Test links Winston's (Heisman trophy winner) DNA to accuser

[BainsBane]

Thanks to NYC_Skp for finding this article.

Not quite he said she said. There was also a medical report showing bruises and wounds on the victims body. And another article posted on DU earlier this week said that a team mate of Winston's deleted a video of the alleged assault.


November, 20, 2013
NOV 20
11:50
PM ET
By Mark Schlabach | ESPN.com
RECOMMEND600TWEET257COMMENTS51EMAILPRINT

TALLAHASSEE -- A DNA analysis completed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on Tuesday confirmed that DNA provided by Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston matched the sample taken from the underwear of a woman who has accused him of sexual battery.

According to the DNA analysis report, a copy of which was viewed by ESPN.com on Wednesday, the Florida state crime lab determined that the chances of the DNA in the woman's underwear are a match for someone other than Winston was one in 2.2 trillion.

Police obtained a sexual assault kit on Dec. 7, 2012, when the accuser reported the alleged incident had occurred at an off-campus apartment. Winston's DNA was recently obtained through a buccal swab he provided to authorities investigating the case.

The DNA match alone does not prove that Winston, a leading Heisman Trophy candidate, sexually assaulted the woman, as the accuser's family claimed in a statement released by a Tampa-based attorney on Wednesday. But it does indicate that Winston, who has yet to talk to Tallahassee police or the state attorney investigating the case, had his DNA associated with the accuser on Dec. 7, 2012, when the accuser claimed she was sexually assaulted at an off-campus apartment.

http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/63665/test-winstons-dna-matches-accuser

[NYC_SKP]

1. Star athletes: A Protected Class.

Along with war criminals and rich bankers.

K/R

[BainsBane]

2. and guys with snazzy websites

that publish gov docs.

[Enrique]

73. and Directors of National Intelligence n/t

[Blanket Statements]

3. I don't think there was a dispute that they had sex

It's over consent

[BainsBane]

4. It's clear authorities threw the case

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/state-attorneys-report-video-of-jameis-winston-encounter-deleted/2155871

[Blanket Statements]

5. Of course, because he couldn't possibly be innocent

He was accused, therefore he must have done it

[BainsBane]

6. Read the fucking article

would it kill you?

[Blanket Statements]

7. I read it, along with many others

He may have done it, he may not have.
Either way, he wasn't charged with a crime of any kind

[BainsBane]

9. Like 97% of rape cases

the rapist gets away. The police didn't even try to retrieve the video from Potbelly's for more than 30 days. They failed to interview suspects. They collected urine rather than blood samples. They obviously didn't want the guy to face charges. God forbid rape actually be illegal and someone be expected to seek consent before penetrating a woman.

The guy is a rapist and will reoffend, while his fans cheer him on as he does it. That is what rape culture is. That is why rape in endemic and rapists operate with impunity and why 20% of women in this country are raped. It is then systemic violation of the human rights of rape victims, 90% of whom are women.

[Blanket Statements]

10. This isn't about other cases. There were witnesses interviewed

That contradicted the accuser's account.

All we actually know is that they had sex
And calling him a rapist doesn't actually make him a rapist, especially when he wasn't even charged with a crime.

[xulamaude]

11. All we really know is that he "had sex". nt

[Blanket Statements]

12. True.

Witnesses claim she did too

[xulamaude]

13. Do you think most women 'consent' to

witnesses when they agree to truly consensual sex?

[Blanket Statements]

15. The witnesses were in the other room until

Read this account from a Tallahassee Police Department report of their Nov. 14th interview with Casher: "Casher stated he went into the room to see if the female would engage in sexual activity with him as well (as has happened with other females he and Winston have brought back to their apartment); however, the female saw him and told him to get out. A little while later, Casher stated he tried to video tape Winston and the female; however, when the female saw him she again told him to leave."

[xulamaude]

18. That's not what I asked though. nt

[Blanket Statements]

22. There are women who do and women who don't

Not all women are the same

[xulamaude]

29. And you know this from personal experience? nt

[Blanket Statements]

32. Yep

[xulamaude]

33. Well, I find that kind of creepy. nt

[Blanket Statements]

34. Then don't go to Hedonism

[BainsBane]

38. How can you tell if a woman consents?

What signs do you look for? What about if she's really drunk?

[Blanket Statements]

43. The first sign is she doesn't say No. And the drunk ones are tricky, I usually stay away

If they're sloppy drunk

[xulamaude]

49. "Usually stay away if they're sloppy drunk"

Just usually, huh?

What a gem.

[Blanket Statements]

51. Yeah, usually...exceptions would be girlfriends or regular hookups

[xulamaude]

52. So sloppy drunk isn't a turn off for you?

[Blanket Statements]

53. Depends on the relationship with the female

[bluestate10]

111. Always stay away if a potential sex partner is impaired, even in the slightest way. nt

[BainsBane]

42. Answer the question

HOW can you tell if a woman consents. You said you had been in the same position Winston had, did you not? Or in the position of the cashier. So if you enter a restroom with a woman being penetrated by men, how do you know if she has consented or is consenting?

