Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Earth to Jameis ...
Author Message
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #101
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  A legal commentator talking on the Tim Brando show said that there was certainly enough evidence to bring charges and that many cases have been charged with less.

Did they say the odds were good at getting a conviction?
12-19-2013 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MinerInWisconsin Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UTEP, of course
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Post: #102
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 04:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  A legal commentator talking on the Tim Brando show said that there was certainly enough evidence to bring charges and that many cases have been charged with less.

Did they say the odds were good at getting a conviction?

No, he didn't say one way or the other. I believe his point was that prosecuters don't only take slam dunk cases and that this case had enough evidence to charge. Obviously the Florida investigators thought differently which is why this case will remain controversial. We will just have to agree to disagree on the merits.
12-19-2013 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #103
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 04:45 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  A legal commentator talking on the Tim Brando show said that there was certainly enough evidence to bring charges and that many cases have been charged with less.

Did they say the odds were good at getting a conviction?

No, he didn't say one way or the other. I believe his point was that prosecuters don't only take slam dunk cases and that this case had enough evidence to charge. Obviously the Florida investigators thought differently which is why this case will remain controversial. We will just have to agree to disagree on the merits.

Would you and others not continue to call it "controversial" even if it went to trial and Winston was acquitted? Because it seems very likely that there is nothing that would remove this "controversy" you and others claim.
12-19-2013 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #104
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 11:00 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 09:11 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  You are one of these stupid fools who is too dumb to comprehend these posts, because if you weren't, you'd know that I have never said that I know Winston is guilty, and thus I've never said he deserves to be in jail. 03-phew

Your problem is that you think that you know more than the people that investigated this matter. You don't.

I don't read that into his posts at all. I think he is saying that there is plenty of doubt in a lot of minds about how the prosecuters office and police handled the case and it leaves the whole thing not only unresolved but also leaves many thinking he is likely guilty.

Exactly. None of my posts have been based on anything but facts that have been reported by the investigating authorities and on the publicly available information on the behavior of the accuser and accused during the investigation process.

I surely don't claim to know more than the investigators do (a ridiculous idea). I have just used what they have reported to form an opinion about the likelihood that Winston actually did rape that girl, and for the reasons I've given I think that likelihood is reasonably high, high enough to treat him like he has a grey cloud over his head.

Yet those same investigators refused to press charges against Winston. See here is the problem; in just reading cold statements on paper and looking at Nancy Grace you don't get to actually see an accuser up close and in person. You don't get to test her credibility or the credibility of other people in this matter. The investigators did and they decided not to press charges, because the facts did not support the accuser's claims.

The investigators said that in their opinion, there was too little evidence to press charges. That tells us little about whether he actually did it or not. Thousands of crimes are committed across America each day but charges are never brought, because the criminals do a good enough job cleaning up after themselves such that there wasn't enough evidence to charge anyone.

As for personal credibility, it would have been very important for the investigators to interview Winston, the accused, to assess his credibility, compare it to that of the accuser, etc.. But he refused to cooperate. Go figure. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2013 07:24 PM by quo vadis.)
12-19-2013 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #105
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 01:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:15 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  
(12-17-2013 08:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-16-2013 10:41 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  They never claimed that a consensual act did not happen.

Toxicology reports backed up that she was neither drugged nor legally drunk.

Why would not talking to the police under the advice of his lawyer hurt his credibility? First-year law students would tell him not to talk to the police unless he has to.

Winston never said he had consensual sex until after the DNA report came back, then his lawyer falsely said they had said that all along. Massive opportunism.

Toxicology reports showed alcohol in her system, and the DA estimated that it was probably around .10 at the time of the rape, not enough to black out but more than enough to impair memory with respect to such details like who she texted or whether she blacked. Bottom line is she obviously was drinking, and it doesn't take much drink to impact memory that way, especially when you throw in the trauma of the event.

Not talking to the police (and you never HAVE to talk to the police, the USA isn't a police state) may very well be a smart legal tactic (as it proved to be in this case), but I know that if I were accused of rape and I didn't do it, I'd be happy to tell that to the police and everyone else, even if Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Bailey explained all the whys and wherefores about why I shouldn't.

But if I was guilty, than damn straight I'd clam up and not help the police prove their case. It makes a whole lot MORE sense to not talk to the police if you ARE guilty than if you aren't, because if you are guilty and thus trying to lie about it, you are more likely to trip yourself up.

That's why it hurts his credibility.

(12-17-2013 09:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hey bruh bruh, how could the girl be telling the truth about being pressured by TPD into not pursuing charges against Winston when she hadn't even told TPD she had sex with Winston at the time?

Answer that. Please.

I don't know if the girl lied. But the known evidence and witnesses don't seem to support her story.

(12-18-2013 07:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 02:10 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Point me in the direction of the .10, I have no recollection of that.

