(12-17-2013 01:11 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So I take it this is a complete fabrication from the accuser, like everything else?

http://gamedayr.com/lifestyle/athletes-2...ment-89450

(12-17-2013 12:48 PM)ndlutz Wrote:  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.

.......

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.

Actually, the moral realm isn't very difficult to discuss. If I murder your wife, would you have difficulty arguing that I am evil? I don't think so.

As to what he told the police, well, they asked and he refused to talk with the police.

(12-17-2013 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:11 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(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:  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.

So I take it this is a complete fabrication from the accuser, like everything else?

http://gamedayr.com/lifestyle/athletes-2...ment-89450

The way you presented it absolutely was a fabrication. She was never told, "Do not press charges." I posted this earlier in the thread, I guess you weren't paying attention:

Quote:The girl told police multiple times she wasn't sure if she wanted to press charges BEFORE she ever identified Winston as the person she had sex with. A former attorney for the State Attorney's office was quoted in several Florida newspapers that “It’s a disservice if you do not advise them up front how the victim’s morals and motives will be questioned..."

This shows two things: 1) She couldn't have been "advised" by TPD that it was a football town prior to her identifying Winston, so there's no way that played a role in her not pressing charges despite talking to police on multiple occasions early on in the investigation, and 2) TPD did nothing wrong in advising her how they did, since it's standard protocol and they never crossed the line by telling her to drop the case like you've insinuated.

And like everything else, you only reply to a small portion of my comment because the rest you can't dispute.

Hell, nobody's asked but per the sexual assault examination kit, the nurse wrote there was no ecchymosis, no abrasions, no swelling, only mild redness and no rupture of the posterior fourchette. A source I've found says the posterior fourchette is "the most common area of injury in the female sexual assault victim."

Source: Clinician Review, a peer-reviewed journal for physician assistants and nurse practitioners.
http://www.clinicianreviews.com/index.ph...9fd02f3686

(12-17-2013 05:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hell, nobody's asked but per the sexual assault examination kit, the nurse wrote there was no ecchymosis, no abrasions, no swelling, only mild redness and no rupture of the posterior fourchette. A source I've found says the posterior fourchette is "the most common area of injury in the female sexual assault victim."

My source (a forensic nurse examiner) says that it is not uncommon to have NO evidence of injury after a sexual assault. The nurse was making the statement that no injury was found to prove that the area was examined.

Conversely, in the Kobe Bryant case, there were documented signs of injury everywhere and the victim refused to press charges because of the media storm.

(12-17-2013 05:40 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hell, nobody's asked but per the sexual assault examination kit, the nurse wrote there was no ecchymosis, no abrasions, no swelling, only mild redness and no rupture of the posterior fourchette. A source I've found says the posterior fourchette is "the most common area of injury in the female sexual assault victim."

My source (a forensic nurse examiner) says that it is not uncommon to have NO evidence of injury after a sexual assault. The nurse was making the statement that no injury was found to prove that the area was examined.

I assume you're being sincere and not making up a source to counter my "source". And your point seems fair. But it's just another piece of evidence that doesn't prove a sexual assault occurred. There's a lot of such evidence that mounted on the accused's side.

EDIT: Another source I've found says injuries were found on 2/3 of victims in their study using toluidine blue dye. That's the method the nurse in this case performed.
Source: American Journal of Emergency Medicine
http://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735...4/abstract

(12-17-2013 05:40 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hell, nobody's asked but per the sexual assault examination kit, the nurse wrote there was no ecchymosis, no abrasions, no swelling, only mild redness and no rupture of the posterior fourchette. A source I've found says the posterior fourchette is "the most common area of injury in the female sexual assault victim."

Conversely, in the Kobe Bryant case, there were documented signs of injury everywhere and the victim refused to press charges because of the media storm.

I don't know the details of the kit in that case, but I do recall there being a fair bit of evidence to discredit her, like having another man's DNA on her at the time of the examination, which the accuser in Winston's case also had.

(12-17-2013 05:01 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 02:05 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:11 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

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

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

So I take it this is a complete fabrication from the accuser, like everything else?

http://gamedayr.com/lifestyle/athletes-2...ment-89450

The way you presented it absolutely was a fabrication. She was never told, "Do not press charges." I posted this earlier in the thread, I guess you weren't paying attention:

Quote:The girl told police multiple times she wasn't sure if she wanted to press charges BEFORE she ever identified Winston as the person she had sex with. A former attorney for the State Attorney's office was quoted in several Florida newspapers that “It’s a disservice if you do not advise them up front how the victim’s morals and motives will be questioned..."

This shows two things: 1) She couldn't have been "advised" by TPD that it was a football town prior to her identifying Winston, so there's no way that played a role in her not pressing charges despite talking to police on multiple occasions early on in the investigation, and 2) TPD did nothing wrong in advising her how they did, since it's standard protocol and they never crossed the line by telling her to drop the case like you've insinuated.

