(12-15-2013 06:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 03:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 01:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 10:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 10:33 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The D.A. said there was not enough evidence for a conviction. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of this ACC fellow's character.

And the police told the victim that she probably shouldn't pursue this matter because Tallahassee is a "football town".

The DA and Tallahassee PD are probably going to end up owing that girl a lot of money. That case isn't over yet. It's simply moved to a higher court, which will review everything about the case, and the way in which it was handled - and investigated.

What "higher court"? The Governor has said he will not order a special review of the case. The accuser's attorney hasn't said she's taking it to civil court. I'm not sure where you're getting this inaccurate information.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Governor is a part of the executive branch, which has almost no control over what the judicial branch does. So whether he does or does not order a special review of the case isn't relevant to whether or not the case moves to a higher court.

Two things:

1. Did you completely ignore the statement I made that the girl's attorney hasn't filed anything in Florida court? And how can it go to a "higher" court when it was never in court to begin with? It's not like this is going to make its way to the Florida Supreme Court or something like that.

2. The girl's attorney said she wanted the Attorney General to look into how the case was handled. When questioned about this at the press conference she admitted she had "no proof, just suspicions" that it was handled improperly (she more or less said DNA was tampered with and that the toxicology reports were wrong because her client was definitely drugged). The Attorney General said that request needs to be made to the Governor and FDLE. Shortly thereafter the Governor released a statement through a spokesperson saying, "State attorney’s office and FDLE did a thorough investigation of this case and they concluded no further action ... is required." So, again, I have no clue what you're talking about. But I guess you'll say they're all in cahoots, too.

Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

(12-15-2013 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 02:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Please just stop. No one here knows what happened and you never will, because the girl doesn't even remember ...

She says she remembers that Jameis raped her.

No, Actually she just remembers him dressing her and dropping her off... She don't even know where this all supposedly happened. Of course the DA told the media her story changed so many times he didn't know what to believe...

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 06:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 03:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 01:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 10:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The DA and Tallahassee PD are probably going to end up owing that girl a lot of money. That case isn't over yet. It's simply moved to a higher court, which will review everything about the case, and the way in which it was handled - and investigated.

What "higher court"? The Governor has said he will not order a special review of the case. The accuser's attorney hasn't said she's taking it to civil court. I'm not sure where you're getting this inaccurate information.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Governor is a part of the executive branch, which has almost no control over what the judicial branch does. So whether he does or does not order a special review of the case isn't relevant to whether or not the case moves to a higher court.

Two things:

1. Did you completely ignore the statement I made that the girl's attorney hasn't filed anything in Florida court? And how can it go to a "higher" court when it was never in court to begin with? It's not like this is going to make its way to the Florida Supreme Court or something like that.

2. The girl's attorney said she wanted the Attorney General to look into how the case was handled. When questioned about this at the press conference she admitted she had "no proof, just suspicions" that it was handled improperly (she more or less said DNA was tampered with and that the toxicology reports were wrong because her client was definitely drugged). The Attorney General said that request needs to be made to the Governor and FDLE. Shortly thereafter the Governor released a statement through a spokesperson saying, "State attorney’s office and FDLE did a thorough investigation of this case and they concluded no further action ... is required." So, again, I have no clue what you're talking about. But I guess you'll say they're all in cahoots, too.

Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

(12-16-2013 04:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 06:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 03:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 01:04 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  What "higher court"? The Governor has said he will not order a special review of the case. The accuser's attorney hasn't said she's taking it to civil court. I'm not sure where you're getting this inaccurate information.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Governor is a part of the executive branch, which has almost no control over what the judicial branch does. So whether he does or does not order a special review of the case isn't relevant to whether or not the case moves to a higher court.

Two things:

1. Did you completely ignore the statement I made that the girl's attorney hasn't filed anything in Florida court? And how can it go to a "higher" court when it was never in court to begin with? It's not like this is going to make its way to the Florida Supreme Court or something like that.