[Blanket Statements]

45. Wow! You have quite the imagination.

If I were to walk in, I would assume consent if there wasn't a call for help

[BainsBane]

48. That is illegal

The absence of a call for help is not consent. Consent has to be offered.
You've invalidated your entire argument because you clearly don't know what consent is.

[Blanket Statements]

50. Ahhhh...so I should assume every woman is being raped until they tell me they consented?

Can I shoot the guy and then find out what happened?

I walk in on people having sex I don't stick around to watch unless they ask

[BainsBane]

54. You should assume you have no right to have sex with a woman

unless she enthusiastically consents, yes. Penetration, whether vaginal, oral or anal, without consent is rape. Jesus. It's not that complicated.

[Blanket Statements]

55. I never assume the right to have sex with anyone. You can't even keep your posts straight

You go from asking me about other people having sex to accusing me of not knowing when a woman wants to have sex

[BainsBane]

58. I asked about how YOU know if a woman gives consent.

You are the one who disclosed knowing about women in situations similar to this story.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4179451

And answered my previous question using the first person singular: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4179496

[Blanket Statements]

71. It's disgusting how you keep trying to twist my words to fit

Your agenda

[BainsBane]

75. They seem pretty straight forward to me

Yet you feel a need to back away from them. I didn't twist. I linked so anyone can see exactly what you wrote.

[Shandris]

135. Yeah...as a neutral, uninterested observer...

...you seem to be (and I'll assume it's accidental, because I have -no- reason to think otherwise) getting some of the verbiage in his responses wrong, or perhaps you're not asking what you think you're asking. His answers seem perfectly legitimate at this point. He responded to you asking how he would determine consent in the case of him walking into a restroom and seeing a couple having sex, then you turned and claimed he didn't understand consent because of your belief that he was answering for himself having sex with someone else. You're getting posts twisted up.

Edit: For clarity, I am not supporting anything else that BlanketStatements may have said earlier in the thread regarding the case itself; my comment is -only- about the last 10 or so posts going back and forth, and nothing more.

[BainsBane]

16. His teamamtes

One of whom destroyed video of the assault. Because teammates never lie while a friend rapes a woman in a public restroom.

This is exactly the same as any other rape case. The guy gets off, he rapes again, women's lives are destroyed.

DNA, evidence of bruising and wounds, destroyed evidence, a deliberately bungled investigation and the typical cover up. Consent isn't optional. She says she didn't consent, she didn't consent. You don't get to determine whether a woman consents, nor does this Heisman asshole or his friends. She alone does, get it? So what if some friends of his claimed otherwise?

If just one time people wouldn't fall over themselves to defend an accused rapist around here. Men are always innocent and women always liars, even though the FBI stats show false allegations only account for 4% of charges made. You can pretend this is about one man, but I reject that. Substitute the name and day and it's the exact same story. I've seen the same excuses for several other rapists this week. That is rape culture, and this botched investigation is a prefect example of it. Rape is in effect legal because too many consider consent a minor issue.

[Blanket Statements]

21. You weren't there, you weren't involved in the investigation

And you know nothing about what actually happened...yet you're going to call the guy a rapist after he was cleared in 2 investigations.

You can't even entertain the possibility that he didn't rape her....

[Blanket Statements]

24. Actually you weren't. You experience and any other woman's experience is irrelevant

To the facts of the case.
The accuser had some problems with her story, witness statements contradict her...meaning there wasn't enough ACTUAL evidence that a crime had been committed

[BainsBane]

28. "woman's experience is irrelevant"

That is the point. And that is what the prosecutors, police, and Winston's defenders believe, and it is what defenders of rapists always believe. The woman's experience is irrelevant. Her word is irrelevant. She is a lesser person, unequal before the law.

[Blanket Statements]

31. Good lord...you really have some issues

The only woman who's experience is relevant is the accuser. Not you, not some lady who was raped in 1979, not some woman who was almost raped in Indiana the same weekend.

There wasn't enough evidence for charges to be brought.

[ismnotwasm]

35. No she's not the one with issues.

Clearly.

[Blanket Statements]

37. Oh so you think Winston is guilty because of the facts in other rape cases

Just like Bain's Bane does?

Gosh, why didn't you come forward to be witnesses in the investigation?

[xulamaude]

46. Here's some more rope, if you want it. nt

[BainsBane]

56. One thing that always strikes me in these situations

Let's pretend for a minute we're talking about sex instead of rape. The goal of guys like Winston seems to be to find an opening to penetrate. That makes me think these guys must be really lousy in bed because if a woman actually WANTS to have sex with a man, it's far more satisfying for the man in question. There is a lot more involved than basic intercourse. Of course, that assumes the guy isn't a rapist more motivated by violence and inducing fear rather than pleasurable sexual interaction.

[Marr]

115. That was an embarrassingly deceitful thing you just did.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate others "quoting" you in a similar fashion.

[Fawke Em]

25. And neither were you.

Thankfully, the HeisTman is a joke now.

He'll fail.

[Blanket Statements]

27. I'm not the one accusing him of being a rapist

Or the police of a conspiracy.

I said he wasn't charged because there wasn't enough evidence that a crime took place

[Fawke Em]

30. Why error on the side of stupid?

Lynch had a better record.

And, my team beat FSU in the last NC, so kiss my keychain. I can't tell you to kiss my ass. I might get accused of allowing you to do things you shouldn't. Not that YOU would, but, you know...

