened and edited for maximum dramatic effect, but the full video presented to the jury -- showed that the victim left the room not twice but three times, the third immediately after the second. The third time, the victim was fully clothed; once she's no longer naked in public, Cleaves doesn't attempt to pull her back to the room. Testimony from the victim herself along with other witnesses and evidence presented at trial corroborated Cleaves' non-criminal explanation of the events seen in the video.

Most importantly, credibility concerns played a critical role in this case, and you are not privy to the myriad credibility issues the jury was exposed to. The victim has at various times claimed that she was kidnapped early on in the evening, held against her will, and raped. This version of events did not mesh well with evidence showing that, among other things, the victim invited Cleaves out for the night, not the other way around (text message exhibits), and that the victim initiated the sexual encounter with Cleaves, not the other way around (the victim's own testimony). Video tape footage showed the victim arriving at the motel, doing her makeup in the mirror in the car, and entering the motel on her own. The victim testified that once in the motel room she voluntarily began kissing Cleaves. She testified that she voluntarily took her own clothes off. She testified that she voluntarily initiated intercourse with Cleaves. She testified that she did not at any point in time indicate 'no' to Cleaves about sexual intercourse. After the incident, she testified that she told other witnesses, including the police, that no sexual assault had occurred. This is just a summary of a tiny fraction of the evidence presented at trial."

What’s your source for this? Reading it on RCMB doesn’t make it true. MLive reports the testimony being a bit different.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/20...fies-in-mateen-cleaves-sex-assault-trial.html
 
What’s your source for this? Reading it on RCMB doesn’t make it true. MLive reports the testimony being a bit different.

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/20...fies-in-mateen-cleaves-sex-assault-trial.html

You should hunt down the female jury members and let them know you are more educated about them in regards to the facts of the case and tell them their fast acquittal was wrong...because...you know more since you read a few paragraphs of an Mlive article and saw an edited video on TMZ.

Eyeroll
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarCock29
I had heard the portion about him wanting to get her back to the room to get clothes on her.
Thanks for providing the info that was put out during the trial. Regardless....sad situation for all involved.

Yup. It was all laid out in the trial.

First evidence was all the messages, etc, showing the female initiated the hook up. Next was the video of her doing her make up, etc, in her car before going up to Cleaves room. Next was her OWN testimony that she voluntarily took her clothes off started kissing Cleaves. Next was a series of about 3 videos showing her leaving the room in her panties and bra. Once Cleaves got her back in the room and fully clothed, she left on her own freewill (short time lapse between going back in room, getting clothed, and leaving). This has already been explained--they had just had consensual sex and he said he thought it was a bad idea to let her roam around a Flint motel naked at 2am.

Next was all the testimony of a lot of people who said the female gave contradicting stories to pretty much everyone including saying she was 'kidnapped' which was proven to be demonstrably false. She also told several different people that she was not assaulted.

The female ended up having zero credibility...so much so that Cleaves didn't even need to take the stand. It was that easy of a win for the defense.

But UM trolls will cherry pick a few sentences and a doctored video to make false claims and assertions that they know all the facts about the case. Eyeroll
 
Last edited:
You should hunt down the female jury members and let them know you are more educated about them in regards to the facts of the case and tell them their fast acquittal was wrong...because...you know more since you read a few paragraphs of an Mlive article and saw an edited video on TMZ.

Eyeroll
1) You say that you don’t want to write a novel and that all the information is public so it’s out there to find
2) You post a copy and paste from a fan blog
3) Hail asks for the source and links an MLive article
4) You start with the “jury” knows more argument
5) Hail asks for other reputable sources
6) You continue with the “jury” knows more argument and once again post info without any listed source

Sounds to me like the people in this thread are just trying to find the public information that you initially referred to so that they can judge for themselves. It’s weird that all you can provide are fanboy blog posts along with attacks on Hail.
 
1) You say that you don’t want to write a novel and that all the information is public so it’s out there to find
2) You post a copy and paste from a fan blog
3) Hail asks for the source and links an MLive article
4) You start with the “jury” knows more argument
5) Hail asks for other reputable sources
6) You continue with the “jury” knows more argument and once again post info without any listed source

Sounds to me like the people in this thread are just trying to find the public information that you initially referred to so that they can judge for themselves. It’s weird that all you can provide are fanboy blog posts along with attacks on Hail.

You understand Cleaves was acquitted right?

There isn’t some peer reviewed academic article about the trial. If you followed it you knew it was a joke from the beginning. Hell a judge had already thrown the case out—Cleaves was acquitted twice on the same case.

