tOfficial "Jameis Winston" Superthread

[The Authority]

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.

She had her friend call 911 the night it happened.

Even though they didn't know at the time, Who was it that they were talking about ?


She accused someone. That someone turned out to be him as DNA proved.

 

[FSUmanager]

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

Let's go with your idea. Girl A claims Boy B raped her. It goes to trial. The boy is found innocent by jury. Can the boy then sue the girl and her family to recoup the thousands of dollars due to an accusation and the stigma that he will carry forever? Even though he was found innocent.

If not then that is fucked up.

 

[nolehusker]

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.

I am a r*pe victim and my rapist got away with it. Is it fucked up? Yes, but that doesn't mean that every accusation of r*pe with DNA evidence should be treated as r*pe and sent to trial. That takes away from people that actually get raped and people can't point to cases like the Duke lacrosse case.

 

[FSUmanager]

She had her friend call 911 the night it happened.

Even though they didn't know at the time, Who was it that they were talking about ?

Well at the time the call was made the were talking about an unknown person. As indicated on the initial police complaint.

 

[nolehusker]

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

No one is saying there needs to be a smoking gun. What they are saying is that there needs to be evidence that it happened. A person's word and DNA is not grounds for a trial. Using your logic, if a bank gets robbed and you were there and they find your DNA and someone says you did it, you should stand trial. r*pe shouldn't be held to any other standard in the justice system than any other crime.

 

[The Authority]

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

If I didn't know her and she did that right after having sex, I would expect that I would be charged.

I have never raped anyone so that has never happened to me.

 

[The Authority]

I am a r*pe victim and my rapist got away with it. Is it fucked up? Yes, but that doesn't mean that every accusation of r*pe with DNA evidence should be treated as r*pe and sent to trial. That takes away from people that actually get raped and people can't point to cases like the Duke lacrosse case.

If he is innocent he would get off. Thats what trials are for.

 

[The Authority]

Well at the time the call was made the were talking about an unknown person. As indicated on the initial police complaint.

right but as DNA proved , it was in fact him.

 

[FSUmanager]

If I didn't know her and she did that right after having sex, I would expect that I would be charged.

I have never raped anyone so that has never happened to me.

Is it fair that you should expect to be charged if you had consensual sex? SO you should have to get a lawyer and incur all of that expense an the stigma even if innocent? Dude you must fold like a lawn chair anytime anything gets difficult if that is what you think someone should expect.

 

[nolehusker]

If I didn't know her and she did that right after having sex, I would expect that I would be charged.

I have never raped anyone so that has never happened to me.

Just because you would expect to be charge doesn't make it right. And you act like you had to have raped someone for them to do this. This was originally consentual sex, but then she changed her mind. Yes, it happens. Just because she makes the accusation, doesn't mean you should be charged. There should be an investigation, but they shouldn't charge you based soley on her words and the fact that your DNA was found on her.

 

[The Authority]

No one is saying there needs to be a smoking gun. What they are saying is that there needs to be evidence that it happened. A person's word and DNA is not grounds for a trial. Using your logic, if a bank gets robbed and you were there and they find your DNA and someone says you did it, you should stand trial. r*pe shouldn't be held to any other standard in the justice system than any other crime.

Again, someone can be raped without actual physical evidence or a "smoking gun" of all out r*pe.

It is possible.

Part of being raped is having sex and their was evidence of that.

The fact that the accuser gets all the benefit of the doubt is disturbing.

 

[The Authority]

Is it fair that you should expect to be charged if you had consensual sex? SO you should have to get a lawyer and incur all of that expense an the stigma even if innocent? Dude you must fold like a lawn chair anytime anything gets difficult if that is what you think someone should expect.

I don't r*pe people so I am not in those situations.

 

[FSUmanager]

right but as DNA proved , it was in fact him.

Again deflection an presumption. DNA does NOT indicate r*pe. That is the part you are forgetting. You are taking he accuser's without hearing her speak. You are too biased to come close to being objective.

Also you asked who they were talking about when they called 911. Just because you do not like what the factual answer was is not my problem. THe DNA was not found for 11 months later. And dna still does not prove or disprove r*pe. Even the FDLE lab and the SAO stated as much. In fact the SAO stated DNA only proves sexual contact. Not whether a crime was committed. You are purposely denying that simple fact because of someone you know.

 

[nolehusker]

If he is innocent he would get off. Thats what trials are for.

No, trials aren't there just to bring anyone that is accused of something with limited evidence that they did it. Your only evidence that he raped her is that he had his DNA on her panties. That is not enough to prove he raped her. There was an investigation and they couldn't find enough evidence to show that he raped her.

There was no sign of force. The drug screen came back that she wasn't messed up. She gave the wrong description of Winston which leads to questioning the credibility of the witness.

 

[FSUmanager]

I don't r*pe people so I am not in those situations.

And you do not know if he did either. But way to deflect instead of answering the question. All this does is prove you cannot or are refusing to debate.

 

[nolehusker]

Again, someone can be raped without actual physical evidence or a "smoking gun" of all out r*pe.

It is possible.

Part of being raped is having sex and their was evidence of that.

The fact that the accuser gets all the benefit of the doubt is disturbing.

I'm not saying they can't. But our system is setup that if you can't prove they are guilty then you can't sentence them. A lot of people have sex. If that is your only evidence then a lot of people are being raped.

Also, the accuser doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I think you meant suspect.

 

[The Authority]

Again deflection an presumption. DNA does NOT indicate r*pe. That is the part you are forgetting. You are taking he accuser's without hearing her speak. You are too biased to come close to being objective.

Also you asked who they were talking about when they called 911. Just because you do not like what the factual answer was is not my problem. THe DNA was not found for 11 months later. And dna still does not prove or disprove r*pe. Even the FDLE lab and the SAO stated as much. In fact the SAO stated DNA only proves sexual contact. Not whether a crime was committed. You are purposely denying that simple fact because of someone you know.

I didn't say DNA indicates r*pe.

I said she accused someone of r*pe the night it happened and that person she accused was in fact Winston as proven by the DNA found.

 

[The Authority]

No, trials aren't there just to bring anyone that is accused of something with limited evidence that they did it. Your only evidence that he raped her is that he had his DNA on her panties. That is not enough to prove he raped her. There was an investigation and they couldn't find enough evidence to show that he raped her.

There was no sign of force. The drug screen came back that she wasn't messed up. She gave the wrong description of Winston which leads to questioning the credibility of the witness.

Again, you are saying they needed to have a smoking gun prior to trial.

It doesn't matter if she gave a wrong description. We know now she was talking about him becuase they found his DNA.

 

[FSUmanager]

I didn't say DNA indicates r*pe.

I said she accused someone of r*pe the night it happened and that person she accused was in fact Winston as proven by the DNA found.

Again incorrect. She accused an unknown person who did not fit Winston's description. And to be totally factual there were 3 separate sets of DNA on her or her clothing(Where Winston's DNA was found). 1 belonging to Winston, 1 to her now ex-boyfriend, and a 3rd unknown DNA. Again you are trying to pass off your opinion as factual. REad the entire repot and then come to a conclusion. Not the other way around as you are being now.

 

[The Authority]

I'm not saying they can't. But our system is setup that if you can't prove they are guilty then you can't sentence them.

Again, thats what trials are for. There wasn't a trial.

A lot of people have sex. If that is your only evidence then a lot of people are being raped.

What ? You're obviously lost in space with that comment.