[xulamaude]

36. You guys are precious - just adorable.

Somebody take a picture!

[BainsBane]

39. You're the one accusing the victim of being a liar

and filing false charges, which is a felony.

[Blanket Statements]

40. No where did I say she lied. I said, according to the police

She had credibility issues.

Unlike you, I'm not pretending to know what actually happened that night.

What I do know is there isn't evidence of a crime

[BainsBane]

44. If he's innocent, she lied

You don't think she knows if she consented?

[Blanket Statements]

47. Are accusers infallible? Duke lacrosse case ring a bell?

The police said there wasn't evidence to support charges.
Obviously there is some question as to her not consenting

[BainsBane]

59. Make up your mind

Is she a liar or not? Either she committed a felony by falsely accusing him or he raped her.

Oh, but one jock was falsely accused once, so that let's off every rapist in perpetuity.

[Blanket Statements]

60. There's contradictory evidence...she was drunk

She may not know what she did or didn't consent to.

And you're convicting another black athlete when he hasn't even been charged with a crime

[BainsBane]

63. A drunk woman can't consent

If someone is that drunk, any sex with her is rape. Jesus Christ. I'm not convicting anyone. I'm not a court. I'm a person who knows the difference between consensual sex and rape, which for some reason continues to confound you. She's not screaming it's consent. She doesn't know if she consented because she was drunk. Holy Shit.

[Blanket Statements]

70. The only thing that confounds me is your inability to allow

for the possibility it wasn't rape.

[tblue37]

99. Uh-oh! If she was THAT drunk--i.e., so drunk that

she doesn't know what she consented to--then she was not in a condition in which she could legally consent to sex, so that would make it rape if she says she *didn't* consent once she has sobered up enough to realize that someone had sex with her while she was drunk.

Men need to learn NOT to see a totally drunk woman as an "opportunity," a chance to "get some" with someone who might not want to have sex if she were not thus incapacitated. When drunk, people sometimes do things that they are not at all willing to do when in full conscious control of themselves, which is why the "liquor is quicker" types use alcohol as a way of getting women into a condition in which they are not in control.

Sometimes a man will manipulate a woman into drinking more than she realizes, or more quicklly than she realizes, so that she becomes drunk before she realizes that is happening. Before date rape drugs were so easy to come by, that was a common trick. For example, in past years, young women who were at their first parties in college were often completely or almost completely inexperienced with alcohol, so they didn't have a clue how much they could handle. Or they could be given booze disguised by another taste, so they didn't realize how *much* they were drinking. Thus they became completely unable to make conscious, free choices when a guy started pressuring for sex or started pushing further than the girl was willing to go during a make out session that she had willingly entered into, but that she had never intended to end up leading to intercourse.

I knew a freshman girl in the early 1970s who was given screwdrivers with extra vodka when she attended her first frat party. She was not experienced with alcohol, and the orange juice flavor prevented her from realizing how much alcohol she was drinking, while her lack of built-up tolerance caused her to get drunk fast. She was easily pushed into having sex with a guy she didn't even know. Afterward, she became so depressed she couldn't function in school and ended up failing most of her clases and getting a D in the only one she didn't get an F in.

I don't know whether she had been a virgin before that night, but it is quite likely that she was, since virgins were much more common in 1972. If she was, then having been used that way by a stranger would have been doubly devastating. I also don't know whether she was the type whose religion would have made her feel especially guilty or dirty for it, though that is also something that was fairly common among college women at the time.

But my point is that if in fact she was *that* drunk, then the woman in this case was not capable of legally consenting to sex, so if this football player went ahead and had sex with her anyway, then he raped her.

[EvilAL]

66. Filing false charges should be a felony.

And if it comes out that she did file false charges she should be prosecuted. If it comes out that she was raped, then he should be prosecuted. It's really not that difficult. Too many men get thrown under the bus due to false accusations, it has happened to my friend. Woman cried rape, messed his life up and we was not guilty, he wasn't even there at the time. It was still enough to get him fired and lose a lot of friends because no matter what evidence there is, some people are just going to believe he raped her because they saw it in the paper...

[BainsBane]

79. Too many?

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

How many? Do you know the numbers, because I do. The percentage of false accusations are far less than the percentage of men who do jail time. 97% of rapists never do a day of jail. Is that too many for you?

No one can read these account and believe she lied. There is DNA evidence, bruising and injuries all over her body. The football players destroyed evidence and the cops refused to investigate or even retrieve the video tape from the establishment all so another rapist could be free to keep raping. So spare me your pity about "too many men" facing false allegations. It's complete and utter bullshit. Fabrication.

Fact 60% of rapes are never reported. Of those reported, 4% are false allegations. That makes the percentage of false allegations very small, far smaller than the rapists who are free to rape over and over again.

The rapists life isn't messed up. His crime was covered up. He has a heisman trophy and will have a pro contract, while her life is destroyed. So excuse me if my heart doesn't bleed for yet another sex predator out destroying countless lives.

