He probably shoved her. Or she got shoved in all the commotion that was happening and got cut. But you'd have to be dumb or extremely biased to believe a man of his size punched her in the face multiple times and there weren't any bruises, no noticeable contusions, no concussion, etc. It's funny how people's tune change.
Misdemeanor Trial is Monday...what happens with Dalvin Cook?
- Thread starter 93nole99
- Start date
He probably shoved her. Or she got shoved in all the commotion that was happening and got cut. But you'd have to be dumb or extremely biased to believe a man of his size punched her in the face multiple times and there weren't any bruises, no noticeable contusions, no concussion, etc. It's funny how people's tune change.
1. Why do you and the Nole camp perpetuate this narrative that Dalvin Cook would have been trying to land a death blow? trying to knock her unconscious? giving her face everything he had? Why is it so hard to believe he purposely did not hit her that hard but hard enough to send a message, hard enough to cut her lip? I have dealt in this stuff. Cases of males punching, backhanding, and kicking females are daily. The vast majority of the time, it's clear the male did not strike as hard as he could, leaving only a cut or busted lip. No missing teeth or broken jaw. No punt to the face.
2. That said, can someone show me where she alleged or testified that Dalvin Cook landed multiple punches to her face? This is another narrative that is getting used often in these threads. She doesn't allege it in the PC affidavit or in the 911 call which is the official information we had leading up to trial. If she testified in trial that he landed multiple punches to her face, you won't see me on here defending her anymore.
3. Whenever you have defense witnesses (in this case, teammates of the accused) whose initial stories to police are all different from one another and then a late-arriving defense witness (Jenkins) who never bothered to speak to police at the outset, didn't call the police or the SAO in the days that followed the arrest, and who's first call appears to have been to someone other than police or the SAO...it wreaks of fabrication, it's got all the makings of an incredible defense.
4. Why this idea that drunk girls cannot be legitimate victims?
*** Again, I do not know the TRIAL TESTIMONY of the victim, female witness, or the male security guard. If there was material altering from initial statements or material inconsistencies from one state witness to the next then this is all for not. I'm not going on trial testimony except for that of this FSU student and fan Jenkins kid.
"Do you hesitate at all to believe that the State Attorney would knowingly perpetrate a fraud on the Court, subjecting himself to sanctions and possible disbarment?"
"I expect a Not Guilty simply by virtue of venue."
"So Jury selection was this morning. I wonder if any fsu fans made it on the jury."
"Two words win this case for Cook: Leon County"
"I find it highly unlikely that the ASA was able to identify and keep all fsu zealots off the jury...."
"IMO - very ineffective cross examination"
You defend the honor of the State Attorney yet you ridicule everything associated with the defense. In your own words you said it was a good system. I think you are lying to yourself.
"I expect a Not Guilty simply by virtue of venue."
"So Jury selection was this morning. I wonder if any fsu fans made it on the jury."
"Two words win this case for Cook: Leon County"
"I find it highly unlikely that the ASA was able to identify and keep all fsu zealots off the jury...."
"IMO - very ineffective cross examination"
You defend the honor of the State Attorney yet you ridicule everything associated with the defense. In your own words you said it was a good system. I think you are lying to yourself.
Because they have to come up with some theory where, not only did nobody hit the girl, but where FSU players and fans are actually the victims of a malicious false story and of Willie Meggs. And then there's Jimbo's ridiculous "zero tolerance" comment to boot. No other reasons. They know Cook is a thug and that he hit her and that their coach is FOS. Read their comments all over the interwebs - FSU and its fans are the victims here according to them.
I agree with everything except the prosecution wasn't trying to orchestrate a judicial travesty. It's clear from the evidence they presented that they WERE prosecuting for an inappropriate reason.
