Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)
Post New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >

Cizauskas recap

Posted: 6/26/2014 2:36 PM

Cizauskas recap 


http://www.livinglakecountry.c...-264458771.html

This is probably the most in-depth and detailed of all the articles that have been released thus far.

Last edited 6/26/2014 2:38 PM by NewerBreed

Avatar

Posted: 6/26/2014 8:50 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.

**

It takes two to miscommunicate effectively.
-turomon

Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 8:57 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

+1. I was cringing after reading the facts in the article. No one other than the two of them knows exactly what happened that night. She obviously feels as though something bad went down and if he did maliciously attack her against her will, he deserves all of the punishment and more... but there is an awful lot of grey area there for someone to have their life ruined.  I have had many drunken late night hook ups and I can't imagine if I woke up one day and my life depended on me proving that I stopped immediately when she told me to stop and not 5 or 10 minutes later. disbelief
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 10:43 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Finally a report with some facts. This is such a sad incident all-around.
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 10:49 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Unless DC came off as arrogant SOB, I don't see how all 12 jurors could reach a guilty verdict on those facts. Some jurors, yes, it's definitely debatable, but all 12 in 5 hours?
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 12:40 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



belkins wrote: Unless DC came off as arrogant SOB, I don't see how all 12 jurors could reach a guilty verdict on those facts. Some jurors, yes, it's definitely debatable, but all 12 in 5 hours?
Well, we were not there to see the witnesses testify, etc. That's why there is a jury -- they are the finders of fact and can judge the credibility of the witnesses and so forth.

Posted: 6/27/2014 12:49 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.
And I don't agree that the jury got it right based solely on the testimony provided in the linked article.  With all the mitigating circumstances cited in the testimony it seems that it all turned upon the testimony that she stated he told him "No" and under the law, if true, that was all it takes to justify a rape charge.  However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact and although he agreed that she did in fact use the word no, in his view it was in reverence only to the noise being made at the time and not continued afterwards when he continued.  So, it appears that it is a classic case of he said she said only.

Last edited 6/27/2014 12:53 PM by BadRick

Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 1:00 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



BadRick wrote:
BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.
And I don't agree that the jury got it right based solely on the testimony provided in the linked article.  With all the mitigating circumstances cited in the testimony it seems that it all turned upon the testimony that she stated he told him "No" and under the law, if true, that was all it takes to justify a rape charge.  However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact and although he agreed that she did in fact use the word no, in his view it was in reverence only to the noise being made at the time and not continued afterwards when he continued.  So, it appears that it is a classic case of he said she said only.
So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 2:42 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


After reading the article and reading various reports up to this point, as much as I feel for the girl (and I'm a father of 2 girls), it's still hard not to see how there isn't "reasonable doubt" in this case.

"Players make plays, players win games."

Gary Andersen

Posted: 6/27/2014 5:13 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



komacki wrote:
BadRick wrote:
BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.
And I don't agree that the jury got it right based solely on the testimony provided in the linked article.  With all the mitigating circumstances cited in the testimony it seems that it all turned upon the testimony that she stated he told him "No" and under the law, if true, that was all it takes to justify a rape charge.  However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact and although he agreed that she did in fact use the word no, in his view it was in reverence only to the noise being made at the time and not continued afterwards when he continued.  So, it appears that it is a classic case of he said she said only.
So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
Is your position that any accuser's word alone should be sufficient to put another person in prison for 10 years?  That's the other side of the coin you present.  Neither side of that coin by itself tells the whole story.  It's not black and white; there is a very wide and murky gray area here. 

It appears this case did boil down to "he said, she said".  The interesting thing to me is the accuser withheld/destroyed/tampered with evidence by deleting some of the text messages before giving her phone to the authorities.  This is a crime in itself.  Those deleted texts also go against her original story that she consistently didn't want him to come to her place at all (which is, of course, why she deleted them).  Based on this, I'm surprised he was convicted on her word alone.  He must have come across very poorly on the stand, since IMHO there appears to be plenty of reasonable doubt based on what's been reported in the media.  Just a bad situation for all involved.
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 6:13 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



truffula wrote:
komacki wrote:
BadRick wrote:
 However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact
So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
Is your position that any accuser's word alone should be sufficient to put another person in prison for 10 years?  That's the other side of the coin you present... 

The interesting thing to me is the accuser withheld/destroyed/tampered with evidence by deleting some of the text messages before giving her phone to the authorities...   Based on this, I'm surprised he was convicted on her word alone.  He must have come across very poorly on the stand, since IMHO there appears to be plenty of reasonable doubt based on what's been reported in the media.
No, that's not what my position is, and that's not the other side of the coin.  The lack of someone who witnessed the act and can confirm that the woman said "No" cannot be used as evidence that it wasn't rape simply because these crimes don't involve bystanders.  My response was one way to interpret what he said and I was asking him to expand upon it to get a clearer picture of his point.

