Video Shows Former NBA Player Acquitted Of Rape Pulling Half-Naked Accuser Back To Motel

A newly released video from 2015 shows former NBA player Mateen Cleaves pulling a naked woman back to his motel room.

Cleaves was acquitted last week on four counts of sexual assault after the woman, seen in the September 2015 video above, accused him of raping her. The video, taken by surveillance cameras at the motel where the alleged rape occurred, was submitted as evidence during the trial. It was only released to the public on Friday after WXYZ Detroit published it.

The surveillance video shows a naked Cleaves chasing down the half-naked woman twice as she attempts to run away. The woman, who has not been identified publicly, resists Cleaves both times as he pulls her by both hands back to his motel room. On the woman’s last attempt to get away, she appears to give up, and Cleaves pulls her back to the room.

Although the video does not have audio, an eyewitness testified during the trial that the accuser was screaming for help as Cleaves dragged her back to his room.

“She looked at me and she said, ‘Help me, help me, help me,’” the witness testified in court. “And I had the phone in my hand and I told her I’m on the phone right now calling the police. I looked Mateen in the eyes, he didn’t say one word.”


https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mateen-cleaves-rape-accuser-video_n_5d6411a5e4b01d7b529365ec

So... why was he found not guilty...!?

That's the value of speaking to the jury after trial.

Sexual assault is a different statute than "pulling a naked woman back" into a hotel room. Who knows? Cleaves might have been saving her from an indecent exposure charge.

Michigan law requires a sexual component to the assault, as well as a lack of consent (or, ie, coercion). Sec. 1.1, Sexual Assault Benchbook.

The evidence has to show evidence of the elements. The article doesn’t show or address any element, just the unrelated “pulling” of the woman. This is obviously included to show MIMC. The acronym MIMIC identifies relevant purposes for admitting such evidence- Motive, Intent, Mistake, Identity, or Common scheme or plan.

MIMC doesn’t prove the crime, only collateral evidence of something.

Quil... you have completely lost your marbles...!


A woman claims to have been raped... there is video footage of the alleged attacker twice chasing her and pulling her half naked back into the hotel room where the alleged attack occurred...


And another witness who called the police...


How much more do you need...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quil... you have completely lost your marbles...!

A woman claims to have been raped... there is video footage of the alleged attacker twice chasing her and pulling her half naked back into the hotel room where the alleged attack occurred...

And another witness who called the police...

How much more do you need...?

What is missing as evidence, tommy, is a video of the actual crime. That would be a video of the rape itself.

The current video gives inferential evidence that rancor existed between the pair, but not the crime of rape. Rape requires a special type of act...a "sexual" assault. We don't see a sexual assault in that video.

If the video showed an actual rape, it would corroborate the woman's story. However, all it corroborates is that they apparently had a fight. I say 'apparently' because there are a lot of potential reasons for what you see...perhaps she had just robbed him of $-millions of jewelry, or took some important documents that he was trying to get back. Anything...but no rape.

Rape is a very difficult crime to prove. Look at the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court. A most credible woman--a doctor and professor at Stanford University--came forward and testified, under oath, that Kavanaugh participated in an attempted gang rape of her. Despite that testimony, Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court!

Either rape is not considered a significant enough crime, or such stories are easily disbelieved. Either way, it teaches us that inferential evidence of hostility, on tape, is not enough to prove rape.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quil... you have completely lost your marbles...!


A woman claims to have been raped... there is video footage of the alleged attacker twice chasing her and pulling her half naked back into the hotel room where the alleged attack occurred...


And another witness who called the police...


How much more do you need...?

We both know if this was Judge Kavannagh or anyone white and conservative, Quill would be shouting guilty

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Quil... you have completely lost your marbles...!

A woman claims to have been raped... there is video footage of the alleged attacker twice chasing her and pulling her half naked back into the hotel room where the alleged attack occurred...

And another witness who called the police...

How much more do you need...?

What is missing as evidence, tommy, is a video of the actual crime.  That would be a video of the rape itself.

The current video gives inferential evidence that rancor existed between the pair, but not the crime of rape.  Rape requires a special type of act...a "sexual" assault.  We don't see a sexual assault in that video.

If the video showed an actual rape, it would corroborate the woman's story.  However, all it corroborates is that they apparently had a fight.  I say 'apparently' because there are a lot of potential reasons for what you see...perhaps she had just robbed him of $-millions of jewelry, or took some important documents that he was trying to get back.  Anything...but no rape.

Rape is a very difficult crime to prove.  Look at the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.  A most credible woman--a doctor and professor at Stanford University--came forward and testified, under oath, that Kavanaugh participated in an attempted gang rape of her.  Despite that testimony, Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court!

