tOfficial "Jameis Winston" Superthread

[The Authority]

Did you know him from before hand? Had you hung out with him before? Where was his DNA found? Does he have an alibi? Does he have witnesses to corroborate his alibi? Did you give a wrong description to the police about this man? Did you name him a month later after it happened?

No
No
On the car
He made up an alibi but no proof to it
He has a friend as a witness
I gave a blury discription but his DNA was found on it so it was obviously him
Once I realized his name yes I named him a month later


Trial ? Or do we just let it slide?

 

[The Authority]

That's a really weak burden of proof...

You do realize that the man accused of this will be considered a rapist for the year(s) the trial is ongoing right?

Well golly . Never thought of that.

We should just eliminate r*pe trials all together just in case of the slight possibility of innocence.

 

[The Authority]

IF there needs to be absolute guilty evidence before a trial is set why do we even have trials.

This is a rhetorical question so no need to answer.

 

[FSUmanager]

sounds like here lawyer is an idiot.

doesn't mean he didn't r*pe her.

Why am I concerned ? Because I have experience with a r*pe victim and the rapists getting away with it and its very disturbing to me.

And so do I. Granted he finally did confess to it. And the person is extremely close to me. So close they live in the same house.

Her lawyer not reaching for the olive branch given does not mean he did it or did not do it.

I believe you are assuming way too much with limited info due to someone close to you. That is called bias and prejudgment. I am in the same situation, but I will allow him to be innocent until proven guilty. The same as I did with the close person to me and the person that attacked them. I also knew both people and their backgrounds.

If you believe it should have gone to trial that I fine, but you are assuming that a grand jury would have give charges. Cannot do that. YOu can hope they would do that, but cannot state they would. Had they gone to a grand jury and charges did not come out hat would you say then? She is still not getting her day in court? Cannot have it both ways.

 

[FSUmanager]

No
No
On the car
He made up an alibi but no proof to it
He has a friend as a witness
I gave a blury discription but his DNA was found on it so it was obviously him
Once I realized his name yes I named him a month later


Trial ? Or do we just let it slide?

They would not charge him just due to DNA or fingerprint evidence. Those can survive quite a long time. He could have fallen on the car, gotten in it by mistake, and so on. This is what the police will have to consider by the answers above. And most likely no charges.

 

[FSUmanager]

What it matter when she named him? She reported r*pe right after it happened and they found his DNA so obviously he was the one.

He was obviously the one who did what exactly? This statement right here shows your bias and judgment without evidence to back them up. All DNA shows is they had some contact at SOME POINT. It does not show or prove r*pe.

 

[The Authority]

And so do I. Granted he finally did confess to it. And the person is extremely close to me. So close they live in the same house.

Her lawyer not reaching for the olive branch given does not mean he did it or did not do it.

I believe you are assuming way too much with limited info due to someone close to you. That is called bias and prejudgment. I am in the same situation, but I will allow him to be innocent until proven guilty. The same as I did with the close person to me and the person that attacked them. I also knew both people and their backgrounds.

If you believe it should have gone to trial that I fine, but you are assuming that a grand jury would have give charges. Cannot do that. YOu can hope they would do that, but cannot state they would. Had they gone to a grand jury and charges did not come out hat would you say then? She is still not getting her day in court? Cannot have it both ways.

They should have been allowed to make that decision. What everyone else is assuming (which I find a bit disturbing) is that she is lying.

 

[The Authority]

They would not charge him just due to DNA or fingerprint evidence. Those can survive quite a long time. He could have fallen on the car, gotten in it by mistake, and so on. This is what the police will have to consider by the answers above. And most likely no charges.

Even though I saw him do it?


I would be willing to bet I would get my day in court.

 

[FSUmanager]

They should have been allowed to make that decision. What everyone else is assuming (which I find a bit disturbing) is that she is lying.

It is up to the SAO or DA in every state whether to charge themselves or go to a grand jury. If they believe that a grand jury will not give them charges they will no go before them and they will file charges themselves IF there is the evidence.

You seem to think that only a grand jury can make charges. That is 1 way only. Again what would you be saying if they went to a grand jury and they came back with no charges?

 

[The Authority]

He was obviously the one who did what exactly? This statement right here shows your bias and judgment without evidence to back them up. All DNA shows is they had some contact at SOME POINT. It does not show or prove r*pe.

That he was the one who did what she accused him of.

It doesn't matter when she name him at that point once the DNA was found.

If she came out and named him a month later but they never had his DNA then yes it would look fraudulent but obviously he was the one she was talking about the night of the incident.

 

[FSUmanager]

Even though I saw him do it?


I would be willing to bet I would get my day in court.

You stated a blurry description. That is not going to be enough if you cannot positively ID him in a lineup.

 

[The Authority]

You seem to think that only a grand jury can make charges. That is 1 way only. Again what would you be saying if they went to a grand jury and they came back with no charges?

What would you say if they went to grand jury and they came back WITH charges?

What's it matter what I would say?

There have been trials with less evidence.

 

[FSUmanager]

That he was the one who did what she accused him of.

It doesn't matter when she name him at that point once the DNA was found.

If she came out and named him a month later but they never had his DNA then yes it would look fraudulent but obviously he was the one she was talking about the night of the incident.

In your eyes. Not in the eyes of the law. Again showing your bias. Let it go. YOu know either of them or what happened so why are you trying to beat a dead horse?

 

[FSUmanager]

What would you say if they went to grand jury and they came back WITH charges?

What's it matter what I would say?

There have been trials with less evidence.

Boy you love not answering questions and love to deflect. See I will answer your question. I would say he will be tried. What response did you expect?

Ad your last line means jack shit. It is your opinion based upon very limited information. Did you read e full 248 page report released by the SAO? If not then you are letting your bias dictate your opinion without reading.

 

[nolehusker]

No
No
On the car
He made up an alibi but no proof to it
He has a friend as a witness
I gave a blury discription but his DNA was found on it so it was obviously him
Once I realized his name yes I named him a month later


Trial ? Or do we just let it slide?

Where on the car? The steering wheel? The back seat? The outside door? And how did you realize his name if you didn't know him?

 

[The Authority]

In your eyes. Not in the eyes of the law. Again showing your bias. Let it go. YOu know either of them or what happened so why are you trying to beat a dead horse?

Its not in my eyes. He was the one she accused from the very start. That is not an opinion.

 

[nolehusker]

Well golly . Never thought of that.

We should just eliminate r*pe trials all together just in case of the slight possibility of innocence.

Wow, way to red herring. No one said there shouldn't be a case if there is the possibility of innocence. They are saying that if evidence doesn't look like r*pe, then their shouldn't be.

 

[FSUmanager]

Its not in my eyes. He was the one she accused from the very start. That is not an opinion.

No he is not who she accused from the very start. From the start it was an unknown person. Only after seeing him in a class that they had together(hmmm...) did she say it was him. Again you are trying to state your opinion a fact. He was not accused from the start.

 

[nolehusker]

DNA and an accusation.

thats enough for a trial as far as I am concerned.

That's pretty fucked up. So, if you have sex with a girl and she accuses you of r*pe then it should go to trial? Yeah, that's fair

 

[The Authority]

Wow, way to red herring. No one said there shouldn't be a case if there is the possibility of innocence. They are saying that if evidence doesn't look like r*pe, then their shouldn't be.

What I am saying in dealing with r*pe is that there shouldn't have to be a smoking gun to get a trial.