2. The girl's attorney said she wanted the Attorney General to look into how the case was handled. When questioned about this at the press conference she admitted she had "no proof, just suspicions" that it was handled improperly (she more or less said DNA was tampered with and that the toxicology reports were wrong because her client was definitely drugged). The Attorney General said that request needs to be made to the Governor and FDLE. Shortly thereafter the Governor released a statement through a spokesperson saying, "State attorney’s office and FDLE did a thorough investigation of this case and they concluded no further action ... is required." So, again, I have no clue what you're talking about. But I guess you'll say they're all in cahoots, too.

Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

Whatever, dude. I just don't think this is over yet. I also think the actions of the Tallahassee PD and DA are a clear cut case of criminal negligence. If they can't get satisfaction one way, civil court can take the ball and run with it.

(12-16-2013 01:54 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 02:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 02:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Please just stop. No one here knows what happened and you never will, because the girl doesn't even remember ...

She says she remembers that Jameis raped her.

No, Actually she just remembers him dressing her and dropping her off...

Here's what her lawyer said: “To be clear, the victim did not consent. This was a rape.”

So please don't be weird enough to say she's claiming the sex wasn't consensual if she doesn't remember not consenting. Good grief.

(12-16-2013 03:34 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 11:29 PM)OkaForPrez Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 10:58 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 04:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 03:24 PM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  Let's just put it this way....

Her FSU friends aren't backing her up
Her boyfriend (ex?) isn't backing her up
Her HS friends aren't backing her up

... and I suppose "FSUGrad Desperate for a National Title" isn't backing her up either?

So, why do you think he's guilty?

I understand the following to be true:

1) Jameis was not famous Jameis at the time, he was not even the named starter at the time, and therefore any claim of money chasing is therefore moot because...

2) the accuser went to police immediately the night of the incident.

3) medical reports indicated bruising on the accuser and

4) Jameis DNA was matched.

If an immediate complaint, bruising, and DNA is not sufficient evidence for trial in a rape case then what is?

And the lesson learned about the accuser putting herself in a bad situation... If the consequence for drinking too much and a lapse in judgement is getting raped, most of this forum would be a victim.

If I've got any of these facts wrong please correct me.

DNA and the bruising confirms they had sex, not that she was raped.

The accuser's story was "jumping around a good bit" per the State Attorney.

She claimed she was hit on the head and she was not.

Her BAC (.04 about 2 hours after alleged incident) most likely wasn't high enough to cause her to black out.

Two separate toxicology reports came back negative, one tested for 172 different substances.

Two of her friends she was with that night said she did not seem excessively intoxicated prior to the alleged incident.

The only two eyewitnesses don't corroborate her story.

She had a 2nd set of DNA on her that night that she did not want to cooperate with investigators about. The State Attorney specifically mentioned that that would kill their case.

Her friend told police that someone sent the accuser a text to draw her outside of the bar but no text that matched that description was recovered from the accuser's phone, while other texts and phone calls were recovered (taken from her phone by police less than 24 hours after the alleged incident).

The accuser's text/call log could potentially discredit her claim of not being able to get ahold of her friends and ask them for help. The accuser told police she didn't recall sending any texts or making any calls on the way to or at Winston's. She said if she would've been able to get in touch with her friends she would've asked them to help her since she claimed she was in a cab with unknown men. Her text log indicates she did have contact with her friend at 1:45am asking if she knew where her ID was, not asking for help. Considering she reported remembering an ID being used during the cab ride since students received discounts, it seems possible this text message was sent around the time of the cab ride. And if it was sent around the time of the cab ride, she clearly didn't ask her friends for help when she had the opportunity.

(I understand that this very last paragraph is something that would typically be bandied about in a courtroom and wouldn't be enough, by itself, to prevent charges. But this additional doubt just adds to the witness testimony and hard evidence that isn't in the accuser's favor.)

1) The only two 'eyewitnesses' were FSU teammates of Winston who Winston's lawyer questioned and got them to sign affidavits before they talked to the police. Maybe you think that makes their statements credible, but to most that just looks like two homies vouching for their friend after being coached by his lawyer.