And like everything else, you only reply to a small portion of my comment because the rest you can't dispute.

So the girl's statements are nothing but lies, and Jameis Winston has said nothing but the truth. I see where you're coming from.

But I have seen public officials say some pretty stupid things in my day. I remember when I was running a petition drive to get a traffic light installed on the intersection of the main drag into the residential area where I live, and was getting no help at all from the city officials. Finally I decided to record a call and had a guy tell me that not enough people had been killed at that intersection to necessitate installing a traffic light there. I then called his boss and played the recording, saying if I didn't get any action on the light I'd give that recording to the local news media. The next day an engineer was counting traffic, and a light was installed at 2 intersections within 2 weeks.

So I wouldn't be at all surprised if the girl was telling the absolute truth there. People can be extremely stupid at times, especially when something infringes on things dear to the heart, like FSU football to most of the folks in Tallahassee. If you want to think otherwise, that's your right. But IMO something down there smells to high heaven.

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.

(12-17-2013 05:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't know the details of the kit in that case, but I do recall there being a fair bit of evidence to discredit her, like having another man's DNA on her at the time of the examination, which the accuser in Winston's case also had.

Often times a victim will seek the comfort of a known/regular partner to try to erase the memory of the previous experience. And unfortunately that DNA evidence may have been a strong factor in the victim not wanting to proceed. That is, not to protect herself, but to avoid drawing others into the case.

In any case, my source (who I happen to be married to) believes that eye witnesses of the victim in after the encounter in Kobe's case left little doubt about how rough he was -- no examination required.

I understand the concept of a woman playing the victim, but for all the cases of rape that go unreported, the fraction of the cases where rape is reported deserve a fair hearing and the victim needs to know that the world is not working against her (or him).

Where did it say it was a .10?

So, you want a client to deliberately ignore the evidence of his attorney and do something he had no reason to do to placate your vision of morality? OK.

How does two witnesses that claim he did nothing wrong and toxicology reports that claim she was clean proof that she was right?

(12-17-2013 05:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:40 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:31 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Hell, nobody's asked but per the sexual assault examination kit, the nurse wrote there was no ecchymosis, no abrasions, no swelling, only mild redness and no rupture of the posterior fourchette. A source I've found says the posterior fourchette is "the most common area of injury in the female sexual assault victim."

Conversely, in the Kobe Bryant case, there were documented signs of injury everywhere and the victim refused to press charges because of the media storm.

I don't know the details of the kit in that case, but I do recall there being a fair bit of evidence to discredit her, like having another man's DNA on her at the time of the examination, which the accuser in Winston's case also had.

How on earth does it "discredit her" to have another man's DNA on her at the time of the examination.

You have proven yourself to be a complete Jameis shill. I'm starting to wonder if you're on his lawyer's payroll.

(12-18-2013 08:41 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  How does two witnesses that claim he did nothing wrong and toxicology reports that claim she was clean proof that she was right?

The DA said she was probably at .10 at the time of the rape, more than enough to impair memory.

The two "witnesses" were FSU teammate homies who signed statements prepared by Winston's lawyer, not the police. To me, that's an obvious credibility problem.

I never said Winston should ignore the advice of his lawyer. I said that If he was innocent, I would expect that it would be far more likely that he would ignore aspects of that advice, like not making statements to the police, than if he was guilty. It was also ridiculous how Winston never claimed consensual sex until after the DNA came out, but then falsely claimed he'd said that all along.

I never said I had proof the girl was right. If I did I'd say Winston should be in jail. What I said was that the facts that exist create reasonable doubt about his guilt but also his innocence, so I can't come close to treating this guy like he has the same moral standing as you or I. He deserves to walk through life with a grey cloud over his head, thus it was rather nauseating watching voters vote for him and Heisman winners clap for him at the awards ceremony. He should be considered somewhat of a pariah, not someone who was 'vindicated'.

(12-18-2013 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 08:41 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  How does two witnesses that claim he did nothing wrong and toxicology reports that claim she was clean proof that she was right?

The DA said she was probably at .10 at the time of the rape, more than enough to impair memory.

The two "witnesses" were FSU teammate homies who signed statements prepared by Winston's lawyer, not the police. If I have to explain the credibility problem with that, you're a hopeless FSU fanboy.

I never said Winston should ignore the advice of his lawyer. I said that If he was innocent, I would expect that it would be far more likely that he would ignore aspects of that advice, like not making statements to the police, than if he was guilty. It was also ridiculous how Winston never claimed consensual sex until after the DNA came out, but then falsely claimed he'd said that all along.

I never said I had proof the girl was right. If I did I'd say Winston should be in jail. What I said was that the facts that exist create reasonable doubt about his guilt but also his innocence, so I can't come close to treating this guy like he has the same moral standing as you or I. He deserves to walk through life with a grey cloud over his head, thus it was rather nauseating watching voters vote for him and Heisman winners clap for him at the awards ceremony. He should be considered somewhat of a pariah, not someone who was 'vindicated'.