They were not prosecuting Dalvin Cook because there was any substantial evidence he committed a crime (and the self-conflicting and so-implausible it sails out of the bounds of reason that it could be discounted on its own merit without need of rebuttal testimony is NOT substantial evidence when combined with the physical evidence showing nothing of substance and the expert testimony of the LEO saying he did not believe she was punched as she claimed). Prosecutors are SUPPOSED to only prosecute cases when there's substantial evidence a crime occurred. They are under NO obligation to prosecute simply because someone makes a claim, that's called "prosecutorial discretion". I mean, I could claim right now that Coach Macwhatever touched my Nono place. Sure there's no evidence my version of event occurred other than my testimony (just like in the Cook case), so if I took this to the Gainesville prosecutor he would just look, laugh and then drop the case. That's prosecutorial discretion.
In every case that DOESN'T involve FSU football players, if this "evidence" was presented either the case would have been dropped outright OR they would have shifted it to pretrial diversion. If you don't know what that is pretrial diversion is for when the prosecutor is pretty convinced the allegations or something close occurred but DGAF as it is not worth the time and money to pursue. Bickering couples where a woman gets slapped...typically pretrial diversion where one or both sides gets a day of counselling and some community service. Two drunk dudes get in a drunk tussle where no one is seriously hurt....you get an anger management course and some community service. So on and so forth.
So CLEARLY if the prosecution was not because there was substantial evidence or even that there was some clear ongoing threat. If Dalvin Cook was a random person rather than star FSU player (and they might not even have bothered if he was a scrub) there would have been no case brought or maybe some PTI (pretrial intervention) BS about an anger management class. No, they prosecuted him BECAUSE he was an FSU star player and no other reason. Some people say it's because Meggs has always had a vendetta against FSU which is plausible given his charging decisions over the decades, but I assume it's because he's at the core a politician and it would look bad if he didn't. Because Bay and some other Gators would throw a temper tantrum without knowing any of the facts and it might get negative press, so rather than take the heat himself he presses BS charges. Which not only is a miscarriage of justice for Cook who was forced to needlessly lawyer up and undergo the emotional trauma (and it IS traumatic, even for things like unemployment cases) of trial BUT he also threw some young attorney under the bus by tossing her out to lose (poorly, she really did a bad job despite the journalist posted here who clearly knows nothing about the law).
So yeah. Meggs is not guiltless in my opinion.
Other than that you were mostly spot on.
I accept your promise to never defend her anymore.
Just go back and read what I posted in quotes in my Unbreakable comment, that was not me saying it, that's her response under cross. She said under oath he struck her multiple times (and her "witness" newly said she was hit by him as well) and that not only did she only get her little boo boo but she was able to stand her ground and yell hit me again.
You don't get to play both sides of the fence here. If your contention is that men are so much stronger than women that they pretty much shouldn't defend themselves using physical violence under any circumstance like you stated in the DJ thread, then there's no rational for you to believe a man who weighs almost 100 lbs. more than that chick and being as strong as Cook likely is hit her multiple times in the face and couldn't cause anything beyond a barely noticeable cut on her lip. It's completely ridiculous.
As to the rest, I don't care to address it because I didn't follow the case and frankly don't care. None of those points you have made are applicable to me because I'm almost certain the post you're addressing is my first in this thread. I just found the view that Cook somehow went to town on this girl physically to be hypocritical, if not irrational based on what some of you were saying in the other thread.
11:35 -- Cross examination of Madison Geohegan: Defense team attacks inconsistencies between accuser's 911 call and her current testimony, making an issue of how much she had to drink and attempting to introduce reasonable doubt and lessen her credibility in the eyes of the jury ... state's objection to defense's "confusing" line of testimony is overruled ... "You're saying you were hit multiple times by a 215-pound football player and the only damage you had was to your lip?" "Yes" ... Asked if football player boyfriend T.J. Davis, of Auburn, with whom she was on the phone at time of looking at some photos with police had any help in ID'ing cook and says no ... Lots of questions raising issues about the photo lineup Madison Geohegan was shown and whether outside influence may have assisted her too much in ID'ing Cook" ... Defense says "Let me get this straight, Dalvin Cook came after you and hit you multiple times and you were able to say 'hit me again'?" "Yes" ... Issues raised about the motivation and timing of pressing charges.