Not credible at all.

2) Winston never claimed that he had consensual sex with the girl until after the DNA results came out, but his lawyer falsely claimed that the DNA results "are consistent with what we've said all along".

3) You like to harp about "inconsistencies" like whether she texted her friends at such-and-such a time or not, whether she blacked out or was hit on the head, etc. but those inconsistencies are entirely consistent with someone who has been raped and has alcohol in her system and is trying to remember details that happened late in the night. And her desire to keep her boyfriend out of the situation by not talking about his DNA is understandable too.

Now, all of those things might make prosecution difficult, but that is completely different from the issue of her 'credibility'. Someone lacks credibility not if they have entirely understandable difficulty remembering small details under very trying circumstances.

No, someone lacks credibility if they behave opportunistically. Like Winston suddenly claiming "consensual sex" after DNA results make that his only line of defense, and his lawyer falsely claiming that was their story "all along" when they never claimed that before the DNA came out.

They also lack credibility when they refuse to give a statement to and be questioned by the police. That suggests something to hide.

Give Winston's lawyer a ton of credit - he got his man off, which is what he was hired to do. But absolutely nothing about that investigation 'exonerates' or 'vindicates' him.

You keep playing with the words exonerate and vindicate and I'm starting to think you're confused as to their applicability in this situation.

For all intents and purposes he has been exonerated and vindicated. The kid is, in a legal sense, both civily and criminally, beyond reproach. So, what are you even trying to get at by playing word games?

(12-16-2013 04:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 06:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 03:10 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Unless I'm mistaken, the Governor is a part of the executive branch, which has almost no control over what the judicial branch does. So whether he does or does not order a special review of the case isn't relevant to whether or not the case moves to a higher court.

Two things:

1. Did you completely ignore the statement I made that the girl's attorney hasn't filed anything in Florida court? And how can it go to a "higher" court when it was never in court to begin with? It's not like this is going to make its way to the Florida Supreme Court or something like that.

2. The girl's attorney said she wanted the Attorney General to look into how the case was handled. When questioned about this at the press conference she admitted she had "no proof, just suspicions" that it was handled improperly (she more or less said DNA was tampered with and that the toxicology reports were wrong because her client was definitely drugged). The Attorney General said that request needs to be made to the Governor and FDLE. Shortly thereafter the Governor released a statement through a spokesperson saying, "State attorney’s office and FDLE did a thorough investigation of this case and they concluded no further action ... is required." So, again, I have no clue what you're talking about. But I guess you'll say they're all in cahoots, too.

Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

Whatever, dude. I just don't think this is over yet. I also think the actions of the Tallahassee PD and DA are a clear cut case of criminal negligence. If they can't get satisfaction one way, civil court can take the ball and run with it.

What did the State Attorney do that was negligent? I'd be interested in hearing this.

In what way was TPD negligent? There are a few things they should've acted sooner on, but I doubt you'll state them. I also think it's notable that the accuser and her attorney both told TPD multiple times early on in the investigation that they were not ready to press charges at that time, even after identifying Winston as the person she had sex with. TPD also had difficulty getting the accuser's friends to cooperate with the investigation. I doubt there was anything "criminal" about TPD's actions, but I agree there was some negligence.

A civil suit could happen. Sure. Until it does there's not much to say about it though. I do question if the accuser wants to go through discovery and what that may reveal.

Probably old news to some but here is an article on the police report http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/12/5/...nouncement

(12-16-2013 06:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 06:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Two things:

1. Did you completely ignore the statement I made that the girl's attorney hasn't filed anything in Florida court? And how can it go to a "higher" court when it was never in court to begin with? It's not like this is going to make its way to the Florida Supreme Court or something like that.