A female jury came back with a fast not guilty verdict not sure what else to tell you. It was embarrassing for the prosecution. If you want to take the tribalistic approach that Hail did and say the jury was wrong and that you know more than they do..by all means make that argument.

Just seems petty to take that stance based upon your collegiate athletic rooting interests
 
Last edited:
You understand Cleaves was acquitted right?

There isn’t some peer reviewed academic article about the trial. If you followed it you knew it was a joke from the beginning. A judge had originally thrown the case out and another prosecutor in another jurisdiction picked it up for political reasons.

A female jury came back with a fast acquittal...not sure what else to tell you. If you want to take the tribalistic approach that Hail did and say the jury was wrong and that you know more than they do..by all means make that argument.
I don’t know if the jury got it right or wrong. They sure has hell don’t have a perfect hit rate. There are folks that are wrongly acquitted or convicted all the time. You said that all of the facts are out in the public domain, so we would like to learn the facts and judge for ourselves. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if this is true since fanboy blogs don’t count, and the only legit articles I’ve seen are very similar to what Hail posted.
 
‘Now-retired Genesee District Judge M. Cathy Dowd dismissed all charges in December 2016 saying that although security camera footage shows Cleaves pulling the woman back into the hotel room, there were "a number of factors that led me to believe something else was going on.”

Charges were later reinstated by now-retired Genesee Circuit Judge Archie Hayman on appeal from prosecutors.’


Changes the narrative quite a bit eh to know a judge had already thrown the case out once.

Also...what if I told you the officer that first responded testified under oath the woman in question told him she was not assaulted that very night? Because that happened.

All this doesn’t even being to scratch the surface of what the jury saw. The entire case was built around a single video that didn’t show anything really. Hell the police officer was a witness for the defense...what a joke of a prosecution.

Anyways this will be my last post in this thread . He was acquitted and I’m not interested in the trolls. If you care about it you can find all this info out yourself it was a public trial.
 
It’s almost as if the jury was presented with all the videos, all the facts, all the witnesses, and came to a conclusion.

You saw...an edited video online...but most know more than them, right?

Lawyers spend months, sometimes years collecting evidence. That evidence is then presented to a jury over the course of several days, sometimes weeks. The jury then deliberates, after carefully considering all the information presented.

But dumb Americans watch a 15 second buzzfeed video...and they KNOW what happened.
 
If that video was taken AFTER their roll in the sack, that would explain a lot. If that's what happened, then I could definitely understand the acquittal, especially when she was the one initiating the whole date. Then, of course, she was hammered drunk, which also explains a lot.

Rape is an awful, awful thing, so when you falsely accuse someone of it for some personal gain or whatever your agenda is, you deserve a stern punishment.

There was a case out in California where a HS couple that were dating went through this. She accused him of raping her, he lost his scholly to play football at USC, went to prison for a long time and the state paid her family a fortune. But after he got out of prison, she contacted him and admitted she lied. That chick should be put away for a long time.

Sucks for MSU, but damn, they've been in the news a lot for rape. Travis Walton in 2010, there was the Kowalski case in 2015 (don't recall what players were involved), this Mateen case and of course, there's that whole Nassar case. Yikes.
 
Sucks for MSU, but damn, they've been in the news a lot for rape. Travis Walton in 2010, there was the Kowalski case in 2015 (don't recall what players were involved), this Mateen case and of course, there's that whole Nassar case. Yikes.

A correction - Walton punched a girl at a restaurant. It was Appling and Payne who raped a girl (which Payne admitted to on video and Izzo played them anyway).

Queue the SpartanJD response in 3.....2.....
 
Lawyers spend months, sometimes years collecting evidence. That evidence is then presented to a jury over the course of several days, sometimes weeks. The jury then deliberates, after carefully considering all the information presented.

But dumb Americans watch a 15 second buzzfeed video...and they KNOW what happened.

To be fair to all involved, the majority of comments in this thread are by rival fans that want to slam MSU. They don’t care about facts. They see former MSU star player and want to bash the university. It’s plainly obvious and disgusting all the same.

But that’s the internet for ya. Go blue! Boiler up!

Pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdavid45
If that video was taken AFTER their roll in the sack, that would explain a lot. If that's what happened, then I could definitely understand the acquittal, especially when she was the one initiating the whole date. Then, of course, she was hammered drunk, which also explains a lot.

Rape is an awful, awful thing, so when you falsely accuse someone of it for some personal gain or whatever your agenda is, you deserve a stern punishment.

There was a case out in California where a HS couple that were dating went through this. She accused him of raping her, he lost his scholly to play football at USC, went to prison for a long time and the state paid her family a fortune. But after he got out of prison, she contacted him and admitted she lied. That chick should be put away for a long time.

