Wasn't the accuser's press conference at 10 AM today?

[FSUmanager]

The funny thing is is that you would never be so quick to steadfastly defend this guy if he was with any other program. In fact if he was the member of a program you disliked you would be on the opposite side of the fence with all the these things that don't add up.

Actually yes I would be this quick to defend a player on another team. Way to jump to a HUGE assumption. I see you know me better than I know myself. Thanks Dr. Phil.

 

[FSUmanager]

He was accused the night of, there was DNA, there is no motive for false accusation. That's enough for a trial.

Since you are not an attorney in the state of FL and do not understand what "Reasonable likelihood of Conviction" means. I will let you know the bold is absolutely incorrect.

 

[The Authority]

Since you are not an attorney in the state of FL and do not understand what "Reasonable likelihood of Conviction" means. I will let you know the bold is absolutely incorrect.

That's bullshit and it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

 

[FSUmanager]

That's bullshit and it still doesn't mean he is innocent.

At least try to understand what the state has to prove before posting. Obviously you did not know that. If you do not believe m do a quick google search for Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction in FL. YOu will see that you are incorrect once again in this thread. The other time is when you said he was accused the night it happened. WRONG!!! He was accused on January 17th 2013. Not on December 7th. At leat try to get the facts straight.

 

[The Authority]

At least try to understand what the state has to prove before posting. Obviously you did not know that. If you do not believe m do a quick google search for Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction in FL. YOu will see that you are incorrect once again in this thread. The other time is when you said he was accused the night it happened. WRONG!!! He was accused on January 17th 2013. Not on December 7th. At leat try to get the facts straight.

She called 911 the night it happened.

Just because they don't think they could get a guilty "verdict". Doesn't mean he is completely innocent.

And there is still no motive for falsely accusing.

 

[TigerBait1971]

No motive needed. Bitches be crazy, yo.

 

[FSUmanager]

She called 911 the night it happened.

Just because they don't think they could get a guilty "verdict". Doesn't mean he is completely innocent.

And there is still no motive for falsely accusing.

You stated in post #58 this right here.

"He was accused the night of, there was DNA, there is no motive for false accusation. That's enough for a trial. "

Notice the bold. Way to try an spin out of your own words. You are again incorrect in your "facts" and what the SAO MUST be able to meet.

Stop while you are so far behind.

Just because in your opinion there is no motive for a false accusation does not mean there is one. Also I never stated that she falsely accused him. Others have, but I have not. When you asked for a plausible reason I gave you one, but you as always scoffed at it because it did not fit your narrative.

 

[The Authority]

You stated in post #58 this right here.

"He was accused the night of, there was DNA, there is no motive for false accusation. That's enough for a trial. "

Notice the bold. Way to try an spin out of your own words. You are again incorrect in your "facts" and what the SAO MUST be able to meet.

Stop while you are so far behind.

Just because in your opinion there is no motive for a false accusation does not mean there is one. Also I never stated that she falsely accused him. Others have, but I have not. When you asked for a plausible reason I gave you one, but you as always scoffed at it because it did not fit your narrative.

I'm not behind in the slightest.

I corrected what i said. She called 911 the night of. They found his DNA so obviously it was him.

Your reason was far fetched. More far fetched then thinking he raped her.

 

[FSUmanager]

I'm not behind in the slightest.

I corrected what i said. She called 911 the night of. They found his DNA so obviously it was him.

Your reason was far fetched. More far fetched then thinking he raped her.

Obviously SOME type of contact happened. DNA does not mean r*pe. You are trying to equate DNA to r*pe which is completely wrong. No matter if she called 911. Which by the way she did not call 911. Her one friend did. Just another specific fact you got wrong.

Am I annoying you yet with "splitting hairs"? I hope so because you seem to not know the facts of the case. Only your perception of what you think happened. Try reading the 248 page release by he SAO. I did that and you can see my "facts" are correct while yours are nothing but your speculation. I am out because you are not even informed of the case. Just trying to use the bullet points you have heard in the media.

