Jameis Winston (FSU) merged

[NickZ4UT]

if he was white victim black.. and no charges and no arrest

it would be just like Zimmerman.. Sharpton would march and the Black Panthers would be down there putting bountys on peoples heads

You are an ignorant PoS. I get it, somehow black people have wronged you and you're all bitter about it.

This isn't about race dum dums, this is about rape culture and college athletics. I've sat here and read post after post blaming the victim and assuming they know what happened. None of you know what happened and neither do I. Keep in mind when this happened no one knew who this kid was, he was a freshman and he hadn't played a game yet. That's hardly any reason to have a mass cover up. It's clear the cops didn't do their job right, maybe they wanted to protect the university, maybe they were incompetent (Florida ain't exactly known for a great legal system) and maybe there just wasn't enough evidence. Who knows? Point is, complaining about or celebrating today's events is ridiculous.

 

[volinbham]

You are an ignorant PoS. I get it, somehow black people have wronged you and you're all bitter about it.

This isn't about race dum dums, this is about rape culture and college athletics. I've sat here and read post after post blaming the victim and assuming they know what happened. None of you know what happened and neither do I. Keep in mind when this happened no one knew who this kid was, he was a freshman and he hadn't played a game yet. That's hardly any reason to have a mass cover up. It's clear the cops didn't do their job right, maybe they wanted to protect the university, maybe they were incompetent (Florida ain't exactly known for a great legal system) and maybe there just wasn't enough evidence. Who knows? Point is, complaining about or celebrating today's events is ridiculous.

I agree with much of this but claiming it's about rape culture and college athletics then saying you don't know what happened is contradictory. It's only about rape culture if it was rape.

 

[UTProf]

I know, but that's for Winston's attorney to argue, not the DA.

Read the docs that were released today. They are available online. I'm not suggesting that a conviction would be a sure thing, but there is no way the DA can make a convincing argument that he didn't have enough evidence to bring a charge.

Quoted for truth. And that is why this looks like a travesty all the way around, especially coupled with TPD's actions. However, folks will continue to smear this girl is as a liar/slut/you-name it, theorize Bama did it or Florida did it, and put forth just about everything else to believe there wasn't enough and that Winston was 100 percent innocent. The fact of the matter is that a trial, which can only happen when charges are filed, is our best vehicle to determine guilt or innocence.

DAs often overprosecute/over-punish regular people (key words being regular people) to feed the 'tough on crime' attitude we the people demand and win election. They do that a whole lot more than they say 'nah.' Saying 'nah' to even filing charges and not so much as going for plea deal is reserved for those who are connected, popular, and whose public stature would cost them serious votes and campaign funding should they prosecute.

The whole situation is made even worse by the TPD produced clusteruck.

 

[MSUDuo]

Out of curiosity, do you think it's likely that the accuser was in to sodomy?

Considering they found two sets of foreign DNA on her, who knows? She could be into anything.

 

[volinbham]

Quoted for truth. And that is why this looks like a travesty all the way around, especially coupled with TPD's actions. However, folks will continue to smear this girl is as a liar/slut/you-name it, theorize Bama did it or Florida did it, and put forth just about everything else to believe there wasn't enough and that Winston was 100 percent innocent. The fact of the matter is that a trial, which can only happen when charges are filed, is our best vehicle to determine guilt or innocence.

DAs often overprosecute/over-punish regular people (key words being regular people) to feed the 'tough on crime' attitude we the people demand and win election. They do that a whole lot more than they say 'nah.' Saying 'nah' to even filing charges and not so much as going for plea deal is reserved for those who are connected, popular, and whose public stature would cost them serious votes and campaign funding should they prosecute.

The whole situation is made even worse by the TPD produced clusteruck.

Not much to disagree with but here but filing charges in a case like this always leaves doubt about the accused regardless of a trial outcome.

The claims that this is because he has public stature goes two ways. Would this case even have ever surfaced if he didn't have public stature? See, we don't know. The TPD made a determination right or wrong. If JW wasn't famous this would have never come to light because no journalist would have been digging into it.

Bottomline we just don't know what happened so attacking the woman or JW for being famous are both wrongheaded

 

[volinbham]

It's odd to me that questioning the woman's testimony is considered attacking her but assuming JW did it is not considered attacking him. Why don't both have equal status?

 

[volinbham]

No. But the vaginal swab yielded no sample. The anal swab did.

I'm not an attorney, but I think if I were a DA, I could use that fact in court.

What is the job of the DA - to assume the crime happened or to prosecute a crime you believe happened?

IOW should I look at a case from a standing of "I can win this regardless of whether or not I believe the story" or "Do I believe a crime occurred and how can I prove it"?

 

[Escape Goat]

I'm by no means an expert, so maybe someone on here knows:

How long after drinking 5 or 6 shots would one's BAC still be notably elevated?

