Certainly possible. Maybe he can just say he can't speak of the specifics but has never had sex with anyone without consent and settled because he was advised to do so but wishes he fought to clear his name instead. I don't know.
That's generally more relevant in cases of a man who was in a long-time position of power systematically using his power to take advantage of subordinates. In this case, Billups is being accused of a more conventional, violent rape--that seems far more likely to be a one-shot occurrence than abusing one's professional power over others. So I don't think this is odd or a sign for or against what Billups is accused of.
Reading stuff that was posted online it certainly feels more likely that he actually did it. Report says woman was indeed raped and what Billups said didn't really add up.
Sue Bird might be an interesting choice if she was looking to take the next chapter in her life in that direction.
I've read 4 different accounts from different sources all claiming to be giving info directly from the police report and all 4 of them have a different version. The names of Walker's roommates are different in some of them too. I know it's hard to convict but if a rape kit was immediately done (as far as I understand regular sex can show up as rape on those kits though) and Billups' story could be proven inaccurate then why weren't criminal charges pursued? Is it as simple as they didn't have enough to convict or it's too hard to prove? The guy didn't get a chance to defend himself in court but internet detectives have solved the case! Again, I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. I'm just not gonna pretend I know.
It's almost impossible to have unbiased data for this and you know it. For one, what is the population of "people in power"? How do we define that? How do we define "abusing power"? How can we track/measure it? Do we only consider it when it's caught?
This is an interesting point. The police had semen from her rape kit, and presumably there wasn't much time that had passed. I'm not exactly sure when DNA testing for semen was available but I think I've listened to enough true crime podcasts (lmao) to know that it was possible in the 90s. DNA evidence is conclusive so why didn't the police file charges? Usually in the case of clear and conclusive physical evidence the police will always bring charges. And keep in mind, this is in the 90s, and Billups is a young wealthy black man, in freaking Boston of all places.
In any case i think it would be good if all this have been avoided. There is a chance (slight or not) he did it. Just avoid that, go for someone else. Btw he settled so he avoided the chance to defend himself. I understand that a popular person might prefer that instead of trying to prove himself during trial, but it cannot be held as good for him. He rejected the chance to defend himself officially by settling.
There could be reasons for that. There were other parties there. He could have been an accessory but did not actually engage in the act of raping her, and the girl accepted the civil suit because she knew there was no physical evidence that tied Billups to it. Of course, being an accessory is also quite scummy, but it's quite a bit different than "rapist". I guess the answer is "we don't know". No one knows except Billups and the parties involved, but I don't think you should presume guilt just because you only have certain information about what happened.
Pay a small fine(for him)… or risk (even 1% chance) of going to prison for a decade plus. What would you do? Say you got a speeding ticket and were told, “pay us $100” or you can “fight to defend yourself in court but if you’re convicted you go to prison for 1 year.” What would you do? I know it’s an apples to oranges comparison in severity of crime, but the underlying point is… would you really risk going to prison for a year when you could just pay $100 and be done with it?
There are multiple, logical reasons why an innocent person would plea guilty or settle in a case. The system, both criminal and civil are setup to encourage plea deals. The system is NOT setup to get to the bottom of issues.
Another reason (and probably the real reason) he may have chosen to settle out of court is because it's extremely messy to have a criminal trial, especially as a rich public figure. Your name will get dragged through the mud and whether you are actually found guilty or innocent almost doesn't matter in the court of public opinion. Not only do you attract more eyes on the situation but once you go through that process the only thing people will remember is that you had a long and public battle with the legal system and the people that think you're guilty are not going to change their mind even if you are found innocent. It's a lose/lose situation.
For the record — I wanted MDA. Aside from being unproven, Billups’ past would surely be put under the microscope in Portland, making it an uncomfortable situation for all parties involved. This is 100% on Neil.
My experience as a human being has taught me that the weak (poor) and women are mostly at disadvantage when it comes to this type of things. I get what you say, but since we don't really know just avoid the conversation entirely by going for someone else. It's not that he is Popovich or Spoelstra that we HAD to go for him. He is a rookie.