Just to show where I'm coming from, the bolded part of your response is exactly how I felt about the trial once it was reported that texts were deleted, and I said so on here.  Whether or not a rape occurred is one thing, but I felt that her credibility was probably severely damaged by that act and made reasonable doubt much easier to achieve.  DC must have come off really poorly.

Posted: 6/27/2014 8:49 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



komacki wrote:
BadRick wrote:
BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.
And I don't agree that the jury got it right based solely on the testimony provided in the linked article.  With all the mitigating circumstances cited in the testimony it seems that it all turned upon the testimony that she stated he told him "No" and under the law, if true, that was all it takes to justify a rape charge.  However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact and although he agreed that she did in fact use the word no, in his view it was in reverence only to the noise being made at the time and not continued afterwards when he continued.  So, it appears that it is a classic case of he said she said only.
So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
I abhor the idea of a man forcing a woman to do anything against her will and maybe the jury got it right.  But let me ask: given these parameters, how can we truly know?
Ecclesiastes 10:2

"It's easier to fool people, than it is to convince them they've been fooled."   Mark Twain

Last edited 6/29/2014 10:00 PM by JWE44

Posted: 6/27/2014 9:40 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Having been summoned for jury duty and going through the process it really seems the attorneys select the least educated jurors. Just sayin most jury's are filled with not so bright individuals.
Avatar

Posted: 6/27/2014 9:50 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



JWE44 wrote:
komacki wrote:  So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
I abhor the idea of a man forcing a woman to do anything against their will and maybe the jury got it right.  But let me ask: given these parameters, how can we truly know?
I'm not disagreeing that rape cases are hard to determine the truth in (both generally and in this specific case), I'm specifically saying that requiring someone to corroborate the "No" in order to determine rape occurred is absolutely unreasonable due to the very nature of the crime.

Posted: 6/27/2014 10:25 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


I have lurked here and several other sites for months, this story is heartbreaking.  I am a parent in the district.  This is so sad on so many levels.  Both the victim and the defendant are well known in our community.  It has driven a wedge in our community.   This case to me looked like a coin toss.  Nobody can be sure what happened but those 2.   If a plea deal was offered, I can't believe he did not take it.  4th degree is a misdemeanor, 3 degree is a felony and mandatory 15 years on the registry.  At some point in time his inner circle should have told him to take the deal, the dream of playing for the badgers died when the charges were filed.

i feel bad for her, I hope she can put this behind and move on.  I do feel bad for him, because of several bad decisions, he wasted a tremendous opportunity, and possibly a career.  now he faces prison or jail time and is a sex offender. He was the best high school player I have ever seen.  The Sun Prairie game was amazing, never saw anyone change the game and dominate on both sides of the ball like he did.   Every Brave and Indian from 5-12th grade looked up to him, our whole community did.

Even though i do feel bad for him, he and his followers embarassed Mukwonago as a community.    The conducting the orchestra to the "no means no" chant, the letter that one of his relatives wrote to the big show on 1250 wssp, The support Dominic Cizauskas facebook page, the letter to the WIAA about him being bullied at away basketball games.  letting him play basketball with this hanging over him.  Friends wearing "Dom is my homeboy' shirts.   This all just made me want to cringe.

That's my 2 cents

Posted: 6/27/2014 11:27 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


komacki wrote:
No, that's not what my position is, and that's not the other side of the coin.  The lack of someone who witnessed the act and can confirm that the woman said "No" cannot be used as evidence that it wasn't rape simply because these crimes don't involve bystanders.  My response was one way to interpret what he said and I was asking him to expand upon it to get a clearer picture of his point.

Just to show where I'm coming from, the bolded part of your response is exactly how I felt about the trial once it was reported that texts were deleted, and I said so on here.  Whether or not a rape occurred is one thing, but I felt that her credibility was probably severely damaged by that act and made reasonable doubt much easier to achieve.  DC must have come off really poorly.

truffula:
I see where you are coming from now.  Apologies if you felt I put words in your mouth.

I agree that the lack of a witness to corroborate the victim's story is not in any way evidence that it wasn't rape.  That said, the accused shouldn't need to prove it wasn't rape...he should be innocent until the prosecution proves him guilty.  And of course the lack of a witness makes proving his guilt problematic for the accuser in this and most cases of its kind.  We're back to he said, she said and the credibility of parties (one under the influence and the other deleting texts).  We agree that the accused had to have been horrible on the stand for all 12 jurors to see no reasonable doubt.  Hopefully they got it right. 