Actually, he should be treated as anyone else in this country....Innocent Until Proven Guilty...

(12-14-2013 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  .. just because your lawyer got to your homies to sign affidavits before the police did doesn't mean you have been 'vindicated'. Especially when you refused to speak to the police and therefore made no on the record statements to vindicate.

Creepy that the ESPN Heisman show is acting like this guy is on the same moral plane as the other candidates. And that he will win.

Which one of the others were on a "moral plane"?

(12-18-2013 10:47 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 08:41 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  How does two witnesses that claim he did nothing wrong and toxicology reports that claim she was clean proof that she was right?

The DA said she was probably at .10 at the time of the rape, more than enough to impair memory.

The two "witnesses" were FSU teammate homies who signed statements prepared by Winston's lawyer, not the police. If I have to explain the credibility problem with that, you're a hopeless FSU fanboy.

I never said Winston should ignore the advice of his lawyer. I said that If he was innocent, I would expect that it would be far more likely that he would ignore aspects of that advice, like not making statements to the police, than if he was guilty. It was also ridiculous how Winston never claimed consensual sex until after the DNA came out, but then falsely claimed he'd said that all along.

I never said I had proof the girl was right. If I did I'd say Winston should be in jail. What I said was that the facts that exist create reasonable doubt about his guilt but also his innocence, so I can't come close to treating this guy like he has the same moral standing as you or I. He deserves to walk through life with a grey cloud over his head, thus it was rather nauseating watching voters vote for him and Heisman winners clap for him at the awards ceremony. He should be considered somewhat of a pariah, not someone who was 'vindicated'.

Actually, he should be treated as anyone else in this country....Innocent Until Proven Guilty...

In terms of legal ramifications, yes. But not morally. E.g., I didn't stop thinking of OJ as a murderer just because the legal system adjudicated him 'not guilty' after his criminal case. The cloud of doubt about his innocence merited treating him like a pariah anyway. Winston isn't a murderer, of course, and the evidence suggesting his guilt isn't as strong as in OJ's case, but same idea.

(12-18-2013 10:50 AM)jfhopkins Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 08:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  .. just because your lawyer got to your homies to sign affidavits before the police did doesn't mean you have been 'vindicated'. Especially when you refused to speak to the police and therefore made no on the record statements to vindicate.

Creepy that the ESPN Heisman show is acting like this guy is on the same moral plane as the other candidates. And that he will win.

Which one of the others were on a "moral plane"?

Any that I don't have reason to think might have committed a serious crime.

(12-18-2013 09:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 08:41 AM)fsugrad99 Wrote:  How does two witnesses that claim he did nothing wrong and toxicology reports that claim she was clean proof that she was right?

The DA said she was probably at .10 at the time of the rape, more than enough to impair memory.

The two "witnesses" were FSU teammate homies who signed statements prepared by Winston's lawyer, not the police. To me, that's an obvious credibility problem.

I never said Winston should ignore the advice of his lawyer. I said that If he was innocent, I would expect that it would be far more likely that he would ignore aspects of that advice, like not making statements to the police, than if he was guilty. It was also ridiculous how Winston never claimed consensual sex until after the DNA came out, but then falsely claimed he'd said that all along.

I never said I had proof the girl was right. If I did I'd say Winston should be in jail. What I said was that the facts that exist create reasonable doubt about his guilt but also his innocence, so I can't come close to treating this guy like he has the same moral standing as you or I. He deserves to walk through life with a grey cloud over his head, thus it was rather nauseating watching voters vote for him and Heisman winners clap for him at the awards ceremony. He should be considered somewhat of a pariah, not someone who was 'vindicated'.

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?

(12-18-2013 08:17 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 05:58 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't know the details of the kit in that case, but I do recall there being a fair bit of evidence to discredit her, like having another man's DNA on her at the time of the examination, which the accuser in Winston's case also had.

Often times a victim will seek the comfort of a known/regular partner to try to erase the memory of the previous experience. And unfortunately that DNA evidence may have been a strong factor in the victim not wanting to proceed. That is, not to protect herself, but to avoid drawing others into the case.

In any case, my source (who I happen to be married to) believes that eye witnesses of the victim in after the encounter in Kobe's case left little doubt about how rough he was -- no examination required.

I understand the concept of a woman playing the victim, but for all the cases of rape that go unreported, the fraction of the cases where rape is reported deserve a fair hearing and the victim needs to know that the world is not working against her (or him).

I think accusations like this should be taken seriously. And while I don't think TPD conspired against this young woman or to cover-up a potential crime, I do feel they were negligent in some respects.

I'm not attempting to discredit your source/spouse or even state that the accuser in Winston's case is some liar. I am trying to present facts that the general public is unaware of. While my conclusion may or may not be biased, I cannot change the actual facts of the case. (This is directed more towards others than you.)