Awhile back news broke that Starlin Castro has been accused of sexual assault. Today we learn there will be no charges brought against him.
Cubs All-Star shortstop Starlin Castro will not be charged after being accused of a sexual assault at his apartment last fall, authorities said Friday.
The Cook County state’s attorney’s office declined to pursue charges against the Cubs 22-year-old star, saying “insufficient evidence was found.”
“The State’s Attorney’s office in conjunction with the Chicago Police Department conducted a comprehensive review and investigation and as a result found insufficient evidence to bring forth criminal charges,” state’s attorney spokeswoman Sally Daly said.
Castro’s agent, when told by the Sun-Times of the prosecutors’ decision, said: “That is awesome.”
“This makes me very happy,” Paul Kinzer said.
This is certainly good news for Castro and for Cubs fans too. It's a lot easier rooting for someone who isn't being charged with sexual assault. It's important to point out that no charges does not equal innocent. We have no idea what happened. Let's hope it's the last time we hear about these charges and if so, maybe we can become more confident they are bullshit. If this becomes another Ben Roethlisberger, well, let's just hope that doesn't happen.
What, no credit for breaking the story? (dying laughing)
Bubbs does one thing well… He links stories. And watches WWE.. And ballwashes the SEC..
Give credit
Also i think it is fair to say he is innocent.. No charges filed means no evidence means innocent.
I hate when we judge people before they have been convicted
The two sweetest words in the English language.
@ bubblesdachimp:
I’m not a lawyer, but no charges seems to entail lack of significant or substantial evidence which means they don’t have enough to prosecute = not guilty.
All credit to Twitter?
Also, while they are a good team this season, it irks me that there is an ice hockey team in Nashville (dying laughing)
Kemp —————> 8th HR
@ bubblesdachimp:
Not guilty is not the same as innocent by any stretch, and it’s naive to think so. There are maybe 2 or 3 people on earth who know definitively whether he’s innocent (maybe less because of alcohol).
Having said that, this is excellent news.
Z is pitching well. 6 innings, 1 ER, 2 H, 0 BB, 6 K. Only mistake is a HR by Ankiel.
@ Rice Cube:
Not a lawyer either but i am going to say he was innocent. If they didnt have enough to even charge him then he would have been found not guilty in a court of law.
At the beginning of this bubbles suspected that Starlin brought a girl home and fooled around with her. They had probably both been drinking. That doesnt mean a rape occured. Or a sex offense. It means two young kids got drunk and fooled around.
In fact, both hits are by Ankiel.
@ ACT:
How many stolen bases?
@ GBTS22:
Well in a court of law he is innocent. I mean shit this didnt even get to a court because the evidence and what not was so flimsy. I defended starlin at the start and will continue to defend his innocence because as a country we say you are innocent unless you are convicted.
I do think he will learn something from that is that if you bring a girl home make them sign a waiver.
@ bubblesdachimp:
We don’t know what happened, and I think we should just leave it at that. Even if he did commit an assault, it would be very difficult to prove it in a court of law (in order to get a conviction, you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the evidence showed him likely to be guilty, it wouldn’t be enough. And it’s extremely hard to get evidence in cases like this. )
@ Rice Cube:
Still at 1.
@ ACT:
By default is pretty good too.
@ ACT:
See this is what i dont get. There was no evidence and way too many people both here on twitter just lambasted a kid when their was no evidence. I find that to be really really not ok. Calling someone a rapist is a big deal. Saying still “we dont know what happened regardless of if there is no evidence he stil might be a rapist” makes me very uneasy. It just does.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
No, he’s not guilty. Not guilty does not equal innocent. it means what it says.
This didn’t go to court. There simply wasn’t enough evidence to charge him, which is common in these cases even when it happened. It’s silly to think this means he’s innocent. It means what they said: not enough evidence. That’s it.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
No, there was insufficient evidence. This could mean they had 99% of enough evidence to charge him, but lacked that other 1%. It could mean they had no evidence at all. You don’t know. I don’t know. As GBTS said, there are probably 2 and maybe only 3 people in the world who knows what happened. You aren’t one of them. The best we can say is that he is not charged for the crime. It does not by any stretch mean he is innocent.