3-4 hours.

 

[UTProf]

Not much to disagree with but here but filing charges in a case like this always leaves doubt about the accused regardless of a trial outcome.

I'd go so far as so to say simply being under suspicion when you're involved in a high profile case is more than enough. How many suspected Jack the Rippers, Black Dahlia suspects, and the like continue to be listed and written about? Even more 'modern' cases like DB Sweeney or the Zodiac Killer continue to generate suspects and press.

The Lipstick Murders in Chicago which took place in 1943 and were considered the very first US serial killer case were an absolute scandalous affair. Police tortured an illiterate janitor over a note suddenly appeared in the family apt. after the place had already been searched. He was only released on bond because eventually his union demanded a writ of Habeus Corpus.

He said:

"Oh, they hanged me up, they blindfolded me ... I can’t put up my arms, they are sore. They had handcuffs on me for hours and hours. They threw me in the cell and blindfolded me. They handcuffed my hands behind my back and pulled me up on bars until my toes touched the floor. I no eat, I go to the hospital. Oh, I am so sick. Any more and I would have confessed to anything."[15]

The shame is that he was neither the first nor the last in the case.

Eventually Chicago PD pinned the murders on William Hierens -- a kid whose worst crime was being a thrill thief in his younger days. He was endure the following:

According to Heirens, he remembered drifting into unconsciousness under questioning. The police had taken him to Bridewell Hospital, which was adjacent to the Cook County Jail. The questioning became more intense, with officers demanding to know how he did it, to say that he did it, they "knew" that he did it. At one point, someone punched him in the testicles, causing him to nearly vomit.[8] They also burned them with ether.[16]

Heirens later said he was interrogated around the clock for six consecutive days, being beaten by police and not allowed to eat or drink.[16] He was not allowed to see his parents for four days.[16] He was also refused the opportunity to speak to a lawyer for six days.[16][24]

Two psychiatrists, Doctors Haines and Roy Grinker, gave Heirens sodium pentothal without a warrant and without Heirens' or his parents' consent, and interrogated him for three hours.[16] Under the influence of the drug, authorities claimed, Heirens spoke of an alternate personality named "George", who had actually committed the murders. Heirens claimed that he recalled little of the drug-induced interrogation and that when police asked for "George's" last name he said he couldn't remember, but that it was "a murmuring name". Police translated this to "Murman" and the media would later dramatize it to "Murder Man". What Heirens actually said is in dispute, as the original transcript has disappeared. In 1952, Dr Grinker revealed that Heirens had never implicated himself in any of the killings.[25]

On his fifth day in custody, Heirens was given a lumbar puncture without anesthesia. Moments later, Heirens was driven to police headquarters for a polygraph test. They tried for a few minutes to administer the test, but it was rescheduled for several days later after they found him to be in too much pain to cooperate.[25]

When the polygraph was administered, authorities, including State's Attorney William Tuohy, announced that the results were “inconclusive.” On July 2, 1946, he was transferred to the Cook County Jail where he was placed in the infirmary to recover.[16][26][27]

Hierens was forced to plead guilty or face certain death. The investigations had gone on for years as the press taunted CPD. He died in 2012 despite even one of the victim's children calling BS immediately, known police misconduct and proven fabricated evidence. The murders were also never solidly linked together either.

However, none of the suspects were famous and few famous, wealthy, or well connected people ever face charges. The same is as true now as it was then. And heroes are even less likely to face consequences. We give them the benefit of the doubt while we rarely give that same benefit to regular people.

 

[volinbham]

I'd go so far as so to say simply being under suspicion when you're involved in a high profile case is more than enough. How many suspected Jack the Rippers, Black Dahlia suspects, and the like continue to be listed and written about? Even more 'modern' cases like DB Sweeney or the Zodiac Killer continue to generate suspects and press.

The Lipstick Murders in Chicago which took place in 1943 and were considered the very first US serial killer case were an absolute scandalous affair. Police tortured an illiterate janitor over a note suddenly appeared in the family apt. after the place had already been searched. He was only released on bond because eventually his union demanded a writ of Habeus Corpus.

He said:



The shame is that he was neither the first nor the last in the case.

Eventually Chicago PD pinned the murders on William Hierens -- a kid whose worst crime was being a thrill thief in his younger days. He was endure the following:



Hierens was forced to plead guilty or face certain death. The investigations had gone on for years as the press taunted CPD. He died in 2012 despite even one of the victim's children calling BS immediately, known police misconduct and proven fabricated evidence. The murders were also never solidly linked together either.

However, none of the suspects were famous and few famous, wealthy, or well connected people ever face charges. The same is as true now as it was then. And heroes are even less likely to face consequences. We give them the benefit of the doubt while we rarely give that same benefit to regular people.