Sucks for MSU, but damn, they've been in the news a lot for rape. Travis Walton in 2010, there was the Kowalski case in 2015 (don't recall what players were involved), this Mateen case and of course, there's that whole Nassar case. Yikes.

According to the Mlive article on her testimony, she wasn’t the one initiating everything.
 
To be fair to all involved, the majority of comments in this thread are by rival fans that want to slam MSU. They don’t care about facts. They see former MSU star player and want to bash the university. It’s plainly obvious and disgusting all the same.

But that’s the internet for ya. Go blue! Boiler up!

Pathetic.


Oh stop your crying. you sound like a Nassar victim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnHoosierr
Maybe...and I know this is a crazy concept...the jury knows a tad bit more than you do about the case after being presented all the evidence in court?

How sad is it you are letting your college athletic allegiances cloud your judgement this badly.
I've been about as big of a supporter of the basketball team and Izzo as anyone. However, my opinion has absolutely nothing to do with the team I root for (it's apparent that this isn't the case for you). My opinion comes from the fact that I have a daughter who looks an awful lot like that young lady and is roughly the same age. I'm not speaking about what did, or didn't go on in that room. Instead, I'm watching that video and that girl looks terrified of being captured. I don't care what the situation is....there is never a good reason to be chasing a naked girl down the road in the middle of the night with your dick out swinging as you're running to catch her!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUfanBorden
You understand Cleaves was acquitted right?

There isn’t some peer reviewed academic article about the trial. If you followed it you knew it was a joke from the beginning. Hell a judge had already thrown the case out—Cleaves was acquitted twice on the same case.

A female jury came back with a fast not guilty verdict not sure what else to tell you. It was embarrassing for the prosecution. If you want to take the tribalistic approach that Hail did and say the jury was wrong and that you know more than they do..by all means make that argument.

Just seems petty to take that stance based upon your collegiate athletic rooting interests
Its beyond tiresome seeing you constantly say this. Stop being a hypocrite and acknowledge that you...more so then anyone else here...are doing this exact thing. Because you're a fanboy, it's impossible for you to look at any of this objectively. At least be a man and acknowledge it!
 
Lawyers spend months, sometimes years collecting evidence. That evidence is then presented to a jury over the course of several days, sometimes weeks. The jury then deliberates, after carefully considering all the information presented.

But dumb Americans watch a 15 second buzzfeed video...and they KNOW what happened.
I mean, sometimes a video is all that's needed..Just saying. Sure it doesn't tell the whole story. But it does tell "A" story. To ignore it , and or to brush it off, is just a negligent as saying the video tells all. I'm sure somewhere in the middle , the truth sits. Maybe Mateen was bring a good samartian, and trying to keep her from getting hurt , or in trouble. Or , well, maybe he raped her. Who knows. If jury says innocent...Well, I mean...it is what it is. But...Lets not pretend as if a jury has NEVER gotten a verdict wrong, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jace4655555
I mean, sometimes a video is all that's needed..Just saying. Sure it doesn't tell the whole story. But it does tell "A" story. To ignore it , and or to brush it off, is just a negligent as saying the video tells all. I'm sure somewhere in the middle , the truth sits. Maybe Mateen was bring a good samartian, and trying to keep her from getting hurt , or in trouble. Or , well, maybe he raped her. Who knows. If jury says innocent...Well, I mean...it is what it is. But...Lets not pretend as if a jury has NEVER gotten a verdict wrong, either.

The case was originally thrown out of court. Then it gets picked up by a different prosecutor who loses the case even with what you’re saying is a damning video showing evidence of rape.

Is it just possible that there’s plenty of other evidence describing a very different night? Is the original judge incompetent? How about the original prosecutor or the 2nd prosecutor? A jury of 9 women?

We live in strange times where an edited video released online means more to people than 2 weeks of a trial. Have you even seen evidence the defense had? Mateen calling this women’s significant other? There’s way more to this than white girl runs naked down sidewalk being chased by formerly famous basketball player. To each their own. I guess this is where we’re at and Izzo has had A LOT of success. I get it.
 
I mean, sometimes a video is all that's needed..Just saying. Sure it doesn't tell the whole story. But it does tell "A" story. To ignore it , and or to brush it off, is just a negligent as saying the video tells all. I'm sure somewhere in the middle , the truth sits. Maybe Mateen was bring a good samartian, and trying to keep her from getting hurt , or in trouble. Or , well, maybe he raped her. Who knows. If jury says innocent...Well, I mean...it is what it is. But...Lets not pretend as if a jury has NEVER gotten a verdict wrong, either.

That's why we have trials, to say once and for all what happened. We know when there is a verdict.
 
ADVERTISEMENT