I understand the victims are mere women who have absolutely no rights or value compared to an important man. That is why he is off and that is why he will keep raping. There is hardly any danger of rapists being impaired from doing what they do best. So you hardly need to worry. 720 more women will be raped today and every other day in this country. Cases like this make clearly exactly why that occurs. So you cry your eyes out for his multi million dollar pro contract and curse the women left in the dust because of guys like him.

[Blanket Statements]

81. DNA only proves they had sex. The 2 witnesses

Including the player who attempted to video tape the sex says it was consentual.

[BainsBane]

84. How would they know?

Maybe they think that consent is implied if she's not screaming? Or if she was too drunk to scream? After reading what you've had to say on the subject, it's pretty clear to me you don't understand the law well enough to even comment on what rape is.

[Blanket Statements]

88. Yeaaaahhhh...the police disagree with you

So clearly you're not the expert you pretend to be

[historylovr]

125. Well, bless your heart.

So in your experience and world view, women who engage in consensual sex routinely visit the hospital afterwards. Got it.

[EvilAL]

96. One is too many as far as I am concerned.

It has happened and continues to happen, that's all that matters. My friend doesn't care about the percentages. It doesn't take away from the amount of women that are raped, nor does it imply that women lie about being raped all the time. It happens though, and I am in agreement with the fact that it is a felony to do so. If one guy's life is ruined due to a false accusation, the woman that lied should be put in jail. That is if the lie is proven, not just if the guy is found not guilty, it's not automatically a lie either. In that case the woman shouldn't be charged.

[historylovr]

126. One rape is too many.

Yet it happens far more than men are falsely accused of rape.

[BainsBane]

80. False charges are a felony, by the way

but the fact is they are very rare. Whereas rape is very common.

[EvilAL]

98. That's why I mentioned it

in your earlier post you said it was a felony, and I was agreeing that it should be a felony to do such a thing to another person.

[BainsBane]

83. And do tell us how she faked all the cuts and bruises all over her body?

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

and the DNA test? Even the guy defending the guy claims she the woman was too drunk to know if she had consented, which means RAPE. If someone takes a drunk woman in a restroom and repeatedly penetrates her, it's rape because she's too drunk to consent. I know someone here thinks the absence of screaming means a woman consents, but that is not the law. Consent must be freely given. The football player got off because he's important, makes money for the university and is male, whereas the woman was ignored, her case left uninvestigated and she was shamed because she was a lowly woman, unequal before the law and deprived of basic human rights.

So fuck him and ever last rapist on the planet. May they rot in the hell they so richly deserve.

I'm not a court of law and I can say any thing I want to. I know enough about this case to know what he did and that he will do it again.

Since we're talking about innocence, I'm sure I'll be hearing you defend George W Bush and Dick Cheney against allegations they are war criminals since they have not been convicted in a court of law. Or does this special presumption of innocence that encumbers my right to speech only an issue for the rape of mere women?

If there could once be a case of rape without people going on endlessly about how all these rapists are innocent, it would be a miracle. If just once some of you would start to consider the human rights of the victims without constantly fretting about a rapist, it would be amazing.

It is also notable that this hue and cry about innocence ONLY comes up in rape cases. Most people believe Zimmerman is guilty and would imprison Bush and Cheney in a heartbeat. But when it comes to crimes against women, suddenly the victims mean nothing and the hand wringing is all about some football player whose live is just ruined by winning a Heisman trophy and becoming a wealthy pro football player.

Generations of football players in Steubenville weren't charged either, and their defenders said exactly what is being argued here.

[Blanket Statements]

86. DNA doesn't prove anything but sexual contact

First she said she was drugged, then she claims she was beaten....there's no evidence winston caused any bruises.

[EvilAL]

97. I'm not saying she's lying,

I wasn't there. I don't think the woman should be charged with anything in this case. If the evidence isn't there there's fuck all the courts can do.

[EvilAL]

100. I don't defend rapists here or anywhere.

Rape is a horrible life-changing crime for the victims, and being falsely accused of rape can stay with someone for the rest of their lives.

If I bring up an alternate topic based on your own post I am pretty sure it doesn't qualify as being a defender of rape. The GWB/Cheney comment kinda leans towards an accusation towards me that I think is uncalled for.

[historylovr]

127. Amen.

Women who say they've been raped are deemed liars until proven otherwise. Because you know, guys know not to rape.

[Sancho]

103. I don't know if it was rape or not, but I can understand the confusing evidence is a problem.

There was DNA from TWO males (the second was a boyfriend). She and her girlfriend reported she "passed out" and maybe was drugged. The test from several hours later showed some alcohol. Her attorney reported this also.

In other words, she could have be bruised or raped by a boyfriend, she might have been drugged, and she may have been drunk and simply consented....the test for GHB, etc. came back negative but the girl's attorney is challenging the blood tests. Maybe they have a sample and can redo, but who knows? Since she admits passing out, it's hard to depend on her testimony.

In order to have a charge, the investigators need evidence. It's true that the investigation was lousy .... what's new in Florida??? Look at Trevon Martin and many other cases where the cops did a bad job. There's no defense for the cops, but once it gets to the DA needing to make a charge there has to be a case.

At this point from the stories and even from the girl's attorney; there is not good evidence. Of course the teammates were biased witnesses.

[LisaL]

121. One of the friends videotaped some of the incident, then deleted the video and discarded the

cell phone. So unfortunately what would have been the best evidence of what took place is gone.

