Details on removed football player Logan Tuley-Tillman available

Submitted by StephenRKass on October 20th, 2015 at 4:39 PM

Details are out there on the incident leading to Logan Tuley-Tillman's dismissal from the Michigan Football team. Because the article and details are found only at the Freep, and are somewhat sordid, I'm not providing a link. Suffice to say, there was significant alcohol consumption and impaired judgement by both parties involved. The article is largely factual, and not editorial in comments. Poor decisions were made, with sad consequences for all, and Tuley-Tillman being removed from the team. I hope he turns his life around and learns from this incident. I also hope this is somewhat of a teaching tool for all those currently on the team.

EDIT:  Masses have spoken. Here is the article. Someone in the thread below has pasted the whole thing in.

LINK:  Ex-Wolverine Logan Tuley-Tillman was too drunk to recall filming sex act

EDIT 2:  Apparently much of this information was posted already. In a thread which I missed somehow. I searched for it, but because the thread was deleted, I didn't find it.



October 20th, 2015 at 4:54 PM ^

They aren't different for people who have higher points or have been here longer.. 

Fact is, if somebody "new" with a point total of 176, posted this, he would be negged to ......what do you call it ? Bolivia?

But Thanks Michigan Arrogance for stating that "you will allow it"

Livin' up to that name are we?


October 20th, 2015 at 4:44 PM ^

Just copy paste the article already. We're all adults here and certainly anything found in a newspaper isn't going to be too "sordid" for us.


Former Michigan football player Logan Tuley-Tillman told Ann Arbor police detectives that he was too drunk to remember whether he filmed a sexual encounter with a woman that led to three felony charges against him.

Tuley-Tillman, a 6-foot-7, 310-pound offensive lineman who was dismissed from the football program Sept. 10, one day after meeting with police detectives, faces felony charges — two counts of capturing/distributing an image of an unclothed person and one count of using computers to commit a crime — stemming from a Sept. 5 incident.

According to a police report obtained by the Detroit Free Press through a public-records request, Tuley-Tillman, 20, said he was intoxicated and high at the time of the incident.

The incident occurred off campus, at 1:05 a.m., less than 24 hours after Michigan returned from its Sept. 3 season-opening loss at Utah, in which Tuley-Tillman played a few first-half snaps as a redshirt sophomore. He came to U-M as a four-star recruit from Peoria, Ill.

The woman, a 19-year-old Michigan student, went to the U-M Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center in the Michigan Union on Sept. 7 to file a complaint because of two short videos she discovered. Ann Arbor police were dispatched to talk with her. If the incident had occurred on campus, U-M police would have had jurisdiction.

The police report redacted the woman’s name. The Free Press usually does not identify victims in sex-related incidents.

The woman provided this account to Ann Arbor police:

■ She said she was intoxicated after drinking with friends at her Ann Arbor apartment. She said she started drinking at 3 p.m. The woman, who’s 4-feet-11 and 130 pounds, said she had three shots of Crown Royal whiskey, two shots of Jack Daniel’s whiskey and one mixed drink of Crown Royal and juice before Tuley-Tillman arrived at 11:35 p.m. They had texted each other around 3:40 p.m. and agreed to meet later at her place. She said that when he arrived, she could tell that he also was drunk. The woman described her relationship with Tuley-Tillman as “more than an acquaintance” but more to the level of a friend with verbal flirting. She said they never had intercourse before that night.

■ She said that they had sex that night but she would not have done so if she were sober. When asked directly by police whether she felt she was raped, she indicated that the sex act was consensual. They spent the night together, and she said she became aware of their sexual encounter in the morning, when she no longer was intoxicated. She said she remembered only parts of the encounter.

■ When she began going through her phone at a later time, she discovered two videos had been texted from her phone to Tuley-Tillman’s phone. Her phone did not have the videos on it any longer, but the phone automatically synced to her laptop, and she found the videos there. The police report stated “she hadn’t consented to Logan filming her.” The report described the videos this way: “There was a three-second video that had nothing but muffled sounds. The second video was 15 seconds, and it clearly showed the suspect having sex with her.”

■ When they spoke later, the woman said, Tuley-Tillman told her that he had been intoxicated, having consumed a “large amount of Hennessy,” and was pretty “high.”

On Sept. 9, detectives Dan Iverson and Amy Ellinger went to Schembechler Hall, where U-M associate athletic director for football Jim Minick was asked to direct the officers to Tuley-Tillman. Minick told the detectives he wanted to contact the football staff, locate Tuley-Tillman and recommend that Tuley-Tillman contact an attorney before he would get back to them.