2. The girl's attorney said she wanted the Attorney General to look into how the case was handled. When questioned about this at the press conference she admitted she had "no proof, just suspicions" that it was handled improperly (she more or less said DNA was tampered with and that the toxicology reports were wrong because her client was definitely drugged). The Attorney General said that request needs to be made to the Governor and FDLE. Shortly thereafter the Governor released a statement through a spokesperson saying, "State attorney’s office and FDLE did a thorough investigation of this case and they concluded no further action ... is required." So, again, I have no clue what you're talking about. But I guess you'll say they're all in cahoots, too.

Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

Whatever, dude. I just don't think this is over yet. I also think the actions of the Tallahassee PD and DA are a clear cut case of criminal negligence. If they can't get satisfaction one way, civil court can take the ball and run with it.

What did the State Attorney do that was negligent? I'd be interested in hearing this.

In what way was TPD negligent? There are a few things they should've acted sooner on, but I doubt you'll state them. I also think it's notable that the accuser and her attorney both told TPD multiple times early on in the investigation that they were not ready to press charges at that time, even after identifying Winston as the person she had sex with. TPD also had difficulty getting the accuser's friends to cooperate with the investigation. I doubt there was anything "criminal" about TPD's actions, but I agree there was some negligence.

A civil suit could happen. Sure. Until it does there's not much to say about it though. I do question if the accuser wants to go through discovery and what that may reveal.

She was advised not to proceed with the case, since Tallahassee was a football town.
Her phone records were accessed, but not Winston's or any of those who testified on his behalf.
Her demeanor was similar to a person given the date rape drug, but no drug test was performed until months after the fact.
Evidence procedures were not properly followed.

I could go on. But you should get the point. IMO the whole investigation appeared to be one of proving her wrong or incompetent, and not one that tried to see whether or not she was actually raped.

(12-16-2013 05:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You keep playing with the words exonerate and vindicate and I'm starting to think you're confused as to their applicability in this situation.

For all intents and purposes he has been exonerated and vindicated. The kid is, in a legal sense, both civily and criminally, beyond reproach. So, what are you even trying to get at by playing word games?

Why are you wasting time talking about the "legal sense", when obviously the legal situation was ended when the DA announced he wasn't pressing charges?

Since it seems to have escaped you, I'll clarify that I'm talking about "exonerated" and "vindicated" in the moral sense, the sense of whether anything that the DA did or presented indicated that Winston actually didn't do what the victim accused him of doing or not, such that I should view Winston in a positive moral light.

And he didn't. Heck, I could come over to your house, murder you with an axe, chop you up into pieces, and then do such a good job cleaning up after myself that a DA concludes that there just isn't enough evidence to charge me with anything. I would thus be off the hook in terms of the legal system, but to say that I had been 'exonerated' or 'vindicated' and 'above reproach' would make sick mockery of those words.

Define morality

Other electronic records were pulled.
Blood was drawn that night for toxicology tests.
What procedures were not followed?

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

Whatever, dude. I just don't think this is over yet. I also think the actions of the Tallahassee PD and DA are a clear cut case of criminal negligence. If they can't get satisfaction one way, civil court can take the ball and run with it.

What did the State Attorney do that was negligent? I'd be interested in hearing this.

In what way was TPD negligent? There are a few things they should've acted sooner on, but I doubt you'll state them. I also think it's notable that the accuser and her attorney both told TPD multiple times early on in the investigation that they were not ready to press charges at that time, even after identifying Winston as the person she had sex with. TPD also had difficulty getting the accuser's friends to cooperate with the investigation. I doubt there was anything "criminal" about TPD's actions, but I agree there was some negligence.

A civil suit could happen. Sure. Until it does there's not much to say about it though. I do question if the accuser wants to go through discovery and what that may reveal.

She was advised not to proceed with the case, since Tallahassee was a football town.
Her phone records were accessed, but not Winston's or any of those who testified on his behalf.
Her demeanor was similar to a person given the date rape drug, but no drug test was performed until months after the fact.
Evidence procedures were not properly followed.

I could go on. But you should get the point. IMO the whole investigation appeared to be one of proving her wrong or incompetent, and not one that tried to see whether or not she was actually raped.