[Sancho]

131. the video was interesting...

if the friend wanted to cover up the incident, why mention the video at all? One version is that the girl didn't want to be on video so he stopped...at any rate, throwing away the phone was a problem. Maybe someone (a lawyer) told him to delete the video and toss the phone...so that he could not be charged as an accomplice.

[Logical]

118. Hmmm.....153 posts. n-t

[Vashta Nerada]

8. It gets really old...

seeing guys who are good at playing sports getting away with everything under the sun.

[Fawke Em]

14. Don't worry about it. The HeisTman is a joke, now.

O.J.

Giving it to that Woodsen dude... I guess I spelled his name correctly... over Peyton Manning.

Reggie Bush.

Tim Tebow.

Hey... don't fret it. Most people think it's a joke, now.

[Blanket Statements]

17. Why didn't OJ deserve the Heisman?

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

20. OJ should have won that damn thing twice.

Freaking crime Gary Beban won it in '67.

[Fawke Em]

26. I didn't say he didn't.

I just said he sullied it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

107. I've re-read your post five times now... can't find the word "sullied". Point it out for me? n/t

[BainsBane]

19. What on earth makes you think I give a damn about a trophy?

SMH. Fuck.

[Sgent]

57. I thought Manning

should have won, but Woodson was certainly not an unreasonable choice. He had one of the all time great defensive years in college football, and has gone on to have a hall of fame NFL career.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

62. Also, not to forget,

Charles Woodson played both sides of the ball, he also returned kicks (something he was REALLY good at).

That was probably the greatest Heisman race of all time. Woodson, Manning, Leaf, all seemed to be running neck and neck, all from different regions, so the votes were in lockstep for those areas. I attended that season's Michigan-Washington St. Rose Bowl game, and Charles Woodson's endzone INT of a Leaf pass as the Cougs were driving to take the lead convinced me that the right man won the trophy.

[Saboburns]

130. Woodson, Manning, and Leaf all had great years, but....

The finalist you didn't mention, Randy Moss from Marshall University, had the best year.

[bluestate10]

112. OJ Simpson won the Heisman legitimately. He became a douche years later. nt

[Chakab]

61. This article is three weeks old and was written before the police decided that they wouldn't file

charges. Why are you posting it now?

[BainsBane]

64. Because it has to do with a woman whose life was destroyed by a rapist

who just won the Heisman trophy, that's why. But don't let the life of a mere woman concern you, or the women he will continue to rape.

[Blanket Statements]

82. Her life was destroyed? Really? She told contradictory stories

Witnesses contradicted her and still you can't imagine any scenario where she wasn't raped

[BainsBane]

87. Funny thing is when a person is drunk to the point of half consciousness

They don't remember things real well. That's why it is ILLEGAL to have sex with someone in that condition.

Look, we've argued this enough. Let's part as enemies and leave it at that.

[Blanket Statements]

89. I find it funny how you keep making up your own facts

[BainsBane]

90. I don't know what facts you think I'm making up.

You yourself said she was drunk and "might not have known whether she consented," which means she legally could not have consented.

FL law. You better acquaint yourself fast.

"Legal statutes. . . prohibit rapes which occur when a perpetrator engages in a sex act with an unwilling victim who is unconscious or who is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs to the point where their ability to appraise or control their conduct is substantially impaired."
http://www.musc.edu/ncvc/grants/50_states_reports/florida.pdf

How anyone can be sexually active in the 21st century and not know something so basic is mind boggling. In fact, it's unbelievable.

[Blanket Statements]

94. Funny thing...either the cops don't know the law

Or there's no evidence she didn't consent

[Soundman]

109. That's just a "report", it reflects nothing

More than an opinion. Not too mention it is more than 10 years old.

60% of people will lie to another within ten minutes of conversation. So I will never give statistics that aren't hard facts much weight period.

[quaker bill]

65. Old news

and well understood before the decision by the DA to not file charges. I am all for prosecution if there is sufficient evidence to support the case. I don't pretend to know the details that led to the prosecutor's decision in light of the DNA match. In that a match is pretty weighty evidence, there must be something pretty weighty on the other side of the balance. I have no clue what it may be and it is unlikely to be released in detail, short of charges for false accusation, and no one thinks this case is going there.

[BainsBane]

68. The police took nine months to bother investigating

and you complain about an article two weeks old? Give me a fucking break. There was lots of evidence: DNA, and medical report showing bruises and wounds, There was a video recording of the assault until his football buddy destroyed it. And of course the police could have retrieved the video footage from Potbelly's if they'd bothered to go over there within thirty days of the attack. Or maybe if they'd bother to interview witnesses instead of sitting on their hands so the football player could finish the season. Since you don't know the facts, why fall all over yourself to defend this guy?

What's on the other side? hmmm Let me think. A multi million dollar football program and a Heisman trophy.

