Master Index of Archived Threads


Johan, NO!

Farmer Ted Jun 23 2010 01:05 PM

Oh, TMZ, I hope you got this one wrong. TMZ has learned New York Mets star pitcher Johan Santana was accused in a police report of sexual battery that allegedly went down on a Florida golf course ... but the case went nowhere. TMZ obtained a copy of the report filed with the Lee County Sheriff's Office on October 28, 2009 -- one day after the alleged attack in Fort Myers. In the document, the accuser (referred to only as Jane Doe) claims she and Santana were walking on the golf course when he "began to kiss her and pull up her top, unclasping her bra." The report continues: "Johan began to pull at [the accuser's] skirt/skort and attempt [sic] to place his hands into her underwear." According to the document the alleged victim "told Johan no multiple times but Johan persisted." The report gets more graphic, when the accuser claims Santana penetrated her, grabbed and bruised her calf, and "ejaculated on her upper thigh." The accuser claims she "cleaned her thigh with her underwear" -- and then returned to a tennis court with Santana, and actually watched him play tennis with someone else. According to the report, a detective collected all of the accuser's clothing as evidence. A spokesperson from the Sheriff's Office tells TMZ Sheriff's detectives met several times with the prosecutor from the State's Attorney's Office to review the case. Law enforcement sources say DNA evidence did prove there was intercourse, but, according to a Sheriff's document, the prosecutor concluded, "There was not enough evidence to prove lack of consent, the alleged victim's statement is not consistent with other witnesses." The case was closed out on December 8, 2009. We contacted Santana's rep, who said, "Johan denied the charges and was never charged with anything. As far as the law enforcement side of this goes, the case is closed."

metirish Jun 23 2010 01:08 PM Re: Johan, NO!

huh?.......WTF

Benjamin Grimm Jun 23 2010 01:16 PM Re: Johan, NO!

He can't be guilty of anything, because he's a Met. Right?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 23 2010 01:18 PM Re: Johan, NO!

There goes my plan for a Johan-based Messianic faith.

Ceetar Jun 23 2010 01:33 PM Re: Johan, NO!

so this woman just hung out afterwards and watching him play tennis?

Edgy DC Jun 23 2010 01:34 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Boooo.

metirish Jun 23 2010 01:37 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Ceetar wrote: so this woman just hung out afterwards and watching him play tennis? With a cum shot on her thigh, not allowed at Wimbledon by the way.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 23 2010 01:37 PM Re: Johan, NO!

"There was not enough evidence to prove lack of consent, the alleged victim's statement is not consistent with other witnesses." Other witnesses?!?!? It's not good that Johan threw a change-up to someone other than his wife, but he's not the first to have done that. As far as the rest of the story, anyone can accuse anyone of anything. I'll believe it when there's proof.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 23 2010 01:41 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: Ceetar wrote: so this woman just hung out afterwards and watching him play tennis? With a cum shot on her thigh, not allowed at Wimbledon by the way. Well, not if your doubles partner's eaten any asparagus, it's not. Otherwise...

Fman99 Jun 23 2010 01:43 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: Ceetar wrote: so this woman just hung out afterwards and watching him play tennis? With a cum shot on her thigh, not allowed at Wimbledon by the way. Why, she's still wearing white isn't she?

Gwreck Jun 23 2010 02:06 PM Re: Johan, NO!

That's really out of line, even for here. --- I know professional athletes are often targets for these types of allegations but I don't know what to say here. If true, I'd endorse his immediate release. If false, no big deal. Incredibly frustrating to not know the truth on this one.

Ceetar Jun 23 2010 02:09 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Gwreck wrote: That's really out of line, even for here. --- I know professional athletes are often targets for these types of allegations but I don't know what to say here. If true, I'd endorse his immediate release. If false, no big deal. Incredibly frustrating to not know the truth on this one. The truth is she's a liar (witnesses disagree with the events as she told them). Why should I operate under anything but innocent until proven guilty?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 23 2010 02:13 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Gwreck wrote: That's really out of line, even for here. --- I know professional athletes are often targets for these types of allegations but I don't know what to say here. If true, I'd endorse his immediate release. If false, no big deal. Incredibly frustrating to not know the truth on this one. The allegations seem to have been pretty thoroughly examined, and found wanting.