Mention of the DNA wasn't made until it was released - illegally - by either the victim's attorney, the SAO or another third party. For the defense to mention presumably sealed DNA results would at best be unethical and could be illegal.

So, you want Winston and/or his attorney to ignore all legal advice, for what reason is it?

1) The DA said she was probably at about .10 at the time of the rape.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/05/justice/fl...stigation/

2) It doesn't matter who leaked the DNA results. The point is, Winston never claimed consensual sex until after those results came out, then falsely claimed he had said they had consensual sex all along.

3) Winston is free to follow or ignore any, all, or none of the legal advice he gets. And we are free to draw conclusions about his likely guilt or innocence based on the legal advice he follows or doesn't follow. I've explained why following the legal advice to clam up makes me suspect he is guilty.

Right, he can't publicly say ANYTHING about the DNA results, because they're supposed to be confidential. So, now your standard is to break the law and ignore his lawyer to meet whatever arbitrary level of morality you've thrown out there.

You continue to miss the point:

It doesn't matter who leaked the DNA results. The point is, Winston never claimed consensual sex until after those results came out, then falsely claimed he had said they had consensual sex all along.

And as I just said (!!!) Winston was free to follow his lawyer's advice. But just because he follows his lawyer's advice doesn't mean I can't draw conclusions about his guilt or innocence from his doing so. For example, If i were charged with embezzlement, and was called before a grand jury to testify about that, and when questioned I followed my lawyer's advice, which is to invoke my 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, you would be justified in drawing the conclusion that I probably am guilty because I invoked that protection. In Winston's case, the nature of the advice he followed has, among other things, caused me to form the impression that he likely had something to hide about his behavior. I don't know for sure if he is guilty, or even guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the doubt about his innocence is high enough for me to not be able to applaud the guy or treat him as if he were exonerated. IMO, we should all shun him to a certain extent, such as not voting him awards, not applauding him, etc.

"The point is, Winston never claimed consensual sex until after those results came out, then falsely claimed he had said they had consensual sex all along."

Actually he was never interviewed by the police and never said anything. Where do you get this stuff?

Are you really this daft? First, the investigators wanted to talk with Winston, but Winston refused to be interviewed by the police or provide a statement.

Second, if Winston never said anything, than I am exactly right when I say the he falsely claimed to have said that he and the girl had consenual sex all along.

Good Lord. 01-wingedeagle
12-19-2013 07:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #106
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 03:50 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  No, you're missing the point.

They never publicly said ANYTHING because doing so is illegal. Is that difficult to understand for you?

WTF? There is no law that prevented Winston from saying publicly, back in January, February, or whenever, that he and the girl had consensual sex. No law at all.

What is so hard for you to understand about that?
12-19-2013 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #107
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 04:34 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  But because his attorney didn't discuss the facts of the case, people are using Jansen's "We never said it wasn't consensual" quote to incriminate him.

Winston never said before the DNA results came out that he and the girl had consensual sex, and yet his lawyer claimed that. Truth is, he only said that after the DNA results came out, when that backed him into a corner, making it his only line of defense.

Does that "incriminate" him, in the sense of proving he raped her? No, but it does cast doubt on his credibility.
(This post was last modified: 12-19-2013 07:35 PM by quo vadis.)
12-19-2013 07:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #108
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 04:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 07:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't know whether or not Winston is guilty either. But IMO the Tallahassee PD officers involved in this case deserve some jail time over their incompetent actions, and the DA probably deserves to be in there with 'em.
What did the State Attorney do? (You may have answered this already.)
It's more about what they didn't do.
12-19-2013 07:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fsugrad99 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 202
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 31
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #109
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
You really have little idea of the legal system do you?

So, again, you want him to make a public declaration regarding an alleged crime that he has not been charged with.

I'm not the only one dumbfounded by this dude, am I? I'll just snicker and shake my head.
12-19-2013 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #110
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 07:49 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  You really have little idea of the legal system do you?

Is this your bone-head way of admitting you were dead wrong when you said that it was "illegal" for Winston to have publicly said he and the girl had consensual sex before the DNA results came out?

I'll assume it is, as the alternative is mind-boggling. 07-coffee3
12-19-2013 07:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fsugrad99 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 202
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 31
I Root For: FSU
Location:
Post: #111
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
Pretty sure you lack the sophistication to grasp basic concepts.

Let's let the thread die.
12-19-2013 09:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #112
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 07:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 07:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't know whether or not Winston is guilty either. But IMO the Tallahassee PD officers involved in this case deserve some jail time over their incompetent actions, and the DA probably deserves to be in there with 'em.
What did the State Attorney do? (You may have answered this already.)
It's more about what they didn't do.

You mentioned phone records in regards to TPD. I'll again concede that one and count it towards the State Attorney.

