tOfficial "Jameis Winston" Superthread

[The Authority]

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.

Are you trying to say she wasn't with Winston the night she reported the r*pe?

I think that was proven was it not?

 

[FSUmanager]

Are you trying to say she wasn't with Winston the night she reported the r*pe?

I think that was proven was it not?

Now that is not what I am saying. What I am clearing up is your assumption ONLY his DNA was found that night. The way it was corroborated that they were together that night was through his 2 friends. None of hers did or could. Even the accuser could not or would not that night.

 

[The Authority]

Now that is not what I am saying. What I am clearing up is your assumption ONLY his DNA was found that night. The way it was corroborated that they were together that night was through his 2 friends. None of hers did or could. Even the accuser could not or would not that night.

so what we know is that they were together that night, she reported she was raped that same night and they found his DNA.



And there was never any other evidence of them ever being together any other time.

So that basically proves he was the one she was accusing.

 

[FSUmanager]

so what we know is that they were together that night, she reported she was raped that same night and they found his DNA.



And there was never any other evidence of them ever being together any other time.

So that basically proves he was the one she was accusing.

That proves nothing because of the lack of "media" that was available to prove if they knew each other. Only her side has said they did not know each other. He has never been asked that. And they did have classes together. May have known each other. May not have. That has not be proven or not.

 

[nolehusker]

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.

I am not saying they need a smoking gun, but they need evidence to support what happened. They don't need pictures or videos of it happenning, but they do need things to support it. Like that she fought back or forced himself on her.

And I brought up that she gave the wrong description because it shows that she can't remember things correctly.

Also, if you're going off the fact that DNA is part of this, why shouldn't her boyfriend be charged also? His DNA was found on her clothes? According to you he should be charged.

 

[The Authority]

I am not saying they need a smoking gun, but they need evidence to support what happened. They don't need pictures or videos of it happenning, but they do need things to support it. Like that she fought back or forced himself on her.

She could have forced back with physical evidence of it. It is possible.

And I brought up that she gave the wrong description because it shows that she can't remember things correctly.

But we do know it was him she was talking about the night of the incident.

Also, if you're going off the fact that DNA is part of this, why shouldn't her boyfriend be charged also? His DNA was found on her clothes? According to you he should be charged.

Because there is evidence she knows him and she didn't accuse him.

 

[The Authority]

That proves nothing because of the lack of "media" that was available to prove if they knew each other. Only her side has said they did not know each other. He has never been asked that. And they did have classes together. May have known each other. May not have. That has not be proven or not.

It absolutely proves it was him.

Not once I have I heard someone say that they don't believe he wasn't the one that was with her right before she had her friend call in the r*pe.

 

[nolehusker]

She could have forced back with physical evidence of it. It is possible.



But we do know it was him she was talking about the night of the incident.



Because there is evidence she knows him and she didn't accuse him.

I never said that their couldn't be r*pe with lack of evidence for force, but it does make it a lot less harder to prove. That's what you don't seem to understand, they have to prove it and if they don't think they even have a chance to prove it, then it is their duty not to waste the tax payers money to take this to court.

I'm not saying that it wasn't him she was talking about, but if she can't even get a simple description right then how do we know everything else she is saying is right.

I'm still trying to get this through my head. You sersiouly think that just because a girl accuses someone of r*pe and that person's DNA is on them, their should be a trial? No questions asked? No witnesses questioned? No looking at evidence to see if what she was saying is true? Nothing? Just take her word for it and drag this guys name through the mud, because she said she was raped and has his DNA? I'll refer back to you car getting stolen situation. There were a lot of questions that needed to be asked and answered before we could even determine if we should bring up charges. According to you, just having someone's DNA on something and accusing them of stealing is enough for charges. It's not. r*pe should be held to the same standards.

 

[nolehusker]

It absolutely proves it was him.

Not once I have I heard someone say that they don't believe he wasn't the one that was with her right before she had her friend call in the r*pe.

Really? You aren't addressing what he was talking about. He was saying that it doesn't prove that they don't know each other. He wasn't even talking about proving that it wasn't him. You are just reaching for straws now.

 

[FSUmanager]

It absolutely proves it was him.

Not once I have I heard someone say that they don't believe he wasn't the one that was with her right before she had her friend call in the r*pe.