No matter what, it still boils down to he said- she said. None of us have any idea what happened, including the police or the DA. Everyone is trying to make this an FSU drama. It is not. The campus police reported this to the TPD. Kind of weird that she did not just go to TPD first as this was totally off campus. Instead she went to the campus police.

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.

(12-16-2013 07:19 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:17 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 04:32 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:11 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Of course you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about. Few people ever do know what the other is thinking, even when they believe otherwise. We can't read each other's minds. It would be helpful if we could. But it doesn't work that way.

And just because nothing has been filed yet doesn't mean it's over. There is a window of opportunity for filing an appeal, and it ain't over yet. I'm of the opinion that there will be another filing before that window closes. I could be wrong. We shall find out in due time. But from the way this case was handled from the start, the Tallahassee PD and DA were criminally incompetent, and they should be held accountable.

An appeal of what? It never went to trial. There is no ruling to appeal.

Her attorney asked for a special investigation and was denied.

Whatever, dude. I just don't think this is over yet. I also think the actions of the Tallahassee PD and DA are a clear cut case of criminal negligence. If they can't get satisfaction one way, civil court can take the ball and run with it.

What did the State Attorney do that was negligent? I'd be interested in hearing this.

In what way was TPD negligent? There are a few things they should've acted sooner on, but I doubt you'll state them. I also think it's notable that the accuser and her attorney both told TPD multiple times early on in the investigation that they were not ready to press charges at that time, even after identifying Winston as the person she had sex with. TPD also had difficulty getting the accuser's friends to cooperate with the investigation. I doubt there was anything "criminal" about TPD's actions, but I agree there was some negligence.

A civil suit could happen. Sure. Until it does there's not much to say about it though. I do question if the accuser wants to go through discovery and what that may reveal.

She was advised not to proceed with the case, since Tallahassee was a football town.
Her phone records were accessed, but not Winston's or any of those who testified on his behalf.
Her demeanor was similar to a person given the date rape drug, but no drug test was performed until months after the fact.
Evidence procedures were not properly followed.

I could go on. But you should get the point. IMO the whole investigation appeared to be one of proving her wrong or incompetent, and not one that tried to see whether or not she was actually raped.

Well your first statement is a fabrication.

I don't know why other phones weren't checked. I don't know if the same law that gives the accused the right to not speak also prohibits the searching of their phones. The accuser's phone text/call log was accessed immediately because of what her friend told police. That doesn't explain why the eyewitnesses' records weren't in the report when the accuser's friends' were. I agree that, without further explanation, this appears negligent.

The toxicology report wasn't performed by TPD. The results came back negative so it didn't have an affect on the case.

Which evidence procedures?

I don't think you are in the appropriate position to say whether the investigation was attempting to prove her wrong or incompetent.

(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.

She may have been over .08 at some point during the night, but that's the limit to drive, not the limit of blacking out.

And every tv show and movie in America tells you not to talk to the police without an attorney. It's standard practice and common knowledge. (To add to what you already said.)

(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 01:16 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  And every tv show and movie in America tells you not to talk to the police without an attorney. It's standard practice and common knowledge. (To add to what you already said.)

Winston refused to talk to the police at all, without an attorney (which is indeed stupid) or with an attorney, and he refused to make a statement to police either.

Once you're out of the realm of the legal world and into the world of morality, it's hard to debate you on what's right or wrong. That's just your opinion and since it relies on your feeling on a particular matter, it's hard to argue that you're wrong.

Law is a poor substitute for morality. And our law is setup so that the accused are to get the benefit of the doubt to the Nth degree. Even so, juries don't return a verdict of innocent. They return a verdict of not guilty. There's a big difference there, particularly when you consider the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt for a jury to return a guilty verdict.

Anyhow, any lawyer would have advised Jameis to keep his mouth closed to the public. He doesn't owe the public any explanations. Of course when the police ask, it's a different story. Who knows what he told them.

At the end of the day we'll just never know on this one.