LINK: http://www.tomahawknation.com/2015/8/24/9196903/dalvin-cook-battery-trial-florida-state-fsu
The woman described herself as "pretty buzzed" the night of the incident, adding she was angry when one of Cook's teammates, Da'Vante Phillips, called her a "ho" for dancing with other men. She pushed another FSU player when he said her boyfriend, Davis, cheated on her. Later, she said she was punched by Cook with a "closed fist."
LINK: http://www.al.com/auburnfootball/index.ssf/2015/08/auburns_tj_davis_reacts_to_ver.html
Did the defense attorney really not ask her where? It's important. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this but there are many places he could have hit her with the same force he used to cut her lip that would not have left any noticeable injuries...head, shoulders, chest, etc.
And the victim yelling at Cook after he struck her in the mouth is not inconsistent with the type of punch I described previously, the type of punch that men most commonly throw at females.
That's incredibly naïve. To avoid repeating myself, here's a previous post and it's the best way I can explain it...
We have a good system, not a perfect system. Those are some of the imperfections and they are imperfections that cannot be resolved.
A potential juror's bias, motive, predisposition, life experiences, etc cannot be changed. They can only be uncovered and you can't uncover them if he or she does not want you to. It's not unique to the Cook case. The potential problem is just more real in the Cook case for obvious reasons.
---
The potential juror has to disclose whether he is a student or employed because that is always in the questionnaire form (along with other basic information questions) provided by the Court prior to the start of jury selection.
Beyond that, he or she only discloses what he or she wants to. If the ASA asks for a show of hands from all FSU fans and a potential juror does not want to reveal his or her fandom or the level of it, he or she will sit there quietly. Does it violate the oath they take to tell the truth? I'd say so. But is it the reality of the justice system we have? Yes. There are people who want on juries, want off juries and don't care. The people who want on will get an idea of what to say and not to say to effect that goal. Same goes for potential jurors who want off.
Last edited:
"A potential juror's bias, motive, predisposition, life experiences, etc cannot be changed."
I remember that response...and appreciate it. Can the same thought process be used on you, an attorney, and more importantly a fan of UF football? Had the trial been moved to Alachua County would he have been found guilty for obvious reasons?
Again, I am pretty sure somebody roughed the girl up. I have zero tolerance for that too. Problem is the deal just didn't seem as cut and dry as you, or even I, would like. Because of that shouldn't this be chalked up as not a perfect outcome but a good one?
I remember that response...and appreciate it. Can the same thought process be used on you, an attorney, and more importantly a fan of UF football? Had the trial been moved to Alachua County would he have been found guilty for obvious reasons?
Again, I am pretty sure somebody roughed the girl up. I have zero tolerance for that too. Problem is the deal just didn't seem as cut and dry as you, or even I, would like. Because of that shouldn't this be chalked up as not a perfect outcome but a good one?
"A potential juror's bias, motive, predisposition, life experiences, etc cannot be changed."
I remember that response...and appreciate it. Can the same thought process be used on you, an attorney, and more importantly a fan of UF football? Had the trial been moved to Alachua County would he have been found guilty for obvious reasons?
Again, I am pretty sure somebody roughed the girl up. I have zero tolerance for that too. Problem is the deal just didn't seem as cut and dry as you, or even I, would like. Because of that shouldn't this be chalked up as not a perfect outcome but a good one?
Of course. The Cook trial in Alachua county is just the inverse of the Cook trial in Tallahassee.
As for your second question, it's just the outcome.
LOL I'm not going back on anything. I just asked you an obvious follow up question to your paraphrasing of the transcript which left out WHERE the multiple strikes landed. I know you agree it's a fair and relevant question.
1. Is "brutally" your word or hers?
2. What was her testimony? Multiple times in the face, multiple times in the neck and multiple times in the arms OR multiple times including the face, neck and arms? And are you sure? If it's the former, I'm out. If it's the latter, I'm still in as it goes directly to my argument about taking multiple strikes but in places where injuries often don't result.