 

[The Authority]

Obviously SOME type of contact happened. DNA does not mean r*pe. You are trying to equate DNA to r*pe which is completely wrong. No matter if she called 911. Which by the way she did not call 911. Her one friend did. Just another specific fact you got wrong.

Am I annoying you yet with "splitting hairs"? I hope so because you seem to not know the facts of the case. Only your perception of what you think happened. Try reading the 248 page release by he SAO. I did that and you can see my "facts" are correct while yours are nothing but your speculation. I am out because you are not even informed of the case. Just trying to use the bullet points you have heard in the media.

Does it really matter if she called or her friend called. No it doesn't. Once again your splitting hairs serves as pointless.

DNA doesn't mean r*pe but it also doesn't mean he is innocent either. In fact having DNA weighs more on the guilty side than the innocent side.

She claimed he raped her. I haven't heard of one valid reason why she would claim that if he didn't do it.

 

[FSUmanager]

Does it really matter if she called or her friend called. No it doesn't. Once again your splitting hairs serves as pointless.

DNA doesn't mean r*pe but it also doesn't mean he is innocent either. In fact having DNA weighs more on the guilty side than the innocent side.

She claimed he raped her. I haven't heard of one valid reason why she would claim that if he didn't do it.

NO I am not slitting hairs except to yu because you are wrong on any facts you try to bring up. Get yourself educated beyond the 911 call and the DNA. DNA does not point more one way or the other now does it? No it does not. She cannot remember many facts from he night in her own statement. She had given 3 different descriptions and so on. THAT is why there was not enough to go to trial. Hell her best friend was not even interviewed by the SAO because SHE did not want to be interviewed and in fact was out of the country.

Stop trying to state for a fact that he did what she claimed she did. Leave it as it is. A He said/ She said case with no physical evidence to support that he did it. Only a perception like yours that he did.

 

[FSUmanager]

Just a little more info. The Governor of FL Rick Scott stated that there will not be another investigation into this case, the SAO, FDLE, or TPD. Here is the story from the Orlando Sentinel.


Governor says Florida won't reopen Jameis Winston case despite plea from accuser's attorney - Orlando Sentinel


It states that Ms. Carroll the attorney for the alleged victim cannot call upon or ask the Attorney General to do this since she has involved publicly elected officials. She must go through the Governor's office to make a request for the AG to do this. Considering that Ms. Carroll is a former prosecutor she should have known this. So why ask?


Anyways before anyone says cover up by the Governor he is a Graduate of the University of Missouri/Kansas City and SMU(Law school) so there goes that theory that someone will bring up.

 

[7Samurai13]

Just a little more info. The Governor of FL Rick Scott stated that there will not be another investigation into this case, the SAO, FDLE, or TPD. Here is the story from the Orlando Sentinel.


Governor says Florida won't reopen Jameis Winston case despite plea from accuser's attorney - Orlando Sentinel


It states that Ms. Carroll the attorney for the alleged victim cannot call upon or ask the Attorney General to do this since she has involved publicly elected officials. She must go through the Governor's office to make a request for the AG to do this. Considering that Ms. Carroll is a former prosecutor she should have known this. So why ask?


Anyways before anyone says cover up by the Governor he is a Graduate of the University of Missouri/Kansas City and SMU(Law school) so there goes that theory that someone will bring up.

So what you are saying is that the cover up goes all the way up to the governor of the state? Wow, who knew Florida was THAT corrupt

 

[FSUmanager]

So what you are saying is that the cover up goes all the way up to the governor of the state? Wow, who knew Florida was THAT corrupt

Congrats on being the first to say it.

 

[7Samurai13]

Congrats on being the first to say it.

But at least I used the sarcasm font color. I am not The Authority and state it as fact.

 

[The Authority]

NO I am not slitting hairs except to yu because you are wrong on any facts you try to bring up. Get yourself educated beyond the 911 call and the DNA. DNA does not point more one way or the other now does it? No it does not. She cannot remember many facts from he night in her own statement. She had given 3 different descriptions and so on. THAT is why there was not enough to go to trial. Hell her best friend was not even interviewed by the SAO because SHE did not want to be interviewed and in fact was out of the country.