Last edited 6/27/2014 11:36 PM by truffula

Posted: 6/28/2014 11:40 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Classic he said/she said, no violence, no evidence one way or the other.

PC, political decision.

The new America sucks.

Posted: 6/29/2014 7:16 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



Mukwonagoparent wrote: I have lurked here and several other sites for months, this story is heartbreaking.  I am a parent in the district.  This is so sad on so many levels.  Both the victim and the defendant are well known in our community.  It has driven a wedge in our community.   This case to me looked like a coin toss.  Nobody can be sure what happened but those 2.   If a plea deal was offered, I can't believe he did not take it.  4th degree is a misdemeanor, 3 degree is a felony and mandatory 15 years on the registry.  At some point in time his inner circle should have told him to take the deal, the dream of playing for the badgers died when the charges were filed.

i feel bad for her, I hope she can put this behind and move on.  I do feel bad for him, because of several bad decisions, he wasted a tremendous opportunity, and possibly a career.  now he faces prison or jail time and is a sex offender. He was the best high school player I have ever seen.  The Sun Prairie game was amazing, never saw anyone change the game and dominate on both sides of the ball like he did.   Every Brave and Indian from 5-12th grade looked up to him, our whole community did.

Even though i do feel bad for him, he and his followers embarassed Mukwonago as a community.    The conducting the orchestra to the "no means no" chant, the letter that one of his relatives wrote to the big show on 1250 wssp, The support Dominic Cizauskas facebook page, the letter to the WIAA about him being bullied at away basketball games.  letting him play basketball with this hanging over him.  Friends wearing "Dom is my homeboy' shirts.   This all just made me want to cringe.

That's my 2 cents
I agree with you completely. What a shame for the community to take sides for and against Dom. Fame  can be short lived but notoriety can last a lifetime. Hopefully both can go on to live a productive live.

Posted: 6/29/2014 2:21 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Sex was not the appropriate activity for a recruiting visit. Football resume aside, he was still on a recruiting visit, which is similar to a job interview
Avatar

Posted: 6/29/2014 2:50 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


He said, she said, equals beyond a reasonable doubt.  Remember that as precedent if one is charged with anything.  Tough call, for sure.  But, after all, OJ got off, too, with a lot of evidence.

----
Circus and Games!  Eat cake!  Let the games begin!  Put out that fire first.
------

 

Posted: 6/29/2014 3:26 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


I watched the Paula Jones interview with Sam Donaldson on Primetime Live in the 1990s.  I am glad we are making progress from Sam's world of neanderthals.
ajmadison wrote: Classic he said/she said, no violence, no evidence one way or the other.

PC, political decision.

The new America sucks.
Avatar

Posted: 6/29/2014 4:14 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Paula Jones plus a few others.  What is a double standard? 

Still, bad behavior, even if consensual, during recruiting is not wanted here.

----
Circus and Games!  Eat cake!  Let the games begin!  Put out that fire first.
------

 

Posted: 6/29/2014 10:04 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



komacki wrote:
JWE44 wrote:
komacki wrote:  So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
I abhor the idea of a man forcing a woman to do anything against their will and maybe the jury got it right.  But let me ask: given these parameters, how can we truly know?
I'm not disagreeing that rape cases are hard to determine the truth in (both generally and in this specific case), I'm specifically saying that requiring someone to corroborate the "No" in order to determine rape occurred is absolutely unreasonable due to the very nature of the crime.
I understand and all I'm saying is that when there are no witnesses or otherwise really hard and fast evidence to make a determination one way or the other, these cases are very frustrating and impossible for anyone to truly know what happened. noidea
Ecclesiastes 10:2

"It's easier to fool people, than it is to convince them they've been fooled."   Mark Twain

Posted: 6/30/2014 9:25 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



komacki wrote:
BadRick wrote:
BigAppleBucky wrote: All I can say is that I'm glad I wasn't the judge or on the jury. You'd need the wisdom of Solomon to come to the correct decision with those murky facts. 

On the whole, I think the jury got it right, but it's close.
And I don't agree that the jury got it right based solely on the testimony provided in the linked article.  With all the mitigating circumstances cited in the testimony it seems that it all turned upon the testimony that she stated he told him "No" and under the law, if true, that was all it takes to justify a rape charge.  However, the only evidence presented that she in fact did tell him no was her's without any corroborating testimony or found fact and although he agreed that she did in fact use the word no, in his view it was in reverence only to the noise being made at the time and not continued afterwards when he continued.  So, it appears that it is a classic case of he said she said only.
So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
Don't be stupid Komacki, those aren't the only alternatives to determining guilt.  Suggest that you learn more about evidence including circumstantial evidence, which was apparently the basis for this jury's decision.