There's no winning here.
- Cook was accused & charged with a crime
- Cook was suspended from the team indefinitely
- Team took two photos--one with Cook and one without
- Cook went to trial
- Cook was found not guilty
- Cook was reinstated to team
The "process" completely played out and the "fix" is apparently still in. Heck, he'd have been better off if no charges had been brought...then the masses could just continue to clamor on about TPD cover-ups.
- Cook was accused & charged with a crime
- Cook was suspended from the team indefinitely
- Team took two photos--one with Cook and one without
- Cook went to trial
- Cook was found not guilty
- Cook was reinstated to team
The "process" completely played out and the "fix" is apparently still in. Heck, he'd have been better off if no charges had been brought...then the masses could just continue to clamor on about TPD cover-ups.
FTR I don't think Cook is 'innocent.' Like I said I haven't followed it and don't really care. But since this was stuck on the top of the board I got bored and read through it. Most of what I 'know' comes from reading the posts and links in here.
My only point was that I didn't understand how someone could reconcile the belief that men are so much stronger than women that they should almost never use physical violence against them, even in a possible defense situation, with the opinion that Cook (who would be physically opposing to most males) somehow laid waste to this girl with a fury of punches and she somehow has almost no visible injuries. The two beliefs don't really coexist IMO. If the first statement is true, that would be almost impossible.
My only point was that I didn't understand how someone could reconcile the belief that men are so much stronger than women that they should almost never use physical violence against them, even in a possible defense situation, with the opinion that Cook (who would be physically opposing to most males) somehow laid waste to this girl with a fury of punches and she somehow has almost no visible injuries. The two beliefs don't really coexist IMO. If the first statement is true, that would be almost impossible.
Then your Proof microbrew is downgraded to a mere cold Shiner or Abita. As you said, if her main version of the story was true where Cook basically went psycho boxer on her and her friend....they would have been destroyed. I don't care how untrained his punches hypothetically would have been, that much pure muscle would devastate someone's face regardless of man or woman not leave one untouched and one with a booboo.
If the theory is well the booboo was caused when he slapped her (again not her or ANYONE'S testimony) or got poked in the face (again not said by anyone) after she attacked the players first....does anyone actually GAF? That wouldn't (as I said before) even constitute a misdemeanor usually, at worst for an ordinary person it would be some PTI probably just an anger management course and some community service. And probably for both of them because again just like in the DJ case it was the woman who started it, continued it by throwing the first couple of strikes and in the Cook case alone likely finished it by running them off.
Sweet! Thanks for the lesson on the proper way to beat a woman and get away with it. You noles are a very helpful group.
She "attacked" the players first?lol...
Using facts that no one testified to...
You are owning that scarecrow!
10:10 -- Madison Geohegan testimony: She and a friend went to Cancun's and had drinks and food (said Cancun's did not ID underage), then to Clyde's and Costello's (the bar outside which the alleged event occurred). ... When leaving the bar, she was "pretty buzzed", but not "fall down drunk." ... Says a taller player (not Cook) caller her a "hoe" for her dancing, and she got angry and responded with "if I'm a hoe, your mom's a hoe," which angered the player (Da'Vante Phillips, whose mother was murdered." Phillips becomes more angry over the response about his mother, and Dalvin Cook steps in and tells Madison Geohegan that Phillips' mother is dead (murdered in a drive-by). ... Madison Geohegan says Cook was "very nice" and said "chill out, chill out." ... She says other players behind Cook were "hot headed" ... Travis Rudolph asked Madison Geohegan if she really had a boyfriend, she said yes, and he said "he's cheating on you," which angered her and she and Rudolph engaged in a heated argument. ... She pushed him away "hard" [first] with two hands as he was close to her and yelling ... Rudolph walked away from the situation after that. ...
I cant tell if you 2 are phukkin with me.
She said he got up in her face, yelling at her so she pushed him away from her. You do understand what she did was legal? You're dying to call it a battery. Don't. Bc its not.