Either rape is not considered a significant enough crime, or such stories are easily disbelieved.  Either way, it teaches us that inferential evidence of hostility, on tape, is not enough to prove rape.

Do you seriously think that all rape cases must include video footage of the rape as well as an admission from the accused, in order for a court to return a guilty verdict...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is missing as evidence, tommy, is a video of the actual crime.  That would be a video of the rape itself.

The current video gives inferential evidence that rancor existed between the pair, but not the crime of rape.  Rape requires a special type of act...a "sexual" assault.  We don't see a sexual assault in that video.

If the video showed an actual rape, it would corroborate the woman's story.  However, all it corroborates is that they apparently had a fight.  I say 'apparently' because there are a lot of potential reasons for what you see...perhaps she had just robbed him of $-millions of jewelry, or took some important documents that he was trying to get back.  Anything...but no rape.

Rape is a very difficult crime to prove.  Look at the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.  A most credible woman--a doctor and professor at Stanford University--came forward and testified, under oath, that Kavanaugh participated in an attempted gang rape of her.  Despite that testimony, Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court!

Either rape is not considered a significant enough crime, or such stories are easily disbelieved.  Either way, it teaches us that inferential evidence of hostility, on tape, is not enough to prove rape.

Do you seriously think that all rape cases must include video footage of the rape as well as an admission from the accused, in order for a court to return a guilty verdict...!!!???

No, not at all. That is nowhere near what I said.

I'm merely explaining why a video about THIS, is not proof about THAT. A video of a man pulling a woman, is not a video of a man penetrating a woman.

And face it...there is a strong bias against believing accusers. And from your framing of the question, it sounds as if you have strong doubts about rape too. You put up a pretty high bar for believing a victim.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What is missing as evidence, tommy, is a video of the actual crime.  That would be a video of the rape itself.

The current video gives inferential evidence that rancor existed between the pair, but not the crime of rape.  Rape requires a special type of act...a "sexual" assault.  We don't see a sexual assault in that video.

If the video showed an actual rape, it would corroborate the woman's story.  However, all it corroborates is that they apparently had a fight.  I say 'apparently' because there are a lot of potential reasons for what you see...perhaps she had just robbed him of $-millions of jewelry, or took some important documents that he was trying to get back.  Anything...but no rape.

Rape is a very difficult crime to prove.  Look at the confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court.  A most credible woman--a doctor and professor at Stanford University--came forward and testified, under oath, that Kavanaugh participated in an attempted gang rape of her.  Despite that testimony, Kavanaugh now sits on the Supreme Court!

Either rape is not considered a significant enough crime, or such stories are easily disbelieved.  Either way, it teaches us that inferential evidence of hostility, on tape, is not enough to prove rape.

Do you seriously think that all rape cases must include video footage of the rape as well as an admission from the accused, in order for a court to return a guilty verdict...!!!???

No video, no crime. Professor Mitty has spoken.

Maddog wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Do you seriously think that all rape cases must include video footage of the rape as well as an admission from the accused, in order for a court to return a guilty verdict...!!!???

No video, no crime. Professor Mitty has spoken.

So, are you one of those rapists who deny, deny, lie, deny?  She was breathing heavy...so that's consent? No means yes?  She's twisting the story because I was seen with her best friend?  She wants money?  Or the Trump denial with insult: do you think I would sleep with someone that ugly?

It needs proof because you and people like you have every sort of excuse.  A picture of you and her on the street won't do.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No video, no crime. Professor Mitty has spoken.

So, are you one of those rapists who deny, deny, lie, deny?  She was breathing heavy...so that's consent? No means yes?  She's twisting the story because I was seen with her best friend?  She wants money?  Or the Trump denial with insult: do you think I would sleep with someone that ugly?

It needs proof because you and people like you have every sort of excuse.  A picture of you and her on the street won't do.

Thanks for clearing it up professor Mitty.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, are you one of those rapists who deny, deny, lie, deny?  She was breathing heavy...so that's consent? No means yes?  She's twisting the story because I was seen with her best friend?  She wants money?  Or the Trump denial with insult: do you think I would sleep with someone that ugly?

It needs proof because you and people like you have every sort of excuse.  A picture of you and her on the street won't do.

Thanks for clearing it up professor Mitty.  

Anytime, Redneck. What Jr. college did you go to?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Thanks for clearing it up professor Mitty.  

Anytime, Redneck.  What Jr. college did you go to?

TCJC in the summer. It saved a few bucks.

It's called TCC now...Tarrant County College. Which campus?