You need to realize that NO the DNA does not prove her friend and her that spoke with police that night were talking about him. Just another piece of info you need is that she also gave two other descriptions at later dates. So again how does the DNA prove that she was speaking of him? it does not. Had you actually taken the time to educate yourself on the "evidence" by reading the 248 page report you would see how the SAO came to the conclusion they did. Quit being so obtuse and stubborn due to you biases.

Also remember there was a 3rd DNA that was unidentified found on her face too. Are you sure that they were talking about Winston and not who the 3rd DNA belongs to?

 

[The Authority]

I never said that their couldn't be r*pe with lack of evidence for force, but it does make it a lot less harder to prove. That's what you don't seem to understand, they have to prove it and if they don't think they even have a chance to prove it, then it is their duty not to waste the tax payers money to take this to court.

I'm not saying that it wasn't him she was talking about, but if she can't even get a simple description right then how do we know everything else she is saying is right.

I'm still trying to get this through my head. You sersiouly think that just because a girl accuses someone of r*pe and that person's DNA is on them, their should be a trial? No questions asked? No witnesses questioned? No looking at evidence to see if what she was saying is true? Nothing? Just take her word for it and drag this guys name through the mud, because she said she was raped and has his DNA? I'll refer back to you car getting stolen situation. There were a lot of questions that needed to be asked and answered before we could even determine if we should bring up charges. According to you, just having someone's DNA on something and accusing them of stealing is enough for charges. It's not. r*pe should be held to the same standards.

If there is no record of a previous relationship then yes there should be a trail. That is where we can let a jury decide who is telling the truth.

 

[The Authority]

Really? You aren't addressing what he was talking about. He was saying that it doesn't prove that they don't know each other. He wasn't even talking about proving that it wasn't him. You are just reaching for straws now.

Just like you are saying there is no proof of r*pe there is no proof they knew each other.

It works both ways.

 

[The Authority]

You need to realize that NO the DNA does not prove her friend and her that spoke with police that night were talking about him. Just another piece of info you need is that she also gave two other descriptions at later dates. So again how does the DNA prove that she was speaking of him? it does not. Had you actually taken the time to educate yourself on the "evidence" by reading the 248 page report you would see how the SAO came to the conclusion they did. Quit being so obtuse and stubborn due to you biases.

Also remember there was a 3rd DNA that was unidentified found on her face too. Are you sure that they were talking about Winston and not who the 3rd DNA belongs to?

His friends admitted he was with her the night the r*pe was called in.

 

[The Authority]

Also remember there was a 3rd DNA that was unidentified found on her face too. Are you sure that they were talking about Winston and not who the 3rd DNA belongs to?

That would be a good reason for a trial .

 

[nolehusker]

If there is no record of a previous relationship then yes there should be a trail. That is where we can let a jury decide who is telling the truth.

What does them not having a previous relationship have anything to do with this. You do know that the majority of r*pe victims know their rapist? So according to you, if someone had a previous relationship with someone and then gets accused of r*pe, they shouldn't be on trial. You really need to give it up. Sending everything to trial is not the answer and actually makes the system fail the people because it can't keep up.

 

[The Authority]

What does them not having a previous relationship have anything to do with this. You do know that the majority of r*pe victims know their rapist? So according to you, if someone had a previous relationship with someone and then gets accused of r*pe, they shouldn't be on trial. You really need to give it up. Sending everything to trial is not the answer and actually makes the system fail the people because it can't keep up.

It eliminates a lot of your so called conspiracy theories that most of you apologists keep trying to come up with.

 

[FSUmanager]

That would be a good reason for a trial .

Why do you need a trial to find out who belongs to the 3rd DNA? All that takes is a subpoena once you have someone you believe it belongs to. You know the way the SAO found out who the 2nd DNA belonged to.

 

[FSUmanager]

His friends admitted he was with her the night the r*pe was called in.

Yes HIS FRIENDS who corroborated that everything was CONSENSUAL! Ummm no cop, DA, or SAO is going to go forward if there is NOBODY to rebuke those two other than the accuser. Notice how the civil suit is not going after the two people who came forward in defense of Winston? Wonder why that is.

 

[The Authority]

Why do you need a trial to find out who belongs to the 3rd DNA? All that takes is a subpoena once you have someone you believe it belongs to. You know the way the SAO found out who the 2nd DNA belonged to.

The trial is the chance to prove guilt on the one she accused

 

[The Authority]

Notice how the civil suit is not going after the two people who came forward in defense of Winston? Wonder why that is.

Gee, he has to be innocent then.