@ mb21:
You dont see why that is fucked up? They didnt have enough evidence to even bring it to trial. So instead the kid just got viciously slammed in the media for doing what all 22 year old kids do: Go to bars to pick up chicks.
This is so bizzare to me.
I did not lambast Castro. I simply pointed out the only fact we know about this case: that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him for a crime. That’s it, bubbles.
@ mb21:
We dont know that he did anything wrong either. There is just as good of a chance that she was a cleat chaser as there is that he did anything wrong.
But because of the nature of the offense we make him out to be the one that did something wrong.
I dont see why it is so hard when no charges were filed to say they determined that they couldnt convict and he is innocent.
@ bubblesdachimp:I’m not so sure about Castro getting “viciously slammed.” If anything, I thought the woman who came forward took more heat from commenters.
There was insufficient evidence to charge Al Capone with many (most) of his crimes. OJ Simpson was found not guilty. It’s safe to say that Capone committed many crimes he got away with and OJ murdered two people.
@ mb21:
When the cubs convention was going down wayyyyyyyy too many people said he shouldnt show up, that it was wrong to parade him out there etc. i disagreed with the notion then and i am even more vigorous now. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty.
He was never proven guilty. This case was so fucked that they couldnt even attempt to prove that he was guilty.
Therefor he is innocent to bubbles
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Exactly. I’ve never said otherwise. I never would because I don’t know. I have no clue whether or not he committed this crime. None. Neither do you. This does not mean innocent.
@ mb21:
So if you dont know what happened why would you think there is even a chance a crime was committed? Why would you not just defer to innocent?
@ ACT:
I disagree. Bubbles on this blog probably came closer then most to calling her a liar and i never outright said that. I cant speak for other places (i dont read bleedcubbieblue or anything else)
But i can tell you on twitter it was absurd the amount of castro bashing
@ mb21:
So now Castro is the equivalent to Capone and OJ
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Where in the Constitution does it say a person is innocent until proven guilty? Besides, that means in a court of law where evidence is necessary to convict. In reality where you and I are supposed to live, innocent means not having committed a crime. We don’t know if he did or not.
I agreed about the Cubs Convention by the way. I think it would have been very poor of the Cubs to remove him from that.
Also Matt Moore is letting Bubbs down in fantasy
Being “innocent” is just one of the many ways one can be considered “not guilty” of a crime. Both “guilt” and “innocence” require some kind of affirmative showing.
Bubbles, I’ve never met you. I have no idea how much you weigh. If someone told me you weighed 500 pounds, I would have no idea if it’s the truth. It seems highly unlikely, and I would need some kind of affirmative showing to believe it. So until someone proved to me otherwise, I would feel comfortable saying, “Bubbles does not weigh 500 pounds.” That doesn’t mean, without knowing anything else, I would say, “In fact, I am sure Bubbles is an average weight.”
@ bubblesdachimp:
I’m making a point. I’m showing you obvious situations in which there was insufficient evidence to charge or convict someone when in all certainty they were guilty. Nobody would say Capone was innocent of all crimes except those he was convicted for. Nobody would say that OJ is innocent. You’re doing the same thing with Castro. You’re equating not guilty or not enough evidence with innocence. He may be innocent. He may be guilty as fuck. I don’t know.
@ mb21:
MB every kid in this country is told from the time they are little that you are innocent until proven guilty. it is why in criminal cases the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the state.
Today should be a good day (might be the highlight of the cubs season) i jsut dont think we need to asterix it with (we dont know what happened) because that statement in itself is passing judgment
bubblesdachimp wrote:
And what joy do you find in joining the choir in calling most women who are sexually assaulted liars? Is there some club you all hang out? If so, let me know because I want to stay the hell away from it.
mb21 wrote:
He was with the players as they were introduced in the opening ceremony but didn’t actually speak and only posed for photos and did some autographs. I think that was appropriate given the circumstances and I think the Cubs handled it professionally.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
It is not. It’s simply pointing out the facts. I honestly didn’t thing I would have to defend that obviously true statement on this blog. I’m passing no judgment at all. He’s not charged with a crime. That’s great for the Cubs and for Castro. However, that does not mean a crime was not committed.