This is exactly why ive been so cautious to accept nole representations of the facts and testimony. You guys downright misrepresent.
(hint: I think everyone is either lying or was too drunk to remember. my hypothesis is based on physical evidence)
Question, and I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious and not trying to play any gotcha games. You're obviously more knowledgeable of the law than me.
First, I don't see where it says he was in her face anymore than she was in his. From her testimony it seems as if both of them were yelling at each other since they both said hurtful things. He in her face and she in his and she pushed away. Why is that not a battery? And if he had pushed her away, would it have been legal also? Secondly, if she is allowed under the law to do what she did, then how come in the DJ case, after the girl kneed him and shoved him, why wasn't he allowed to grab her arm under the law? IIRC, I remember you saying the act of him grabbing her arm was a battery of some sort and the first act of aggression but I'm not seeing how it's different from this girl pushing away Rudolph. Why isn't her push considered an act of aggression? In both cases the personal space of the individual has been compromised and they perceive a threat and acted accordingly. She pushed Rudolph, DJ grabbed the chicks arm. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference and based on what you've stated above it seems both were well within the rights to do what they did, but only one of them was condemned.
I think you're both wrong... believe it or not, not everybody is a "fan" of a particular school or football program, a lot of citizens could give a damn about either. Also, it doesn't matter what the overall population of a particular community, all that matters is who's on the jury! Also, because of previous issues with the TPD, I would sure question how hard and diligently they investigated this case, and I would also question how diligently the SA office prosecuted it. Having said all that, it's over, he was found not guilty, and he should not be suspended a single minute.
I know the woman in question and do believe her story. She is not as fragile as you think and she didn't sound drunk to me in the 911 audio. That is just how she talks....The testimony is that they said her boyfriend cheated on her, did they know of her or him already? Where they trying to score and got shut down.
Also i find it odd that a club that is steps away from the capital of florida and the city hall (that is a hot bed when Florida legislature session is in doesnt have cameras) also a atm outside the club also has video that can be pulled. (google earth it)
If they restrained her dont see were cook and friends say they did so are the lying. Can polk holes in there story, i guess because i know her and know that she is hot a hoe, cleat chaseer, and told some football players she didnt want to talk to them. (Do not see how that makes her a $$$$$ chaser). But i guess you know Cook personally and can really vouch for him. Oh wait just an fsu fan with no bias.....
Does it matter to you that when questioned by police, neither Rudolph nor Cook said Rudolph was pushed? Does it matter to you that they went from not alleging so much as a push to testifying at trial (according to you) that she was wailing on them?
Conversely, the victim alleged from jump that Rudolph approached her, got in her face and began yelling at her. She pushed him away because "he got too close." The aspiring security guard corroborated this by telling police that the black male was "being forward with her."
approached her + yelling at her + in her face = shove = reasonable to believe the shove was necessary = justifiable use of non-deadly force = no battery
Oozie, this answers your question as well.
Did the ASA really not recall Officer Smidt to the stand to rebut the trial testimony of any of the players which, according to you and alaska throughout this thread, was materially inconsistent with the statements they gave Officer Smidt?
Did a first year ASA try this case?
ok, ok, ok.
I surrender. Cook is a loose cannon and went ballistic on two young ladies, swing'n/land'n punches in a wild berserker's rage. Every single person testifying for the defense was a liar. The prosecution side's panel of angels were 100% truthful and accurate in their recounting of events. My prayer is for a speedy recovery for those who were seriously injured in this brawl and that the FSU players receive the alcohol and anger management counseling they so desperately need.
/end
I surrender. Cook is a loose cannon and went ballistic on two young ladies, swing'n/land'n punches in a wild berserker's rage. Every single person testifying for the defense was a liar. The prosecution side's panel of angels were 100% truthful and accurate in their recounting of events. My prayer is for a speedy recovery for those who were seriously injured in this brawl and that the FSU players receive the alcohol and anger management counseling they so desperately need.
/end
Dramatic hypotheticals, wild speculation, actual statements left behind....perfect time to call it.
Similar threads