Interesting story but again I'll say this goes both ways. JW was not charged when he was not a superstar in any way - he hadn't played a game. He wasn't a hero.

Many months after he wasn't charged the alleged victim's team fed information to a reporter who pushed the whole thing into the public eye.

Do you believe a reporter would have done this if JW was a regular person? Being famous also makes you an interesting target.

 

[volinbham]

and few famous, wealthy, or well connected people ever face charges.

Seriously?

 

[UTProf]

Interesting story but again I'll say this goes both ways. JW was not charged when he was not a superstar in any way - he hadn't played a game. He wasn't a hero.

He was a highly touted recruit just like Da'Rick (and others) when that fight broke out injuring a KPD officers. Even KPD charged him but attorneys got plea deals lowering that to disorderly conduct (something often reserved these days for such high crimes as being too loud, cussing an officer, or being a pain in an officer's rear by asking to many questions or just annoying them).

Many months after he wasn't charged the alleged victim's team fed information to a reporter who pushed the whole thing into the public eye.

They deny the leak and it's just as likely TMZ heard it from another source. One report that traced how it became a story said that an off-duty officer claiming to work for TP was bragging about being the shiznit at a bar in order to impress a woman and that said woman told another person who phoned TMZ for a payoff. Given that it took so long it sounds quite plausible.

However, I'd point out that there may have been two or more separate tips. The local reporter who was first tipped but not first to break the story was given the case number and told it would be worth their time to check it out. No other info. and no names were mentioned. In the email requests/exchanges he had with TPD and it looks that the reporter had no clue what it was about other than FSU football -- they just followed up since they covered FSU football. TMZ who requested info. shortly after the local reporter mentioned no case no. and specifically asked for any and all documents related Jameis Winston.

And even after the news broke on TMZ and locally, a local news reporter asked 'what was going on' because the local media's twitter feed was blowing up.

I find it hard to believe the victim had any part in leaking this case for one simple reason: leaking an investigation you're involved in makes it easy to trackback to you and/or your camp. Long gone are the days when stuff like this is untraceable and it's more unlikely in a case sure to capture headlines. Winston's camp was also unlikely to do so.

That leaves the TPD officer bragging about his own importance or someone else in the know doing something similar as the most likely sources (perhaps a city official or police secretary who'd been told but there's lots of possibilities, including a gossiping FSU employee just talking about what they heard from so and so with no intention of leaking anything).

Do you believe a reporter would have done this if JW was a regular person? Being famous also makes you an interesting target.

Depends on what you mean by that question. Mugshots for everything from alleged trespassing, assault that did not result in injury (a crime where apprehension or feeling threatened is the only requirement for charges), barking at a police dog, reckless driving without alcohol or drugs (essentially speeding compounded by pissing off a cop or said cop being in a foul mood) and other absurd 'crimes' are an industry that includes papers dedicated them and websites that want money for mugshot removal even if found innocent. There's also the newspaper's local crime beat, local and national tv news, and worldwide websites that publish all kinds of alleged incidents bot big and small. So yes, I think a regular person could easily be crucified law enforcement and/or in the news and by the DA - how far the story traveled would depend on how the public viewed the allegations.

While the famous show up in the gossip pages they're usually never charged. Having political or big business enemies (people looking to take you out and willing to bankroll it) makes you a better target for charges and convictions than simple fame, imo. Fame more often is likely to produce both true and untrue stories that are all about "look what so and so is doing" including when those stories point out illicit activity.

 

[bamawriter]

What is the job of the DA - to assume the crime happened or to prosecute a crime you believe happened?

IOW should I look at a case from a standing of "I can win this regardless of whether or not I believe the story" or "Do I believe a crime occurred and how can I prove it"?

That question is a tad philosophical. I think LG would be able to answer better than me.

 

[volinbham]

He was a highly touted recruit just like Da'Rick (and others) when that fight broke out injuring a KPD officers. Even KPD charged him but attorneys got plea deals lowering that to disorderly conduct (something often reserved these days for such high crimes as being too loud, cussing an officer, or being a pain in an officer's rear by asking to many questions or just annoying them).



They deny the leak and it's just as likely TMZ heard it from another source. One report that traced how it became a story said that an off-duty officer claiming to work for TP was bragging about being the shiznit at a bar in order to impress a woman and that said woman told another person who phoned TMZ for a payoff. Given that it took so long it sounds quite plausible.

However, I'd point out that there may have been two or more separate tips. The local reporter who was first tipped but not first to break the story was given the case number and told it would be worth their time to check it out. No other info. and no names were mentioned. In the email requests/exchanges he had with TPD and it looks that the reporter had no clue what it was about other than FSU football -- they just followed up since they covered FSU football. TMZ who requested info. shortly after the local reporter mentioned no case no. and specifically asked for any and all documents related Jameis Winston.

