chitownbjj - On October 7, 1989, Irvin and seven to nine other men congregated in an apartment at River Park Tower, where one of them had led an unidentified female attending nearby Hampton University to the bedroom. She claimed she was punched and slapped, according to The Daily Press in Hampton, Virginia, and heard one man muse how easy it would be to throw her off the balcony.
The men allegedly ripped out her tampon and took turns raping her. A physician who later examined her indicated she suffered from vaginal spasms, indicative of forced intercourse.
In the morning, she was allowed to shower and was driven back to her dorm. Three of the men were quickly rounded up by Newport News Police, a number that would grow to eight as the investigation continued.
In the spring of 1990, a 20-year-old Irvin and co-defendant Terrence Gatling were the first to be tried for rape. Both pleaded not guilty.
Irvin's defense: though he wanted to participate in what he believed was consensual sex, he was unable to achieve an erection.
Because the jury believed that the woman couldn't positively identify him as one of the men who penetrated her, he was acquitted. A less fortunate Gatling was found guilty of forcible sodomy.
"I feel the girl was raped," one juror told the Press. "But the room where this happened was dark, and with all that was going on, it was unclear who was doing what."
The victim, 17 years old and 98 pounds, told her story in court three times over 15 months. Of the eight charged, four men were convicted and sent to prison; one received a suspended sentence; and two cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence. Irvin exited the courthouse a free man.
Again, you're quoting a single article, that i've already discussed on page 2 of this thread. That same media outlet reported that Lloyd DID in fact have sex with her. That outlet has conflicting stories on what did and didnt happen with that case, so why this is continuing to be quoted is beyond me.
Setree - "I'm just a disinterested party who cared enough to get copies of the court case, and type wall after wall of text in LI's defense, but I can't bother to take a picture of these documents." If you weren't covering up real crimes against real people, it would be comical.
My question to you is, why do I need to take pictures if I've already given you court case numbers to follow? What I find sad is that you guys keep quoting a news story, after you've been given a detailed outline on the actual court proceedings, you've been told where to go, i've even given you numbers to follow. Instead of doing that (or at least making a call to teh clerk of courts in hopes to possibly have papers faxed over), you make it my responsibility to provide you with the labor that took me months to compile.
You expect me to sit here, take pictures of hundreds of documents, and compile them nicely and chronologically for you, after i've already given you specifics on how to find the information yourself in much less time, with much less labor, but instead of doing that "screw this, im going to keep quoting this newspaper thats already been proven contradictory on page 2 of this thread."
Now if this were Jiu Jitsu, you all would go to the ends of the earth to chase a resource (or at least im assuming most of you would considering this is something we enjoy doing), however Im merely pointing out that you guys have been given everything you need, yet you still wont bother looking. Thats the part thats difficult to wrap my head around.
Now if this was Jiu Jitsu, you all would go to the ends of to find something
"Irvin also told students he was helping pay the legal bills for Nick Schultz and Maldonado, who — like most in his circle — had little financial means of their own."
I read that Lloyd only paid the initial consulting fee, then they had public defenders after that?
I've heard that as well. As for why he did it... My info is second hand but what I heard is that LI promised both the guys parents that he would look after them and take care of them. And once they did what they did, both of their parents showed up and reminded LI of his promise. So he felt obligated to help.
"Irvin also told students he was helping pay the legal bills for Nick Schultz and Maldonado, who — like most in his circle — had little financial means of their own."
To tell you the truth, I dont know why he isnt suing. I'd ask him myself but of course he'd tell me no, so I did the same thing the rest of you would do and contacted the families through Facebook. They said they took care of the legal expenses, so I felt that there was no further reason to go down that route. I could have tried contacting the attornyes, but there is attorney client privelege, and who retains them falls under that (unless subpoenaed I believe? I dont know).
TrappeBier - I will never get what it is about Lloyd that inspires such loyalty. He is such an obvious piece of shit to those of us on the outside looking in, but he gathers these crazy hardcore defenders so well.