Stop trying to state for a fact that he did what she claimed she did. Leave it as it is. A He said/ She said case with no physical evidence to support that he did it. Only a perception like yours that he did.

911 was called the night of the incident. She had his DNA.

No plausible reason for to claim she was raped if she wasn't.


I know its not the way it works but His innocence has not been proven.

Unfortunately r*pe is hard to prove and be will always be suspect in a lot of people's mind.

It's a shame it couldn't go to trial to prove it one or the other.

 

[FSUmanager]

911 was called the night of the incident. She had his DNA.

No plausible reason for to claim she was raped if she wasn't.


I know its not the way it works but His innocence has not been proven.

Unfortunately r*pe is hard to prove and be will always be suspect in a lot of people's mind.

It's a shame it couldn't go to trial to prove it one or the other.

In your opinion there was nothing to the bold.

Also a trial would not "prove one way or another". All it would do is bring the evidence that the SAO already has. It still would not prove whether he did something criminal or not. All it would do is put him on trial. The real truth would not come out in this case since there is no physical evidence of r*pe. And I would highly doubt that the state would put the girl on the stand. Considering she cannot remember but broken pieces of the night. Hence why they could not meet the Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction standard that all cases in the state of FL are to abide by. Plus Meggs already got bent over on charging with no evidence once.

 

[The Authority]

In your opinion there was nothing to the bold.

Also a trial would not "prove one way or another". All it would do is bring the evidence that the SAO already has. It still would not prove whether he did something criminal or not. All it would do is put him on trial. The real truth would not come out in this case since there is no physical evidence of r*pe. And I would highly doubt that the state would put the girl on the stand. Considering she cannot remember but broken pieces of the night. Hence why they could not meet the Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction standard that all cases in the state of FL are to abide by. Plus Meggs already got bent over on charging with no evidence once.

It's more than just my opinion. You hav'nt provided anything to show that there is a plausible reason.

I've shot down every example you gave and backed it up.

Prove to me something plausible, otherwise there isn't one.

 

[FSUmanager]

It's more than just my opinion. You hav'nt provided anything to show that there is a plausible reason.

I've shot down every example you gave and backed it up.

Prove to me something plausible, otherwise there isn't one.

In your OPINION they do not make sense. Your SUBJECTIVE OPINION. You cannot state for a fact either way. All you are doing is trying to pass off your opinion as factual. Which it is not.

Also you did not back up anything on the 1 example I gave. Only two people have given you a reason. All you have said is that they are far fetched. You cannot corroborate anything you are trying to state a fact. Only your opinion.

I will give you this. You are a Class A troll, but a Class F debater since you cannot bring factual evidence to corroborate your theories. You do not know the girl so how could you shoot something down without 1st hand knowledge? YOu can't. Have fun in Trollville.

 

[The Authority]

In your opinion there was nothing to the bold.

Also a trial would not "prove one way or another". All it would do is bring the evidence that the SAO already has. It still would not prove whether he did something criminal or not. All it would do is put him on trial. The real truth would not come out in this case since there is no physical evidence of r*pe. And I would highly doubt that the state would put the girl on the stand. Considering she cannot remember but broken pieces of the night. Hence why they could not meet the Reasonable Likelihood of Conviction standard that all cases in the state of FL are to abide by. Plus Meggs already got bent over on charging with no evidence once.

In your OPINION they do not make sense. Your SUBJECTIVE OPINION. You cannot state for a fact either way. All you are doing is trying to pass off your opinion as factual. Which it is not.

Also you did not back up anything on the 1 example I gave. Only two people have given you a reason. All you have said is that they are far fetched. You cannot corroborate anything you are trying to state a fact. Only your opinion.

I will give you this. You are a Class A troll, but a Class F debater since you cannot bring factual evidence to corroborate your theories. You do not know the girl so how could you shoot something down without 1st hand knowledge? YOu can't. Have fun in Trollville.

I have provided reasons why they are not plausible. You have provided zero reasons that make sense to suggest your theories are even remotely plausible.