Edgy DC Jun 23 2010 02:15 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Though an unproveable case hardly makes a liar out of the accuser. It rather leaves us with unortunate ambiguity.

Zvon Jun 23 2010 02:51 PM Re: Johan, NO!

So he jerked off on a babes leg while out golfing. Whats the big deal? I do it all the time.

Edgy DC Jun 23 2010 02:59 PM Re: Johan, NO!

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tm ... TMZ_WM.pdf

smg58 Jun 23 2010 03:02 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Ceetar wrote: so this woman just hung out afterwards and watching him play tennis? Unless she was dragging a police officer or a security guard with her to the tennis court, that makes it kind of hard to convince anybody of a lack of consent. Which does not in any way, shape, or form exonerate Johan's behavior.

Centerfield Jun 23 2010 03:26 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Thoughts: 1. Golf courses are pretty public. If she really didn't want this to happen, it seems it would have been pretty easy to call for help. 2. There were other witnesses, and the story doesn't seem to hold up. 3. She watched him play tennis. I mean, come on. 4. Pretty shitty thing for Johan to do.

TransMonk Jun 23 2010 03:29 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Edgy DC wrote: http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0623_sheriff_TMZ_WM.pdf After looking at the sheriff's name, it is obvious that this document has been doctored.

Number 6 Jun 23 2010 03:59 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Centerfield wrote: 1. Golf courses are pretty public. If she really didn't want this to happen, it seems it would have been pretty easy to call for help. Not her responsibility. A lot of things can be going through the mind of a victim of attempted rape/sexual battery, and it's easy to believe that some of them would interfere with her inclination to attract other people to the scene. Centerfield wrote: 3. She watched him play tennis. I mean, come on. Could be shock. Or fear. Not uncommon behavior for a victim, especially for a female victim of a sexual attack. Not that I'm saying that she's telling the truth, or that I know anything about this at all. I just don't really agree with your logic. if you just stuck to #2 and #4, I'd be with you.

Centerfield Jun 23 2010 04:28 PM Re: Johan, NO!

All good points. I guess it's thick-headed of me to pretend to know what goes through the mind of a sexual assault victim.

Zvon Jun 23 2010 04:44 PM Re: Johan, NO!

I can attest to the fact that golfing makes one horny.

Gwreck Jun 23 2010 05:00 PM Re: Johan, NO!

“I am aware of this situation,” Santana said Wednesday, reading from a statement before the Mets’ game against the Detroit Tigers. “What I can tell you is that the police investigated these claims last year, and I was never charged with anything, and the case is closed. Unfortunately, at this time, that’s all I can say, and I’ll have no further comments.”

Number 6 Jun 23 2010 05:52 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Centerfield wrote: All good points. I guess it's thick-headed of me to pretend to know what goes through the mind of a sexual assault victim. And I don't mean to imply that I know, either. I know a couple of people who have been through something similar, and their reactions at the time and in the aftermath were as different as they could possibly have been.

Zvon Jun 23 2010 07:55 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Gwreck wrote: “I am aware of this situation,” Santana said Wednesday, reading from a statement before the Mets’ game against the Detroit Tigers. “What I can tell you is that the police investigated these claims last year, and I was never charged with anything, and the case is closed. Unfortunately, at this time, that’s all I can say, and I’ll have no further comments.” So this is some shmoe just tryin to dig up some bad stuff about the Mets.

Ashie62 Jun 23 2010 08:19 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it.

metirish Jun 23 2010 08:44 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 23 2010 08:48 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand.

Zvon Jun 23 2010 08:58 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. I was gonna respond : just ask a woman. But that's not funny so I put that back in my pocket.

