He played baseball at Newport Catholic last spring.

 

I thought that there was a thread here on BGP about that. :thumb:

No, I do not think he is innocent necessarily, but you've got to hear all of the facts. I'm not dissing the girl, either, but playing devil's advocate, is it not possible that she could have been more of a willing participant than she admitted?? Not saying she was, but again....for the last time before I go to bed because I'm tired of repeating myself....let's wait to get all of the facts and hear both sides completely. Thanks!

 

Whether she was a willing participant is completely irrelevant. He was 18, she was 13. 18 year olds don't mess with 13 year olds. Seems to be a maturity issue with this Sullivan boy.

I'm sure you knew it already. But you see it all the time - people permitted to plea to less serious (in some cases, much less serious) crimes than they were actually charged with. Maybe prosecutors couldn't prove the more serious crime, maybe the subject didn't even commit the more serious crime, but maybe it also had to do with saving the victim from further mental harm.

That is why I attempt to be cautious on anything that goes on.

 

But on my other post you quoted, it's possible that someone does not have to acknowledge anything, at times they can just accept a deal brought to them correct?

1) AGAIN, NOT saying I meant to come across as it being THIS girl is some posts!

 

2) Yes I did hear things, NOT saying what I was told true or not, AGAIN, That is what the court system is for!

 

3) AGAIN, I am NOT saying all girls, hell not even close! But it is plausible that A girl, NOT this girl, will have sexual contact with a boy then brag about it (but as I said I heard it was the case here and AGAIN I am not saying that was correct or not, AGAIN that is what the court system is for).

 

4) IF, and I said IF, this happens to A girl, NOT meaning this one, does it because they want to or to "trap" a boy (Yes it does happen BUT AGAIN I am NOT saying this girl).

 

5) I heard there was an agreement for the plea as well as a settlement, AGAIN, just what I heard, that is why I had a question mark and not a period. AGAIN, that is what the court system is for, to get the facts!

 

6) When I said "How do you go from sexual abuse to a reduced charge of "harassment and he didn't even touch her?" That was a question, HOW do you go from something that servere to something that is basically a slap on the wrist? NOT saying he was proven innocent, he wasn't proven anything, as there was a plea for a lesser "harrasment" charge. This question was never answered, still wondering how you go from one extreem to the other in a courtroom?

 

AGAIN, you are backtracking.

 

If your exclamation point key wears out, let me know. I probably have an extra keyboard around here somewhere.

I apologize...I thought that he played baseball for another school. Evidently that was in error.

 

Here's what I have made my mind up about:

1) The "Keep 5 Alive" tribute is bizarre, no matter who did it, as the young man did not die.

2) Sullivan did something wrong, as he plead guilty to a crime.

3) If I were a parent in the WV school district, I would want some answers.

4) If I were part of the BOC of the KHSAA, I would be looking very closely at Walton-Verona's athletic department.

 

5) The Diocese and Newport Central Catholic officials need to do some serious self checking on their side of this. As I posted above, considering the Dinkel matter, it is incredible to me that the Diocese allowed Sullivan to walk through the doors of any school, let alone participate on a sports team.

The people defending Sullivan need to be careful. The girl being a "willing" participant doesn't help him in anyway. If more happened in the car, and I've heard it did it doesn't help him in any way. SG was acting like the girl did a sexual act on the man willingly. How does that help Sullivan or the school?

There was some very interesting and incorrect posts in the other discussion on this kid. It's pretty funny to go back and look.

Whether she was a willing participant is completely irrelevant. He was 18, she was 13. 18 year olds don't mess with 13 year olds. Seems to be a maturity issue with this Sullivan boy.

 

As several have said, that's the issue. No excuses.

There was some very interesting and incorrect posts in the other discussion on this kid. It's pretty funny to go back and look.

 

What was the thread title, I can't find it?

What was the thread title, I can't find it?

 

He talked me into transferring. It's in the hot topics.

As several have said, that's the issue. No excuses.

 

And not only that if I'm understanding the supporters more happened than what was told, but she "consented" to it. Like I said they better be careful.

AGAIN, you are backtracking.

 

If your exclamation point key wears out, let me know. I probably have an extra keyboard around here somewhere.

NO I AM NOT! If I came across that way I did not mean it to be that way!

Edited August 29, 201115 yr by SportsGuy41017

The people defending Sullivan need to be careful. The girl being a "willing" participant doesn't help him in anyway. If more happened in the car, and I've heard it did it doesn't help him in any way. SG was acting like the girl did a sexual act on the man willingly. How does that help Sullivan or the school?

SSC, See, you heard there is more to the story too, and you are correct, it does not help him if what you heard was true.

 

I agree 100% that if she did consent it doesn't help him and it doesn't matter by law. This is where a few people are grilling me and others on. We already set down that IF she did consent that is doesn't matter by law, so, we need to put that aside and look at the other issue that IF a girl did consent, THAT is where I say a girls family has other issues, I did not mean it to come across that Sullivan then did not do anything wrong, or that he shouldn't be punished.

 

I am in no way defending him.

Did WV not expel him because the court's sentence already forbade him to participate in WV school activities (which one has to assume includes actual school classes)? I cannot imagine a school not officially expelling a student under these conditions.

I'm sure you knew it already. But you see it all the time - people permitted to plea to less serious (in some cases, much less serious) crimes than they were actually charged with. Maybe prosecutors couldn't prove the more serious crime, maybe the subject didn't even commit the more serious crime, but maybe it also had to do with saving the victim from further mental harm.

Again, I thank you for your insight!

 

The way a plea usualy works is the deal does not mean someone needs to admit guilt to other counts more than what the plea deal was, in this case harassment, that is the only thing he admitted to in court to get the deal, the only thing on his record, it doesn't mean that was the only thing he did but it's the only thing that counts. The girls family and Commonwealth attorney had to agree to this as well. As you mentioned above, it could have happened for any of those reasons you listed, we will never know.

 

Others seem like they are saying if something is in a filed court document against someone then it must be true. I could claim anyone of you, or a few of you did stuff to me, find a lawyer who will take the case and file the papers, it doesn't make what I say as true, that is what the courts are for, to find out the facts.

 

I have other issues with the Sullivans, this could have been a chance to "get back" and join in on the lynching, but I refuse to use a situation to do so, plus I am not the type of person to "get back" at someone.