Nothing in that article makes Lloyd look better or the victim look less credible. He 100% did some fucked up sexual shit back in 89.
What loyalty?!? Im not a TLI student, nor am I a defender. I dont train with him, im not in any of his mastermind groups, and I have no dealings with him. I'm just a guy that thinks it takes a real POS to throw dirt at someone over something they dont really have any clue about. I not once told any of you to take what I said at face value, I said look it up for yourself, because all you guys are doing is reading an article online and taking it as gospel. How many times have we read shit online that was supposed to be gospel but was bogus? Exactly.
This reminds me of that case with the football player who was wrongly accused of raping that girl. Everybody had nothing but mud to sling when he was in jail, and nobody bothered to try to find out what really happened. Once the case was overturned everyone was all apologetic because they had judged him without fully understanding what had happened, and took the media and the girls testimony at face value. This is no different.
My point of posting that article earlier was merely to say that the source was contradictory in nature. In one instance its saying Lloyd was limp, and in another it was saying Lloyd participated. Which is it?!? Outside of that, I at no point said that that article made the girl look less like a victim, what I said was the girl lied, and convictions were overturned once Walter Neighbors came out and said it was all a lie.
You said "They did some fucked up sexual shit", but if that were the case then why would the prosecution overturn the conviction? Prosecutors dont just go fucking up their conviction ratios because they start feeling bad all of a sudden. Dont believe me, by all means, look up the Gattlings case. I saw it with my own eyes, you can find it via court record 0939-90-1.
These are facts, not my opinion, look that shit up for yourself. If you're going to throw dirt at a person, at least have the facts behind you. Im not going to hold everyones hand here because honestly as adults it really isnt that difficult to find out what happened. You wouldnt like it if someone accused you of some shit you didnt do.
Your not the guy that posted in 2010 that you were a lloyd student?
- - - - And after training at his school a considerable amount of time, that is really what he has his guys doing.
I am most certainly am him, but I think you're stretching it a bit drawing that conclusion from me saying I spent some time there (which is perfectly fine by me if thats the route you'd like to go). If you would've read a few posts prior you could've been spared the labor of the detective work and you would've seen this:
So there you have it. I never denied anything, it was the contrary, I was open about it. The thing is however it was BECAUSE of that interaction that I decided instead of persecuting a man based on something from a website that has contradicted itself in this very case, I was going to go to the source, considering it is PUBLIC INFORMATION afterall. Gonna repeat that part, every bit of Lloyds 89' case is open, and is PUBLIC INFORMATION. I was just as upset as you guys when I heard the allegations, but this country is built on innocent till proven guilty, so I wanted to know for myself before I condemned him.
So now that we've covered my personal involvement (again, im an open book, ive answered every question thats been asked of me, havent hid or denied a thing), can we get back to the matter at hand? You guys wanted factual proof, information that would substantiate any of the things that i've said. I've given you that. I gave you a documented court case number that you could follow up with on your own. I didnt provide you with some article from some website that contradicts itself. No, i've given you something you could go to the clerk of courts with and follow up on on your own, and find out what ACTUALLY happened during that trial.
So whats it gonna be? Are you guys going to continue to use that article as your sole resource when you have something tangible that you can follow up on with the courts? Its not that hard, I mean for goodness sakes even if you're being lazy i've done 75% of the work for you already, all you have to do is look.
I find several of your positions disingenuous. You say in item three above"...had the honor of meeting", leaving the impression that you have met them but have no other association. Then, someone else points out that you stated on Sherdog "And after training at his school a considerable amount of time, that is really what he has his guys doing." If we only had your statement from item 3. above, we would assume that you had little or any association with TLI.Then you have a bullshit explanation saying you disclosed everything, which you did not. Item 3 hid the truth.