Ashie62 Jun 23 2010 09:47 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. Watch your mouth, who the hell do you think you are?

themetfairy Jun 24 2010 04:42 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Lisa Olson Defends Johan

metirish Jun 24 2010 04:45 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Ashie62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. Watch your mouth, who the hell do you think you are? I couldn't resist , a meatball right down the pipe, not even Jason bay would miss it .

Fman99 Jun 24 2010 06:05 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Gwreck wrote: “I am aware of this situation,” Santana said Wednesday, reading from a statement before the Mets’ game against the Detroit Tigers. “What I can tell you is that the police investigated these claims last year, and I was never charged with anything, and the case is closed. Unfortunately, at this time, that’s all I can say, and I’ll have no further comments.” Wow, this totally reads like "Yeah, I did it, so what?" to me. No denial in that statement. He's like Al Gore, with a better changeup.

Willets Point Jun 24 2010 07:30 AM Re: Johan, NO!

themetfairy wrote: Lisa Olson Defends Johan Is this the same Lisa Olson who was harassed by the Patriots?

dgwphotography Jun 24 2010 08:13 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Willets Point wrote: themetfairy wrote: Lisa Olson Defends Johan Is this the same Lisa Olson who was harassed by the Patriots? Yes, the same Lisa Olson.

Edgy DC Jun 24 2010 08:15 AM Re: Johan, NO!

While i folow her point that it's not cool for TMZ to have broken this story, I'm not sure I 'm clear on her standard of what's cool and what's not cool.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 24 2010 08:49 AM Re: Johan, NO!

The Mets, no strangers to players accused of sleazy sexcapades OK, beats me. I can think of Ambiorix Burgos (which was sleazy, but not a "sexcapade") and, if you want to stretch to recent scandals involving Mets of yesteryear, Art Shamsky's divorce looniness. Anything else this decade?

Edgy DC Jun 24 2010 08:55 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Well, she didn't limit it to this decade, but, well, Lo Duca. I guess Anna Benson's antics could count in some books. And Mike Piazza's explicit non-gayness, if one is of a mind.

Chad Ochoseis Jun 24 2010 09:07 AM Re: Johan, NO!

I wouldn't count Anna Benson, and the Piazza-is-gay issue always seemed like a media creation. If we all agree that LoDuca was never a Met, would that make it so? Now that I think about it, there's also John Maine in a dress. OK, Lisa, you win.

Frayed Knot Jun 24 2010 10:08 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Chad Ochoseis wrote: The Mets, no strangers to players accused of sleazy sexcapades OK, beats me. I can think of Ambiorix Burgos (which was sleazy, but not a "sexcapade") and, if you want to stretch to recent scandals involving Mets of yesteryear, Art Shamsky's divorce looniness. Anything else this decade? She's probably harking back to the Port St Lucie sleaziness of the early '90s

soupcan Jun 24 2010 10:09 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Ashie62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. Watch your mouth, who the hell do you think you are? Really...?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 24 2010 11:43 AM Re: Johan, NO!

soupcan wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. Watch your mouth, who the hell do you think you are? Really...? I was thinking the same.

metirish Jun 24 2010 11:45 AM Re: Johan, NO!

yeah , no idea how to respond to that. I was taking the piss is all.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 24 2010 11:53 AM Re: Johan, NO!

I like it better when our baseball discussions don't involve semen.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jun 24 2010 11:56 AM Re: Johan, NO!

Prude!

Zvon Jun 24 2010 12:00 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I like it better when our baseball discussions don't involve semen. Yea, that always makes for a sticky situation.

smg58 Jun 24 2010 12:56 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Chad Ochoseis wrote: The Mets, no strangers to players accused of sleazy sexcapades OK, beats me. I can think of Ambiorix Burgos (which was sleazy, but not a "sexcapade") and, if you want to stretch to recent scandals involving Mets of yesteryear, Art Shamsky's divorce looniness. Anything else this decade? I'll wager she was thinking that some of Steve Phillips' misadventures came out while he was still employed here.

soupcan Jun 24 2010 12:57 PM Re: Johan, NO!

smg58 wrote: Chad Ochoseis wrote: The Mets, no strangers to players accused of sleazy sexcapades OK, beats me. I can think of Ambiorix Burgos (which was sleazy, but not a "sexcapade") and, if you want to stretch to recent scandals involving Mets of yesteryear, Art Shamsky's divorce looniness. Anything else this decade? I'll wager she was thinking that some of Steve Phillips' misadventures came out while he was still employed here. She'd be right.

themetfairy Jun 24 2010 01:21 PM Re: Johan, NO!