That night, according to the police report, Minick contacted Ellinger and said Tuley-Tillman could meet with the detectives in Minick’s office. They told him they were “investigating an incident involving a girl which he had consensual sexual contact with on Friday into Saturday, and that during the process, we had learned he had briefly video-recorded their sexual encounter.”

In the conversation, Tuley-Tillman said he was intoxicated — drinking a large bottle of cognac by himself — and didn’t remember filming anything. When detectives pointed out the watch of the person who did the filming was visible in the video, Tuley-Tillman confirmed that he was wearing that watch that night and admitted to having sex with the woman.

“He then apologized to us and said he felt like a ‘complete idiot’ for taking the video of her,” the report stated.

After the detectives told him it was a crime to “video record an unclothed person without their consent” they asked whether he had gotten her permission. Tuley-Tillman said he did not remember. He told the detectives he “would never have distributed it (to) any other members of the football team.” When asked whether he had sent it to anyone outside of the football team, he said he didn’t remember.

When they searched his phone, the videos were not there.

They asked to search the phone forensically, and he allowed them to take his phone.

After handing it over, according to the report, he said “he believed he had a significant drinking problem and wished to address it immediately.”

The next day, the woman gave her phone and laptop to police. That same day, U-M coach Jim Harbaugh issued a statement that “Tuley-Tillman has been dismissed from the football team for conduct unacceptable for a Michigan student-athlete.”

The forensic analysis found the videos on the laptop but not Tuley-Tillman’s phone. It geo-coordinated the videos to the location of the Sept. 5 incident.

The detectives submitted three felony complaints against Tuley-Tillman, authorized by Assistant Washtenaw County Prosecutor Dianna Collins to Judge Ann Mattson, on Oct. 6. Tuley-Tillman was arraigned Oct. 7, according to online records for 15th District Court in Ann Arbor.

Tuley-Tillman has a probable-cause conference scheduled for Nov. 5 and preliminary exam Nov. 12.


U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald would not comment on whether the university is conducting its own Title IX investigation into the incident.


October 20th, 2015 at 4:58 PM ^

  1. I searched for "Logan Tuley-Tillman." Nothing came up. Apparently, you can't search for deleted threads.
  2. Adding here because it has to do with a Michigan football player. And this is largely a blog about Michigan football.
  3. As to relevance, you may be right (that this isn't "thread-worthy." But then, if this not thread worthy, I guess we shouldn't have any threads about sleaze happening at Louisville and Michigan State and Old Miss, etc. If we're going to cover what happens elsewhere, shouldn't it be covered when it happens here? You can't "tut, tut" about Ohio State or Michigan State or Louisville or Miami if you don't talk about what happens at Michigan.


October 20th, 2015 at 5:06 PM ^

Maybe I need to "find another blog" but I feel bad for the kid. This is hardly the malicious crime it was made out to be. The "victim" can't even recall the entire encounter, but somehow is sure she didn't consent to being filmed. I dunno, the penalty doesn't seem to fit the crime here, IMO.

EDIT: Just to elaborate, let's take the genders out of it and see how fucked up this whole thing is. Person A and person B both make bad decisions and become extremely intoxicated, have sex, and are unable to remember the entire encounter. In the morning, it is discovered a tape of the encounter, depicting both person A and person B, was made on person A's phone and sent to person B's (it is not clear who actually sent the video). 

Person A is entitled to go to the police, offered the opportunity to allege rape (which they do not in this case), allege that person B made the video, that person B sent the video to himself, both without person A's consent, even though person A fully admits to not being able to the entire encounter. Person B is summarily dismissed and loses his academic scholarship without a trial.



October 20th, 2015 at 5:35 PM ^

Very good advice. It sounds, at least from the story, like they told him he did something without informing him it was a felony. He probably wasn't even sure he actually did it but admitted to it without realizing the trouble he was putting himself in.

There's an absolutely great video by a law professor on never ever talking to the cops that everyone should watch. He even features a cop that backs him up on that point.


October 20th, 2015 at 6:32 PM ^

I agree with you.  Given that it was on her phone, I'd imagine there was at least some sort of consent.  I don't generally side with the dude in these types of scenarios, but wouldn't it have made more sense to use his phone if it was not consentual.  I mean, I imagine her phone is password locked, which makes it difficult to send to his phone from her phone without her password or at least her logging on and then him sneakily sending it.  Obviously was not there, but it seems like there was at least a drunken agreement to film it, seeing that her phone sent it to his phone.  

I do find it ironic that Minnick is not in the business of giving second chances, fresh off getting his second chance.  Especially given that Minnick did get convicted of drunk driving.  I know that LTT was charged with a felony, but after reading the report felony seems like a bit of an over reach by the prosecutor.  