The other disingenuous part is all the back breaking leg work you put into compiling all this stuff, difficult, long hours, etc., yet you state it's readily available. If it's readily available then why was it so hard. Or do you mean it's readily available to someone that is willing to travel to MD or wherever and spend hours upon hours in a courthouse looking things up on microfiche? Which is it, readily available at everyone's finger tips or is it many hours of leg work. And it's bullshit that you put in all that arduous work and have all the documents but scanning it would be too big of a project. I have a scanner, this is how they work: put a pile of papers on it and press a button. When done, link it to a post.
Setree - "I'm just a disinterested party who cared enough to get copies of the court case, and type wall after wall of text in LI's defense, but I can't bother to take a picture of these documents." If you weren't covering up real crimes against real people, it would be comical.
My question to you is, why do I need to take pictures if I've already given you court case numbers to follow? What I find sad is that you guys keep quoting a news story, after you've been given a detailed outline on the actual court proceedings, you've been told where to go, i've even given you numbers to follow. Instead of doing that (or at least making a call to teh clerk of courts in hopes to possibly have papers faxed over), you make it my responsibility to provide you with the labor that took me months to compile.
You expect me to sit here, take pictures of hundreds of documents, and compile them nicely and chronologically for you, after i've already given you specifics on how to find the information yourself in much less time, with much less labor, but instead of doing that "screw this, im going to keep quoting this newspaper thats already been proven contradictory on page 2 of this thread."
Now if this were Jiu Jitsu, you all would go to the ends of the earth to chase a resource (or at least im assuming most of you would considering this is something we enjoy doing), however Im merely pointing out that you guys have been given everything you need, yet you still wont bother looking. Thats the part thats difficult to wrap my head around.
Now if this was Jiu Jitsu, you all would go to the ends of to find something
So you are telling me that an innocent man is having his life and reputation destroyed, and you can prove his innocence? What kind of monster does nothing? What kind of monster just types wall after wall of text while doing nothing to save this innocent man?
It's standard for the prosecution to subpoena every possible witness that might in any way be affiliated with a case. They don't necessarily call the witness, and won't if they decide they're not going to be useful. Since the prosecution has already subpoenaed then witness, and especially when the witness is friendly to the defense, the defense won't issue another subpoena to that person, they'll just piggy back off the state's subpoena and save the service fee.
Second, the documents relating to the 1989 gang rapesare not trial transcripts, they're just basic docket information containing no useful info about what was actually testified about during the trials.
and who the F has this much free time... or even wants to spend this much of his free time on something that really has no direct effect no his life... Don't you have more important things to do?... This is really how you'd spend all this time?... I don't buy it... Running down court documents from pre-internet... contacting the families.. etc... Oh yeah.. just curious that's all.
Also, your statement that you have met Lloyd but aren't a member of TLI is less than sincere. You have met Lloyd briefly, by your own admission, but knew his medal chaser cats and can tell insider info as to how that went down? And someone pointed out your Sherdog statement about being in TLI.
MickColins - Also, your statement that you have met Lloyd but aren't a member of TLI is less than sincere. You have met Lloyd briefly, by your own admission, but knew his medal chaser cats and can tell insider info as to how that went down? And someone pointed out your Sherdog statement about being in TLI.
It kind of makes everything you say suspect.
How is it less than sincere? Because im speaking up on behalf of a situation, why does it have to mean that I'm a member? I'd like to reiterate, I never said that I never trained with the man. I also never said that I havent trained with the man. What I DID say was that Im not a member of his team, Im not an associate of his, and I have no business dealings with him. Just because I've actually bothered to look something up, doesnt mean that I have to be him, so saying that makes me suspect is ridiculous.