Only 3% of rapists ever see any jail time? http://www.rainn.org/statistics Why? Because the country is full of people who do everything in their power to make sure rapists operate with impunity, including shaming victims. This is nothing different. 720 women will be raped today in the US, and fewer than 22 of their rapists will ever face conviction. That happens each and every day in this country. It happens to women you know: If you have four daughters, chances are very good at least one will be raped, and her assailant will never see jail time. Women's lives are devalued in comparison to their assailants, especially if they can throw a ball. So rapists act with impunity, get off, only to rape more women. Why? Because people worry more about a Heisman trophy than the lives of mere women. Rape prevails because too few care at all about the lives of rape victims and women in particular. It's about power and privilege over the lives of women, who stand unequal before the law without basic regard for human rights. Does that answer your question?

[Blanket Statements]

77. DNA doesn't prove rape and video from a bar

Won't show what happened at the apartment where the sex occurred.

[quaker bill]

150. Did you notice a complaint?

By standards of this forum 2 or 3 weeks is old news. It just is.

I have no interest in defending Mr. Wilson. You impugn the character of the prosecutor because you do not agree with the result. You convict the accused without trial.

Based on media reports we likely agree that there should be a trial. The prosecutor, who clearly always has more facts than are released to the media, has decided that there will be no trial.

I do not know why, but it is unlikely that "star football player" has anything to do with it. Prosecutors build a rep making and winning high profile cases. They damage their rep by filing such cases and losing.

My guess is that he believes he cannot get a conviction. The complete basis for this decision will likely never be released, as it almost always goes to credibility of the witnesses in these cases.

[Doctor_J]

95. There was also other DNA present, from the accused's "boy friend"

This whole thing smelled bad from the beginning, much like the Zimmerman case. The prosecutor is an FSU alum and booster, and his claim that he was under some sort of time limit to make a decision is preposterous. But as seen in the Zim case, getting a conviction even in the case of piles of evidence is not easy, and he sounded frustrated and sincere when he said that his evidence would not have a prayer of convicting winston.

[Ilsa]

67. Let a JURY DECIDE.

The prosecutor should have charged him to let his victim have her day in court. Let a jury decide if it was consensual or rape. Instead, the prosecutor said they would only charge him if they could win the case.

Of course, under FSU rules, he would have been ineligible to play sports until it was cleared up. And that is why they didn't charge him.

Personally, I believe a rapist has received the Heisman.

[sendero]

69. Exactly..

.... this reminds me of the bankster crisis. The DOJ says "the case for fraud is too complicated, we're not sure we can get a conviction".

YOUR JOB IS TO TAKE IT TO TRIAL AND MAKE YOUR BEST CASE. IF THERE IS ANY REASONABLE BASIS TO BELIEVE A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, IT IS NOT UP TO YOU IT IS UP TO A JURY.

Denying a trial is subverting justice, it's just that simple.

[former9thward]

101. Exactly wrong.

What you suggest would violate the ethical charge that a prosecutor takes. A prosecutor must believe that they can prove all elements of a law beyond a reasonable doubt. If they don't feel that they are not supposed to charge. That is the standard for every prosecutor in the country. Any prosecutor who says "charge and let the jury decide" would be in violation and subject to disbarment.

[sendero]

104. Exactly..

... bullshit. As this allows a prosecutor SOLE DISCRETION as to what goes to trial and what does not.

You can't give a totally subjective power to ONE PERSON. Saying "we only take slam-dunk cases to trial" is bullshit and it is were true a prosecutor would get a conviction almost every time.

[former9thward]

105. Prosecutors DO get a conviction almost every time.

I work in defense and I don't know of any prosecutor who has less than a 90% conviction rate. Most in the area of 95%.

[sendero]

106. You are trying to conflat my example.

... with a "malicious prosecution" in which there is scant evidence and the prosecutor knows there is little chance of conviction.

Particularly in the rape case, it is largely a he said she says scenario with witnesses who will corraborate both sides of the story. Why should it be up to a couple of people in the prosecution team to decide a winner here. It is supposed to be up to a jury.

Also, in your scenario a friend or family of a prosecutor would never have to fear paying for his crimes, the prosecutor could just always claim he is clairvoyant and knows the jury would not convict.

In the case of George Zimmerman this is exactly the scenario that almost played out. It was only massive public pressure that made a trial happen at all. And it was only willful idiocy of the jury that inhibited a conviction. There is nothing we can do about idiot juries or even thrown prosecutions (many argue that happened here, I don't know) but when there is strong evidence a crime has been commited a jury needs to hear it.

[Blanket Statements]

72. And had he gone to trial and walked, you'd still claim he was a rapist

[Ilsa]

91. Would I? Who's JUDGING whom now?

At least give a jury of peers a chance to review all of the evidence and testimony.

Why are you afraid of a trial?

[cherokeeprogressive]

110. You've already judged, so stop pointing fingers. You've judged without hearing a single argument

in a court of law. You've judged without hearing arguments from BOTH prosecution and defense and without having instructions from an officer of the court. You've judged without debating/arguing with 11 other jurors who heard the same evidence as you.

"Personally, I believe a rapist has received the Heisman."

Stop pointing fingers and accusing others of "judging".

[Ilsa]

128. Then the case should be tried in a court of law.

If all I have to go by is the newspaper information, then yes, he looks guilty and the police look guilty of shielding him and the local university. It doesn't look fair to the victim in the least. And the police and DA have warned she couldn't get justice there because they are a big football town. They look like they don't want to try this case because they believe they will lose a quarterback. I've also had personal experience with police being dishonest with respect to felonies.