@ mb21:
I dont find joy in it. I am all for capital punishment for rapists. I am 100% for that. I think men can be just as traumatized with false rape accusations. It is a really serious thing to put someone through.
The facts as presented at the time sounded like 2 20 year olds going home drunk and fooling around.
I also pointed out that the term “black out” is a slang term now that is substituted in that age range for “wasted”
Very rarely when someone in that agre range uses blacked out do they mean they were dead. Means they got really drunk.
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Bubbles, every kid in this country is told from the time they are little that you can tell Santa Claus what you want for Christmas and he’ll cruise around the world with reindeer delivering them.
That must be true too.
@ mb21:
We are just going in circles.
I think he is innocent. You think he wasnt convicted.
Those are two fundamental different view points
@ mb21:
Thats a weak analogy. The difference is that santa is made up.
It is not made up that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
I guess my fundamental question is why do we take the word of the accuser when she cant produce evidence that any malfeasance occured?
@ bubblesdachimp:
Bubbles, you’re doing nothing more than guessing, but the fact you even highlighted that you came close to calling her a liar is troubling. We don’t know who is lying. We still don’t know. Be glad that Castro isn’t charged. Be happy for the Cubs. But put on your thinking cap and realize this means one thing: not enough evidence.
@ bubblesdachimp:
One is a fact and the other is conjecture.
You guys are missing the important question of the evening: why the hell did Matt Cain just pinch hit for Barry Zito in the 6th inning with a bench full of players still in the dugout?
@ Xoomwaffle:
BUNT
So…what happened? (dying laughing)
bubblesdachimp wrote:
No it isn’t. You think something that is taught to children at a young age means something when it doesn’t. A person is innocent in the eyes of the court until proven guilty, but guess what, bubbles, the court does not rule the person innocent. They do not say, “on the charge of first degree murder we find the defendant innocent.” No, they say, “on the charge of first degree murder we find the defendant not guilty.”
bubblesdachimp wrote:
Just as a technical matter, “innocent until proven guilty” isn’t in the constitution. The 5th Amendment says you can’t be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, meaning a fair trial per the standards of other constitutional provisions.
This doesn’t meant that courts say “if we don’t convict you, you did nothing wrong.” It means courts say “regardless of what you did or didn’t do, the state can’t touch you unless we definitively prove it.”
I agree that it is unfortunate that this type of statement has a negative connotation. I wish the public at large was more responsive to the, “we have no idea what happened so let’s just leave it at that” line of thinking. (A situation like O.J. is different. There were mountains of evidence.)
ugh be home in 30 mins.
Glad this is over.
This made bubbs last 45 mins of work zoom by
bubblesdachimp wrote:
That you think he is innocent is an opinion.
Nice outing by Z. Theodore Roosevelt Lilly is doing well, too. Good day to be an ex-Cub pitcher, lousy day to be a Cub pitcher.
@ ACT:
The sad thing about Z is that he should probably be in line for 3-0 but Heath Bell and his offense hate him.
@ Rice Cube:
He must be really nervous right now.
God, MO would have a field day with this Russell’s teapot bullshit. (dying laughing)
@ GBTS:
Please explain while I google it (dying laughing)
I love the interwebs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
@ Rice Cube:
I just know it because its a predecessor to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which I wrote a paper on in college.
Lack of evidence doesn’t make any one innocent, nor does accusation make a person guilty.
I’m speaking of course, of Jeff Samardzija.
@ Rice Cube:
Someone needs to read more “Tree Lobsters”
@ josh:
Agreed.
(dying laughing)
(dying laughing)
My pizza delivery guy just said Brian Lahair is a white Ken Griffey at the plate.
@ GBTS:
Did his noodly appendage bless you with an A?
