Comments Thread For: Adonis Stevenson Suffers From Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

[apollocreed]

you usually see this happening to lower tier boxers that are not known. very rare for a top fighter to suffer this fate. and boxing is doing a good job sweeping this tragic case under the rug because it'll reignite calls to ban the sport outright. if you go on dailymail and read this story all the comments are calling on boxing to be banned. when this story blows over Stevenson sadly will be forgotten because the sport wants to avoid bad press.

It definitely doesn't seem to be getting much mention in the media in the UK. I think the fact it was on the same night as such a big fight as Fury Wilder has made it easy to ignore. I was pretty disgusted that Adam Smith and Johnny Nelson didn't even mention it or give him best wishes on Sky Sports news.

[Throwingbombs]

He was sentenced to prison and served his time so yeah he paid his debt to society whether you agree or don't. Since then he has taken measures to try and redeem himself. If you choose not to forgive him, ok.

Reading that article I can't agree man. To do that **** you have to have real evil inside you. He has likely destroyed those girls lives forever. I definately wouldn't forgive him.

[Citizen Koba]

"Kellog's" Kovaleva is now two time happy, first Adonis get KOed and then he's into coma, the russian bully/quiter is now only praying that something bad happen to Andre Ward, even outside the ring.. those euros folks and their BS mentality..

Huh? Has Kovalev said anything about this at all or you just making **** up? Just because a few angry dudes on the Scene say some spiteful **** doesn't mean that a whole continent fits in to some weird stereotype you got.

[kingmaker]

...
Since there’s no evidence other than the testimonies, the defense team will rightfully object them. If the prosecutors decline to take out those charges, they let the judge know of the disagreement. If he sustains the objection, prosecutors have to ammend the accusation and remove the charges.

Edit: Of course, the defense team must object. If they do not, the judge won’t do their work for them. In that case, they’re the one that violated the ABA rules lol.

If it gets to that point than this entire exercise is just a big signal the prosecutor is sending to the judge saying the investigators think this is what happened. All of it will be thrown out and all parties are aware of it. But the judge is human you can't expect him to not remember that this is a likely scenario.

[P4Pdunny]

Not as low as destroying innocent lives

i hear you, but no man/woman walking this earth is innocent - everyone does wrong and people who are remorseful and try to rebuild deserves a chance

[kingmaker]

The quantum of evidence required varies, depending on the type of case. On criminal cases, the burden of proof required is of the highest standard...

So going back to my original point which you don't agree with. In these types of cases , the investigator will interview the plaintiffs, they need evidence to build a strong case. They have strong proof of prostitution and physical assault, they suspect that sexual assault could be added to the charges.

They need at least 2 of the plaintiffs, one who is the victim and an other to corroborate. Now when investigators are inquiring how hard can they probe this ? Isn't it a given that they would not ask only once but use multiple phrasing trying to get the answer they are after.

Being that at least one of the plaintiff is cooperating as she as put all this in motion (Let's say she claims Stevenson ****d her), they only need to convince one of 3 to confirm their theory. (Assuming that Stevenson has in fact committed **** and that it can be corroborated) How likely do you think it is that professional interrogator would convince one out of 3 young women to come forward on this if they already agreed to come forward with the two other charges ?

So if they are not capable of providing that to the prosecutor they won't even bother with the testimony of the ****d plaintiff ? The judge will not be made aware of the claim and it will definitely not cloud his judgement when sentencing for the 2 other charges.

Stevenson pleaded no contest, if i understand correctly, would it be common practice to drop the strongest charge (assuming they made the case and have a corroborating witness) in exchange for said no contest plea when the rest of the case is a sure winner ?

[johnbook]

You do make some good points that i am not qualified to answer. I was writing a long post when i realized that i was just translating the article that you won't read in it's entirety. Everything is in it in terms of context, i don't feel like translating it as it is quite a lengthy text. From his childhood to the name of the small time gang he was a part of to it's affiliation to how he met the girls, the age range of the victims and how the situation went downhill. Prison,what happened to Guy Langlois, court and post prison with footnotes at the end with his accusations. I feel it should answers most of your inquiries but i will leave that up to you. Let's just leave it at that because in the end we both would like for him to pull through in the best possible condition.
https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/sport...e-superman.php

That was a good article. Thanks.
I read most of its contents in other articles. But this one went back to his childhood. About the 2 girls, it had this: "They have received threats when they have, from time to time, expressed an intention to leave the group."

So I think it's clear that they wanted to quit.

[fernandtg]

I'm no lawyer so i have questions for you. Prostitution being sexual in nature and being that this case involved physical assault which is documented couldn't they have tried to make the case that sexual assault was also part of this case based on the sole testimony of one girl if she had been willing to say so in court ? At least try to do so even if there was a risk it would result in the claim being rejected ? Would that be cause for disbarment ?

The quantum of evidence required varies, depending on the type of case. On criminal cases, the burden of proof required is of the highest standard (“beyond reasonable doubt”). The purpose of a testimony on criminal cases is to support the evidence that the State has presented to the Court. In other words, it is the prosecutor’s duty to build a case against the suspect, and building it requires evidence.

Lets use an example:

Jane Doe claims John Doe ****d her.

Jane Doe did not go to the hospital to get a **** kit administered. Instead, she confided the events to her family and friends, who personally know John Doe.

Prosecutor presses charges. During the hearing, prosecutor brings in Jane to testify, along with 15 friends and family members. She and every other witness testifies that Jane was ****d by John.

Lawyer objects every single testimony brought, except Jane’s.

Under the Hearsay Evidence Rule, the testimonies of all of them are inadmissible as evidence.

All that’s left is Jane’s testimony, which will not be used as supporting evidence.

Of course, not all cases are this simple. Lets say John harrassed and beat up Jane. There are pictures of Jane battered, and eye witnesses testify that after beating her, they saw him take her to a room. Two hours later, she came out naked and crying, alleging she was ****d by him, a scumbag who is on the FBI’s National Sex Offender’s Registry.

In that instance, there’s no need for tangible evidence, since the circumstancial one should be more than enough.

I’m not sure if you are familiar with due process, but it is the key to every case. Prior to the first hearing, prosecutors meet with the lawyers and show them the whole case they’ve built. They are obligated to provide the defense with every single bit of evidence, so that the suspect’s right to a fair trial is guaranteed. If they are planning to charge him with sexual assault, the prosecution team WILL need to present all the evidence they have regarding those charges. Since there’s no evidence other than the testimonies, the defense team will rightfully object them. If the prosecutors decline to take out those charges, they let the judge know of the disagreement. If he sustains the objection, prosecutors have to ammend the accusation and remove the charges.

If they try to be creative and bring up the charges in the middle of the testimony, they’ll get in big trouble. If the trial is by jury as it usually is, they’ll get in huuuuge trouble. Trying to bring up improvised allegations during testimonies or closing statements is a big no no, as they made with the intent to manipulate the jury into making decisions that aren’t based on the evidence that was lawfully presented.

Edit: Of course, the defense team must object. If they do not, the judge won’t do their work for them. In that case, they’re the one that violated the ABA rules lol.

[Phantomas]

What a shame, hope medics can help you.

[lefthandtruth]

Adonis Stevenson was a class act.
The black Clark Gable.