But back to the accuser. I cannot imagine a victim of sexual assault going immediately from an attack to go watch her attacker play tennis. It makes no sense to me, and makes me doubt her story.

themetfairy Jun 24 2010 01:30 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: yeah , no idea how to respond to that. I was taking the piss is all. It was a good line Irish. I cracked up when I read it on the train last night.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 24 2010 01:32 PM Re: Johan, NO!

She might have been sitting there, thinking about what happened, gathering her wits, trying to recover, wondering what to do next, etc. If the accusations are true, then she might have been in a state of mild (or not-so-mild) shock, and sitting down, regardless of whether or not a tennis match was occurring, doesn't seem so unreasonable.

themetfairy Jun 24 2010 01:35 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Benjamin Grimm wrote: She might have been sitting there, thinking about what happened, gathering her wits, trying to recover, wondering what to do next, etc. If the accusations are true, then she might have been in a state of mild (or not-so-mild) shock, and sitting down, regardless of whether or not a tennis match was occurring, doesn't seem so unreasonable. I see your point BG, but it just doesn't sit right with me. It goes totally against my instincts. Even while trying to gather wits, recover, etc., I honestly can't imagine a woman who is not being held as a prisoner not putting physical distance between herself and an attacker in the case of an attack.

Zvon Jun 24 2010 01:46 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Zvon wrote: Gwreck wrote: “I am aware of this situation,” Santana said Wednesday, reading from a statement before the Mets’ game against the Detroit Tigers. “What I can tell you is that the police investigated these claims last year, and I was never charged with anything, and the case is closed. Unfortunately, at this time, that’s all I can say, and I’ll have no further comments.” So this is some shmoe just tryin to dig up some bad stuff about the Mets. I hate quoting myself (actually I love it) but to me it comes back to the timing. That this info see's the light of day now reeks of ulterior motives. Intended to upset Santana himself, or the team....or both? I dunno. You decide. I think if this woman wanted the truth out there and justice for her (feeling that she didn't get it then) , she would have done better to get up on her soapbox then. Not now. Case closed.

metirish Jun 24 2010 01:50 PM Re: Johan, NO!

It certainly makes me look at Johan a bit differently , I can't help but think that he shot a load on her thigh and she wiped it off with her knickers , it's unseemly. Seaver wouldn't have done that.

Edgy DC Jun 24 2010 02:07 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Firstly, the motive was that TMZ is trying to position themselves and did some trashdigging. Secondly, Johan may be the worst beast in the world, and guilty as sin here, but it's also possible (though I'm merely speculating) that that little DNA gift he left her was not acquired how she says it was. My dad saw some rape-accusation shakedowns, including some involving celebrities, and they included some strange stuff.

Ashie62 Jun 24 2010 06:41 PM Re: Johan, NO!

metirish wrote: metirish wrote: Why do men put themselves in these situatuions?? I don't get it. If you were a man you would understand. Watch your mouth, who the hell do you think you are? I couldn't resist , a meatball right down the pipe, not even Jason bay would miss it . Sorry Irish, Ashie's #1 clouded my thinking yesterday.

metirish Jun 24 2010 07:38 PM Re: Johan, NO!

No need for apologies , I take the piss but never with the intention of insulting or upsetting anyone.

Kong76 Jun 24 2010 07:56 PM Re: Johan, NO!

The teacher says we're dumb We're only having fun You know we pissed on everyone In the classroom

Fman99 Jun 24 2010 08:45 PM Re: Johan, NO!

Look, the important thing is that now I'm not the only person in the CPF who's talking about firing off a torpedo.