The only way to provide justice for either party is to have a real trial. In the meantime, yes, I'm thinking the worst of him, and the whole thing stinks.

I may be old, but I am capable of changing my mind about many things, including this. You've judged me as being incapable of that. I have never acted against the will and decision of a jury.

[Penicilino]

74. When the internet decides a person is guilty, a jury's decision isn't enough

He will be considered a rapist even if acquitted.

[Ilsa]

92. Yeah, just like the victim will always be called

A slut even if the defendant is deemed guilty.

[davidn3600]

85. A jury trial wasn't enough in the Zimmerman case

People wanted a lynch mob, not a jury.

If this Winston case went to trial and jury acquitted him, would you accept that verdict? I doubt it.

[Ilsa]

93. Would I? Who's JUDGING whom now?

At least give a jury of peers a chance to review all of the evidence and testimony.

It doesn't matter what I think about Zimmerman. He's free. I can't and won't do anything about him or organize a mob to lynch him. Just like I won't organize a mob against Winston. But we won't know half of the facts unless there is a trial.

And from what I've already heard, yes, I'm predisposed to believe the victim. A trial could change my mind.

[lightcameron]

134. Ah, yes. The old "throw it against a wall to see if it sticks" approach.

It's a good thing that we don't do that in this country.

[Penicilino]

78. Had the accused denied having had sex with the accuser?

If he had not denied it, this news is neither breaking nor resolves the question of whether rape took place.

[lightcameron]

136. Nope. Never denied it.

[bluestate10]

108. That information is old information. It was known by law enforcement. Because a person's

DNA is on another person after sex doesn't mean that rape happened. Maybe at some point video information will come out to shed light on what happened. For now the football player is getting all the benefits from the situation as it stands.

[BainsBane]

117. Fascinating how so many complain more about a two week old story

than a police department that fails to investigate for 9 months.

[gollygee]

113. Here's the issue for me

His friends videoed it. When they heard he was being accused, they destroyed the evidence. If he hadn't raped her then the videos would have shown that and they would have been giving them to the police. They would have been desperate to get them to the police to show her having consensual sex with him and get him off the hook. But that wasn't their response. If they didn't know those videos would implicate him or cause a conviction, they wouldn't have destroyed them.

If we had a story about John Doe, average guy, who was accused of committing a crime, and his friends took videos but then destroyed their phones so the videos weren't available, we'd be suspicious about why. But people aren't suspicious here?

[woolldog]

114. How do you know when they deleted the video?

How do you know they didn't delete it months after the incident when it didn't look like charges were being pursued?

[gollygee]

116. Well that brings up a different problem

The fact that investigators took soooo long to investigate. If they had started investigating right away, the videos (and certainly the surveillance video) would have been available, but they just waited forever, which is not normal. So maybe the video would have shown nothing, but then I still have a serious problem with the investigators who didn't bother to check.

There are two issues:

Student athletes have a much higher rate of sexual assault than other students. That doesn't mean he raped this young woman, but it makes people hope the police taken that into account and conduct investigations.

And then, people don't want to stop football players from playing. If the investigation hadn't been delayed, it would have affected his ability to play, which makes me feel like they waited on purpose. And then in the meantime, evidence was gone.

I think deleting evidence and discarding a phone is pretty telling, but even if I'm wrong about that, there's no way to know because of how the investigation was handled, and it SHOULD NOT have been handled that way.

I realize he can't really be charged at this point because the evidence is gone. I want discussion about how this investigation was handled, and why (because he is a football player and wouldn't have been able to play) because there should have been a thorough investigation from the get-go. They should have checked those videos. And maybe they would have shown that he was obviously innocent. If he is innocent, I'm sure he would appreciate that. So it would benefit him as well.

Police can't simply hold off pressing charges because they don't want someone's football playing affected. If someone is charged with a crime, then he or she has to be investigated. It would be a short investigation if there was video that showed it was consensual.

[woolldog]

119. First of all,

your posts on this issue are filled with misinformation.

When the initial charges surfaced Winston was a complete unknown, redshirt freshman (ie benchwarmer) playing on the scout team. It was only when he suddenly (and unpredictably) became a star QB that the so called victim, decided to leak the police report etc to TMZ. The police didn't find her credible either apparently. And it's not because he was a star athlete, because he was a nobody at the time.

Second my question was how do you know when the video was deleted? I take it from your response that you don't know when it was deleted. If it was deleted days after the incident then sure, that looks bad. If months after, when it was clear there werent going to be any charges filed, then not so bad. You put a negative spin on the deletion without even knowing that very important fact. And that's the problem i have with so many of the folks convicting this young man without even knowing all the relevant facts, and using half truths and false information and spinning it to their own ends to serve their agenda.

This isn't about feminism or statistics, it's not about giving people a chance to step on their soapbox and advance their agenda.

[LisaL]

120. How do we know when it was deleted? Easy.

"Casher said, on record, he videotaped some of the encounter between Winston and the accuser and deleted it two days later."

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/12/attorney_of_florida_state_qb_j_1.html

[woolldog]

122. The point wasnt when the video was deleted....

it was about that particular poster coming to a conclusion, without having knowledge of the facts to support it.