Last edited 6/30/2014 9:33 AM by BadRick

Posted: 7/1/2014 11:12 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



ajmadison wrote: Classic he said/she said, no violence, no evidence one way or the other.

PC, political decision.

The new America sucks.
Well then you can git out old man.

Posted: 7/2/2014 1:35 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



komacki wrote:
JWE44 wrote:
komacki wrote:  So unless there's a third party that witnesses the event or a recording made we can't know if a woman said "No," and thus can't know if a rape occurred?  Is that your position?
I abhor the idea of a man forcing a woman to do anything against their will and maybe the jury got it right.  But let me ask: given these parameters, how can we truly know?
I'm not disagreeing that rape cases are hard to determine the truth in (both generally and in this specific case), I'm specifically saying that requiring someone to corroborate the "No" in order to determine rape occurred is absolutely unreasonable due to the very nature of the crime.
You've lost me-----------perhaps I am misunderstanding your point made elsewhere in this thread, but I haven't read anywhere in this thread that anyone (including myself) has stated a requirement necessity  that "someone  to corroborate the "no" is necessary!

Posted: 7/2/2014 1:56 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



TheCodger wrote: Paula Jones plus a few others.  What is a double standard? 

Still, bad behavior, even if consensual, during recruiting is not wanted here.
Codger, that is what is so disgusting to those of us from an older generation where traditional viewpoints of good and bad behavior were clearly set out and accepted both politically and religiously.  In this present world of American values it is not only accepted (sexual liaisons, multiple partners, drugs including excess alcohol, etc.) but is also glorified in social life, media, movies, books, etc. and socially accepted.  But then when something like this case happens the collective norm of acceptance of such acts is perverted to outrage even though it is a case of "he said she said" without concrete evidence to support such findings of "rape."  Yes, it is genderly (sic as intended)  political and it doesn't take a deep thinker to understand why.

Last edited 7/2/2014 1:57 PM by BadRick

Posted: 7/2/2014 6:19 PM

Re: Cizauskas recap 



BadRick wrote:
TheCodger wrote: Paula Jones plus a few others.  What is a double standard? 

Still, bad behavior, even if consensual, during recruiting is not wanted here.
Codger, that is what is so disgusting to those of us from an older generation where traditional viewpoints of good and bad behavior were clearly set out and accepted both politically and religiously.  In this present world of American values it is not only accepted (sexual liaisons, multiple partners, drugs including excess alcohol, etc.) but is also glorified in social life, media, movies, books, etc. and socially accepted.  But then when something like this case happens the collective norm of acceptance of such acts is perverted to outrage even though it is a case of "he said she said" without concrete evidence to support such findings of "rape."  Yes, it is genderly (sic as intended)  political and it doesn't take a deep thinker to understand why.
I'm anything but a deep thinker which is why I appreciate your thinking and your remarks.  Our culture has insidiously been desensitized to more and more outrageous behavior.  Bill Bennett wrote a great book called the "Death of Outrage."  It's so true.  I don't know what's worse, the fact that more and more people are so casual about what goes on, or the people who simply blow us off as fuddy-duddies and consider themselves to be members of a more "enlightened" culture.  Enlightened my a$$!!!! Prediction: as our culture continues to deteriorate, these people will never admit they're on the wrong side.  To the bitter end they will justify themselves and blame Bush (well, if not Bush they'll blame those of us to cling to traditional values).
Ecclesiastes 10:2

"It's easier to fool people, than it is to convince them they've been fooled."   Mark Twain

Posted: 7/3/2014 7:38 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Continuing the 'deep thinking' level....are things really that different today?

Or are they just reported differently and covered more widely? Can you imagine the coverage today if there was a weird love triangle between The President, a movie/music/modeling starlet, and a future HOF MLB player?

The free love and drugs hippie generation and disco age certainly displayed similar questionable behavior.

And as for the 'older generations'....when exactly was the sweet spot? It certainly had to be post-slavery and post-women's suffrage, right? And wasn't sexual harassment common (and all too accepted) in the workplace in the 80s and 90s?

Posted: 7/3/2014 10:12 AM

Re: Cizauskas recap 


Oh, for the good old days where athletes were upstanding citizens and alcohol wasn't glamorized or used in excess. Bring back babe Ruth and Mickey mantle, those shiny examples of why the olden days were so different from today.
Post New Topic
  Page of 4  Next >