@ GBTS:
“Look at this follow through. You’ll see it.”
@ josh:
I don’t remember. It was an undergraduate philosophy course.
So, yes.
@ GBTS:
Except slow, not as good, and generally the polar opposite of KGJ.
But, he is left handed, so I see his point.
@ josh:
To be fair, he qualified it with “at the plate.”
@ GBTS:
Did you finish the paper? No. Did you start the paper, then spend several hours in a moral dichotomy? All right, you get an A.
@ GBTS:
Junior from a few years ago maybe.
@ GBTS:
I just compared some video. Not even close.
I think your pizza delivery guy may be fully of shit.
And… Z gets a loss despite being the ESPN top performer of the day. How’s that for justice?
@ ACT:
He should be used to that by now.
@ ACT:
I blame Heath Bell.
@ josh:
Hell, after 10 years, he probably thinks that’s what’s supposed to happen.
Heard a Marlins announcer on the radio surprised by Z running hard on a routine grounder. Oh Miami fans. You have a lot to learn.
@ josh:
That is very surprising.
@ josh:
How dare he risk an injury like that!
@ josh:
I think he kind of exits the box in a similar manner. Although I’d guess 90% of left-handers exit the box the same way.
@ josh:
That’s a sex joke people, try to keep up.
@ ACT:
He said, in utter disbelief, “He ran as hard as he could on that come-backer to the mound.” I just laughed.
So who else besides Matt Kemp has outhomered the Cubs so far?
@ Rice Cube:
Josh Hamilton.
@ Rice Cube:
Curtis Granderson. How many have the Cubs had? Curt has 6, Josh has 5.
Cubs have 5. A bunch of guys have 5. So outhomered is only Kemp and Granderson.
Terrible night K-wise for the I-Cubs. Ironically (hope I’m using that right) none by Brett Jackson.
@ josh:
It would be funny if Kemp finished the year with more homers than the Cubs.
@ Rice Cube:
3 by Rizzo, 2 by Welington. http://www.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?sid=t451&t=g_box&gid=2012_04_20_iowaaa_albaaa_1
Adam Dunn, with his recent hot streak, has brought his numbers up to a respectable level. Re-transformed?
Theodore Roosevelt Lilly got the win despite walking 6 in as many innings and hitting a batter. Z got a loss despite walking none in 7 innings.
@ Rice Cube:
Contrary to expectations. I think you nailed it. Nice job, RC.
@ ACT:
I could see Kemp having better defense, more stolen bases, more homeruns, and a better batting average than all the Cubs combined. Actually, the batting average wouldn’t be that hard or that fair. Still, the point is Matt Kemp > The Cubs.
@ ACT:
Again, mirroring their Cubs careers pretty well.
@ josh:
Matt Kemp could potentially end up with more WAR than the Cubs.
ERA sucks. Cashner just gave up 3 runs but all of them were charged to Volquez who left the bases loaded. Cashner ERA stays the same, Volquez gets a bump. Grumbles.
Not that I like Volquez, but that just seems wrong to me. Does WAR or other metrics take into account reliever screwups even if ERA does not?
Rice Cube wrote:
The inherited runners problem is not unique to ERA, since runs (earned or otherwise) are charged to whoever let the runners on.
Rice Cube wrote:
It’s a problem for rWAR since it uses runs allowed. It’s not a problem for fWAR, since it uses FIP and ignores everything except walks, hit batsmen, strikeouts, and home runs.
I’m not sure what the best way to deal with the inherited runners problem is, but I also don’t think it’s that big of a deal in the long run.
Today, Matt Cain was used as a pinch hitter. Seriously.
@ ACT:
Is there some penalty given to pitchers who let inherited runs score? Or is it just a footnote in the box score that says “inherited runners scored”?
The San Diego commentators are amusing.
@ Rice Cube:
b-ref has a section on reliever stats that includes inherited runners scored (e.g., http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/russeja02-pitch.shtml#pitching_reliever). But they don’t use it for WAR calculations or anything.
new shit up