quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
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.
|
|