And even after the news broke on TMZ and locally, a local news reporter asked 'what was going on' because the local media's twitter feed was blowing up.

I find it hard to believe the victim had any part in leaking this case for one simple reason: leaking an investigation you're involved in makes it easy to trackback to you and/or your camp. Long gone are the days when stuff like this is untraceable and it's more unlikely in a case sure to capture headlines. Winston's camp was also unlikely to do so.

That leaves the TPD officer bragging about his own importance or someone else in the know doing something similar as the most likely sources (perhaps a city official or police secretary who'd been told but there's lots of possibilities, including a gossiping FSU employee just talking about what they heard from so and so with no intention of leaking anything).



Depends on what you mean by that question. Mugshots for everything from alleged trespassing, assault that did not result in injury (a crime where apprehension or feeling threatened is the only requirement for charges), barking at a police dog, reckless driving without alcohol or drugs (essentially speeding compounded by pissing off a cop or said cop being in a foul mood) and other absurd 'crimes' are an industry that includes papers dedicated them and websites that want money for mugshot removal even if found innocent. There's also the newspaper's local crime beat, local and national tv news, and worldwide websites that publish all kinds of alleged incidents bot big and small. So yes, I think a regular person could easily be crucified law enforcement and/or in the news and by the DA - how far the story traveled would depend on how the public viewed the allegations.

While the famous show up in the gossip pages they're usually never charged. Having political or big business enemies (people looking to take you out and willing to bankroll it) makes you a better target for charges and convictions than simple fame, imo. Fame more often is likely to produce both true and untrue stories that are all about "look what so and so is doing" including when those stories point out illicit activity.

This sure seems like a lot of speculation to reach conclusion that rich and famous rarely get charged.

 

[lawgator1]

nvm

 

[Daloth]

Absolutely agree so long as there's proof that it was indeed a false report and not simply connected to whether or not formal charges are pressed (plenty of people file reports that lead nowhere and that having to do with rape where the accused is never caught -- they're not lying about being mugged, being shot at, groped, harassed, or assaulted just because police never located or had the evidence to charge the perp. and ironically unlike rape victims who report a rape we don't presume them to be devious evil people/women out to get the accused). A mugging or fight on the street between strangers is often just as he said/she said as a rape allegation but charges follow.

I'd also go so far as to add degrees of false allegations. For example, someone who pre-planned an allegation and did so out of spite should suffer more consequences than one who didn't plan it and took it back before things progressed.

I also believe that in most (not all - but most) rape cases the defendant should not be identified until charges have been filed.

My sister used to work for DCS for about five years, and I can say that your last paragraph is true, in the case of under age victims. However, she also said that kids who wanted to leave the house will say they were abused, or even abuse themselves to make it seem it, in order to leave or just to cause trouble.

As far as planning it = more punishing? I totally agree. I also feel if the girl wantonly spreads the information while the case is still going that she should be charged for each person they can find that she or her family told. Slander and Libel are hard to prove, but in this day and age when you can keep text messages for years or record anything with your phone, I do believe this would lower the already low number of false accusations, which is really what we need to focus on because of the stigma surrounding it.

 

[govols/cc]

That question is a tad philosophical. I think LG would be able to answer better than me.

Wow! You base your credibility on what LG says? Lol

 

[bamawriter]

Wow! You base your credibility on what LG says? Lol

I have no clue what you meant by this question. But neither do you, and you asked it. So I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

[govols/cc]

I have no clue what you meant by this question. But neither do you, and you asked it. So I'm just going to leave it at that.

You believe an utter moron could answer a question....

 

[bamawriter]

You believe an utter moron could answer a question....

LG has some dumb opinions, but he's a solid source of information when it comes to legal questions.

 

[BeecherVol]

 

[gunner]

I just read the narrative written by the State's Attorney Investigator. It is very interesting. The documents can be found here:

http://www.tallahassee.com/interact...8/View-Jameis-Winston-investigation-documents


Two FSU football players submitted sworn statements affirming that the sex with Winston and the victim was consensual as they were both eyewitnesses to the sexual encounter by peeking in to Winston's room as this was going on.

IMO they are either telling the truth and they are "peeping toms" or they are lying to cover for Winston. This seems very bizarre to me.

 

[vol_in_ar]

I just read the first 7 pages, and don't see how in the world, the DA couldn't bring charges

 

[gunner]

I just read the first 7 pages, and don't see how in the world, the DA couldn't bring charges

It depends on who you find more credible the victim or Winston and his peeping tom roommates.

There was probable cause to charge or indict Winston, but proving it to a jury beyond any reasonable doubt would have been a big challenge that he wasn't willing to take on IMO.

 

[vol_in_ar]

then put them both on the stand and let a jury decide