The ONLY thing i've done in this entire thread was to tell you guys instead of using an article posted on the internet by a news outlet that has contradicted itself (check Page 2), to instead read the actual court documentation. This entire thread I havent said a single Pro-Team Lloyd Irvin, or Con Team Lloyd Irvin statement, I've remained neutral on EVERYTHING, all i've done was pointed out facts, and instead of calling my bluff, i've gotten insults and laziness.
and who the F has this much free time... or even wants to spend this much of his free time on something that really has no direct effect no his life... Don't you have more important things to do?... This is really how you'd spend all this time?... I don't buy it... Running down court documents from pre-internet... contacting the families.. etc... Oh yeah.. just curious that's all.
Meatgrinder, it took all of 2 minutes to contact the families on Facebook. Literally, two private facebook messages, you're making it sound like it was an arduous endeavor when it really wasnt.
GeorgetteOden - It's standard for the prosecution to subpoena every possible witness that might in any way be affiliated with a case. They don't necessarily call the witness, and won't if they decide they're not going to be useful. Since the prosecution has already subpoenaed then witness, and especially when the witness is friendly to the defense, the defense won't issue another subpoena to that person, they'll just piggy back off the state's subpoena and save the service fee.
Second, the documents relating to the 1989 gang rapesare not trial transcripts, they're just basic docket information containing no useful info about what was actually testified about during the trials.
This is wrong, however I find it ironic that you'd be positng in a thread about Lloyd, considering you were knowingly covering up the ACTUAL perversion case with Alvis Solis (which im assuming the rest of you all know about).
From a brief search here and on Sherdog, you support TLI on both boards and defend Lloyd. I don't think you're as neutral as you think, my man.
And if you wanted to show these documents you state that reveal the truthiness of your position, scanning isn't very difficult. Hell, you don't even need to scan if you have an iPhone.
And while you aren't part of TLI as you say, you've apparently trained with Lloyd enough to comment on how he teaches and refer to him as "Master Lloyd" in one of your posts. You've also posted that you trained at TLI "a considerable amount of time" on Sherdog.
MickColins - " I've remained neutral on EVERYTHING,"
From a brief search here and on Sherdog, you support TLI on both boards and defend Lloyd. I don't think you're as neutral as you think, my man.
And if you wanted to show these documents you state that reveal the truthiness of your position, scanning isn't very difficult. Hell, you don't even need to scan if you have an iPhone.
And while you aren't part of TLI as you say, you've apparently trained with Lloyd enough to comment on how he teaches and refer to him as "Master Lloyd" in one of your posts. You've also posted that you trained at TLI "a considerable amount of time" on Sherdog.
GeorgetteOden - It's standard for the prosecution to subpoena every possible witness that might in any way be affiliated with a case. They don't necessarily call the witness, and won't if they decide they're not going to be useful. Since the prosecution has already subpoenaed then witness, and especially when the witness is friendly to the defense, the defense won't issue another subpoena to that person, they'll just piggy back off the state's subpoena and save the service fee.
Second, the documents relating to the 1989 gang rapesare not trial transcripts, they're just basic docket information containing no useful info about what was actually testified about during the trials.
This is wrong, however I find it ironic that you'd be positng in a thread about Lloyd, considering you were knowingly covering up the ACTUAL perversion case with Alvis Solis (which im assuming the rest of you all know about).
Pretty sure you saw this before you responded, BackAddict
and who the F has this much free time... or even wants to spend this much of his free time on something that really has no direct effect no his life... Don't you have more important things to do?... This is really how you'd spend all this time?... I don't buy it... Running down court documents from pre-internet... contacting the families.. etc... Oh yeah.. just curious that's all.
Meatgrinder, it took all of 2 minutes to contact the families on Facebook. Literally, two private facebook messages, you're making it sound like it was an arduous endeavor when it really wasnt.
uh huh... and the court docs? That answer is as deceptive as your association with LI. And pretty f*ckin selfish to be probing them with questions on FB... oh I'm a complete stranger but like to keep up on the bjj gossip. I know this is all pretty emotional stuff, but don't mind if I ask a few questions about that little rapey incident....
...and why people run outta there in the middle of the night?