October 21st, 2015 at 9:37 AM ^

think so.  He made no admissions, basically said he was too drunk to remember and says basically "if she said I did I guess I did."  She cannot recall the entire incident, and as such cannot even testify that she did not give consent.  The videos are not on his phone, they were found on her phone and on her laptop, suggesting that if anything, she may have participated in the filming, and he made no attempt to distribute any of the images.  I think these charges get dismissed, or he pleads to "Gross Indecency" or something vague, does a small amount of county time (or none at all) and does not go on the sex offender list.  This looks like a flimsy case that will plead out. 


October 21st, 2015 at 9:57 AM ^

sex cases have a way of being extreme in punishment and difficult to resolve because of that.  you are right that 'gross indecency' is not registerable offense (absent some conditions which aren't going to be present here), but even that conviction in this day and age will be an anchor around his neck for life. 


October 21st, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^

it will no doubt.  One has to hope that there was adequate prosecutorial discretion exercised and that the allegations were fully vetted before he was charged.  It would be a miscarriage of justice to bring these charges against somebody without being adequately substantiated becasue you are right, the charges themselves will change his life significantly regardles of the conviction. 


October 21st, 2015 at 12:10 PM ^

but that type of charging (poorly vetted) is a common occurence.   and while the topic of sexual assault is rightly scrutinized and pursued, it can nevertheless have some very bad side effects like catastrophic consequences to the charged defendant even when acquitted. 


October 20th, 2015 at 5:13 PM ^

Well if you took the time to read the article that you yourself posted in this thread, it states that the individual doing the taping was wearing a watch that was identified as that of LTT's. LTT also admitted to doing the videotaping, per the article that you posted.


October 20th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

He didn't admit to it (edit, doing it without her consent). He said he felt like a dumbass when they told him that he did. What he actually said was that he couldn't remember. 

Fair point about the watch, I missed that. Still, there isn't any proof that the video wasn't made consensually or that it was even his idea. I'm not saying it wasn't, but doesn't the possibility exist? Why is automatically the one facing charges here and losing his scholarship and getting kicked out of school? Don't you think that's a lot to put on a kid based on one person's account of an evening they themself admit they can't fully remember?


October 20th, 2015 at 6:15 PM ^

I agree with your point at large, that the punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime. What I was disagreeing with was your misinterpretation of the aforementioned facts.

I think you have a valid point. I think that point starts to lose credibility when you begin mishaping the facts to support your argument (I don't think you did this intentionally, but it does suggest that you predetermined your stance on the issue prior to reading what was said), or when you try to make it about gender.


October 20th, 2015 at 8:47 PM ^

He admitted filming.


She was drunk and therefore legally cannot give consent.


If you film someone who is drunk having sex - it doesn't matter if you are drunk, and it doesn't matter if they said "go ahead and make a sex video"... legally, you've filmed without consent.


October 20th, 2015 at 9:04 PM ^

If she can't give consent he would be facing rape charges too (as would she, technically). The whole concept is completely insane, anyway. A person completely absolves themselves of responsibility for their actions the second they touch a beer, and now it's up to those who interact with them to know what their sober intentions are, under penalty of ruined reputation and jail time? C'mon. The defacto double standard in how is applied between men and women is just the icing on the cake.


October 21st, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^

not the law - that a drunk person cannot give consent.  If it were the law, then LTT could not have formed the requisite intent to film the encounter as he was also intoxicated, nor could any drunk driver be prosecuted because they could not have "decided" to drive because they were too intoxicated to actually make a decision. 

People that are saying that are incorrect about the law.  A person could become so intoxicated that they literally cannot "act" to do or not do something(the last scene in "Kids"), that is rape, but it does not extend to all levels of intoxication.


October 21st, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

The law regarding sexual consent in Michigan is different. For "drunk consent" to be no good it requires that the other party be involved in the drgging that leads to incapcity. This is not true in all states.


Consent to film on the other hand - I suspect will fall under much more general laws. For example - you can consent to sex in Michigan at 16, but until you're 18 your parents have to sign off on a consent to filming.


October 20th, 2015 at 5:44 PM ^

1) as posters above said, you are right. He is the one physically filming, I missed that. We still don't know if it was consensual or if it was even his idea.


2) why not? because she's a girl? People sext each other all the time.


3) again, why not? She could have deleted it for all sorts of reasons.


In any case, none of this is enough to justify the consequences he's faced. If the genger roles were reversed, I have a hard time seeing you making the same assumptions.