[LisaL]

123. Well you could have fooled me.

In any case, it was deleted 2 days later. From your own post above, you claimed that if video was deleted days later, it would look bad, no?

[woolldog]

124. Yes, IF that is true,

it certainly LOOKS bad. That isn't to say there isn't a reasonable explanation for it (for example, if Winston wasnt identified as a suspect or notified he was a suspect until weeks later, it certainly does NOT look bad because in that scenario there was no reason for Casher to think the video was evidence in an investigation). I simply don't know enough of the facts and context to think that I know more than the prosecutors and police here.

[Finnmccool]

129. Problem is she wasn't drunk according to the toxicology

reports. She told 3 different stories and all the witnesses told the same story as him. It should be harder to put someone in prison not easier.

[LisaL]

132. That's not true.

She had alcohol in her system. When extrapolated to the time of the incident, her BAC would have been above the legal limit to drive.

"The accuser's blood-alcohol content when taken, some hours after the incident, was 0.04%, which Meggs said was "not very high." He further said investigators extrapolated the data to determine that her BAC had been about 0.1%, slightly over the legal limit to drive, at the time of the incident."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/justice/florida-state-quarterback-investigation/

[Finnmccool]

133. That would mean impaired not drunk

So why the memory loss?

[LisaL]

138. If she went driving with that BAC, nobody would be saying she wasn't drunk.

So I don't understand what is it you are trying to say.

[woolldog]

140. I believe the accuser claimed she was blackout drunk

or had been slipped a date rape drug.

Neither turned out to be true.

[LisaL]

141. And BAC of 0.1 can obviously cause impairement since it's above the legal limit to drive.

Her memory could have been impaired at that level of intoxication. So, again, I have no clue as to why you are claiming otherwise.

"BAC .10 percent to .12 percent
At this level you lack coordination and balance. Your motor skills are markedly impaired, as are your judgment and memory. You probably don’t remember how many drinks you’ve had. Emotions are exaggerated, and some people become loud, aggressive or belligerent. Men may have trouble getting an erection when their blood alcohol concentration is this high."

http://www.clemson.edu/campus-life/campus-services/redfern/alcohol/bac.html

[woolldog]

142. It's nowhere near blackout drunk.

At the .1 level you are arguably impaired, but probably not even drunk. Makes sense to set the level for impaired driving at .08 and above because you want to err on the side of caution where you're dealing with controlling a motor vehicle moving at high speeds on a highway, and the amount of coordination, awareness and fine motor skills required....but it's nowhere near blackout drunk.

[LisaL]

143. Not even drunk? What on earth are you talking about?

Try driving with that BAC and then argue with the police when they catch you that you are "not even drunk" and see how far you get.

[woolldog]

144. Lisa

DUI statutes criminalize drivers who drive under the influence. A BAC of .08 means someone is, by statute, under the influence and not fit to operate a car. It doesn't make them drunk.

[LisaL]

145. OMG.

If her BAC was at 0.1, then she was legally drunk (under the law).

"In most states, a BAC of .10% is considered legally drunk. This means that for every 1,000 milliliters of blood, the body contains 1 milliliter of alcohol. In some states, the legal definition of intoxication is .08%, which means that for every 1000 milliliters of blood, the body contains 8/10ths of a milliliter of alcohol."
http://www.intheknowzone.com/substance-abuse-topics/alcohol/bac.html

[woolldog]

146. ....

For purposes of driving, it means that she's under the influence and is not allowed to operate a motor vehicle. It means she is impaired, not necessarily "drunk."

In some states it's unlawful for someone driving a commercial vehicle to drive with a BAC of .04 or higher. Does that make someone with a .04 BAC or higher "drunk"? Obviously not.

None of this has anything to do with the original issue though, which is that a .1 BAC is a far cry from being black out drunk. And that's one reason why the so called victim was not viewed as credible.

[LisaL]

147. You seem to have a different definition of "drunk" than everybody else.

She was legally drunk by definition.
As for blackout drunk, since she could describe what allegedly happened, then obviously she didn't claim she was blacked out through the whole encounter.

[woolldog]

148. Was she driving?

No.

There is a certain BAC at which you are considered, for purposes of DUI statutes, to be impaired or under the influence. But there is nothing in the penal code in my state that defines someone over a certain BAC as "legally drunk" for purposes of anything other than driving. And I suspect the same holds in Florida.

She was not driving. She wasnt trying to drive. so the idea that she was legally not able to operate a motor vehicle even if true, is meaningless. Physiologically it's clear she was nowhere near blackout drunk, which is how she described her condition.

[woolldog]

149. And with that I'm headed to bed.

Gnite Lisa.

[lightcameron]

137. She also lied when she told police she didn't know Jameis Winston.

There are pictures of her with him before the night she alleges a rape took place.

She was a self-proclaimed "cleat-chaser" on Twitter, which is how she met him well beforehand.

[LisaL]

139. I don't know whose photos are on twitter. But I presume they are not of the accuser.

State attorney said there is no evidence she knew Winston. And I am sure police looked for it.

"Meggs said that there was no evidence that the alleged victim and Winston knew each other prior to the night in question."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-for-jameis-winston-in-alleged-2012-rape/