What else?
(This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 12:45 AM by Marge Schott.)
12-20-2013 12:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #113
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 09:29 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Pretty sure you lack the sophistication to grasp basic concepts

Is this your bone-head way of admitting you were dead wrong when you said that it was "illegal" for Winston to have publicly said he and the girl had consensual sex before the DNA results came out?

I'll assume it is, as the alternative is mind-boggling.07-coffee3
12-20-2013 06:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MinerInWisconsin Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UTEP, of course
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Post: #114
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-19-2013 07:03 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:45 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  A legal commentator talking on the Tim Brando show said that there was certainly enough evidence to bring charges and that many cases have been charged with less.

Did they say the odds were good at getting a conviction?

No, he didn't say one way or the other. I believe his point was that prosecuters don't only take slam dunk cases and that this case had enough evidence to charge. Obviously the Florida investigators thought differently which is why this case will remain controversial. We will just have to agree to disagree on the merits.

Would you and others not continue to call it "controversial" even if it went to trial and Winston was acquitted? Because it seems very likely that there is nothing that would remove this "controversy" you and others claim.

That would depend on the conduct of the trial, the makeup of the jury, etc.

Would you claim that the results of the O.J. trial were not controversial? Probably not. Not comparing the alleged crimes only the controversial nature of trial results at times.
12-20-2013 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #115
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-20-2013 12:41 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 07:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 07:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't know whether or not Winston is guilty either. But IMO the Tallahassee PD officers involved in this case deserve some jail time over their incompetent actions, and the DA probably deserves to be in there with 'em.
What did the State Attorney do? (You may have answered this already.)
It's more about what they didn't do.
You mentioned phone records in regards to TPD. I'll again concede that one and count it towards the State Attorney.

What else?
They didn't follow proper procedures for evidence gathering and testing, and didn't follow up on the case until long afterward. Why did it only come out nearly a year after the fact?

I could go on, but you should get the idea. Nothing about this case was done properly or in time. So someone needs to look into it. Changes should be made, and the TPD is probably the place to start.
12-20-2013 11:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #116
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-20-2013 10:47 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 07:03 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:45 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:36 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 09:25 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  A legal commentator talking on the Tim Brando show said that there was certainly enough evidence to bring charges and that many cases have been charged with less.

Did they say the odds were good at getting a conviction?

No, he didn't say one way or the other. I believe his point was that prosecuters don't only take slam dunk cases and that this case had enough evidence to charge. Obviously the Florida investigators thought differently which is why this case will remain controversial. We will just have to agree to disagree on the merits.

Would you and others not continue to call it "controversial" even if it went to trial and Winston was acquitted? Because it seems very likely that there is nothing that would remove this "controversy" you and others claim.

That would depend on the conduct of the trial, the makeup of the jury, etc.

Would you claim that the results of the O.J. trial were not controversial? Probably not. Not comparing the alleged crimes only the controversial nature of trial results at times.

My point is more that, no matter what would've happened, someone would've found something they didn't like and called it controversial. And we'd be right back where we are now.
12-20-2013 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Marge Schott Offline
Banned

Posts: 5,989
Joined: Dec 2012
I Root For: YouAreButtHurt
Location: OnTopOfDwarfMountain
Post: #117
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-20-2013 11:01 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-20-2013 12:41 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 07:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-18-2013 07:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't know whether or not Winston is guilty either. But IMO the Tallahassee PD officers involved in this case deserve some jail time over their incompetent actions, and the DA probably deserves to be in there with 'em.
What did the State Attorney do? (You may have answered this already.)
It's more about what they didn't do.
You mentioned phone records in regards to TPD. I'll again concede that one and count it towards the State Attorney.

What else?
They didn't follow proper procedures for evidence gathering and testing, and didn't follow up on the case until long afterward. Why did it only come out nearly a year after the fact?

I could go on, but you should get the idea. Nothing about this case was done properly or in time. So someone needs to look into it. Changes should be made, and the TPD is probably the place to start.

I already told you the testing wasn't performed by TPD or the SAO. The SAO wasn't officially given the case until 11 months later so they didn't drag their feet like you claim.
12-20-2013 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #118
RE: Earth to Jameis ...
(12-20-2013 12:43 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-20-2013 11:01 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-20-2013 12:41 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 07:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(12-19-2013 04:24 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  What did the State Attorney do? (You may have answered this already.)
It's more about what they didn't do.
You mentioned phone records in regards to TPD. I'll again concede that one and count it towards the State Attorney.

What else?
They didn't follow proper procedures for evidence gathering and testing, and didn't follow up on the case until long afterward. Why did it only come out nearly a year after the fact?

I could go on, but you should get the idea. Nothing about this case was done properly or in time. So someone needs to look into it. Changes should be made, and the TPD is probably the place to start.

I already told you the testing wasn't performed by TPD or the SAO. The SAO wasn't officially given the case until 11 months later so they didn't drag their feet like you claim.
Yep. The state got involved way later... just a few weeks ago when the TPD pushed it up.
12-20-2013 01:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.