No charges

[M5farm]

If you reread my comments on this when it first came out you can see that I In no way thought that if he was guilty of a "crime" he should be not be punished. His is guilty of poor judgment and immoral behavior on every level and from what I see he is not taking accountability for his actions although they are not criminal. Looking at this case as it is in my backyard just as the case you mentioned was in yours there are flaws in the system and no community is immune to the effects of "good ole boys". The judicial system allows a process to play out because our system and courts could not handle every case of an accused with a jury and a trial. false accusations is just as much a crime. I could say that "Billy Bob" touches little boys and by your logic he should be jailed and tried with no questions asked and would be no recourse against me for making that accusation.

The issue with this case with how the authorities handled it needs to be investigated. and at the time of this incident this young man (18 yo) had never played a down on the football team and it was basically dropped by PD until this young man was a "star" football player and the accuser and her aunt lawyer decided that the money wagon had rolled into town. there are two many cases of false accusations that ruin a lot of people . you and I can agree on the system needs some work and You have my vote when you run for office on the platform of fixing the judicial system in our country.

:tiphat:

 

[greybeard]

The DA let 2 things influence his judgement.
1. His ties to FSU.
2. His chances of re-election had he opted to send this to a grand jury.

It's a grand jury's job to determine whether to indict or no-bill. Any time a prosecutor usurps the grand jury's responsibility, he/she has left open the door of doubt and malfeasance. Had the case gone to the grand jury, and they no billed him, I would have been fine with it. It is THEIR job to determine if there is enough evidence to move forward--not an elected official's job.
Justice was not served in this case--far far too many people in Fla and in the SEC opted to worry more about making the alleged rapist into a victim than they did in seeing the justice system played out to what the law calls for---and I am a BIG BIG fan of SEC teams in general. IMO, this girl got screwed three times. Once by FSU's star qb--once by her boyfriend, and again by the DA and FSU fans.

 

[highgrit]

I bet she's been screwed more than 3 times.

 

[M5farm]

The DA let 2 things influence his judgement.
1. His ties to FSU.previous history does not suggest this
2. His chances of re-election had he opted to send this to a grand jury. not running for reelection

It's a grand jury's job to determine whether to indict or no-bill. Any time a prosecutor usurps the grand jury's responsibility, he/she has left open the door of doubt and malfeasance. Had the case gone to the grand jury, and they no billed him, I would have been fine with it. It is THEIR job to determine if there is enough evidence to move forward--not an elected official's job. so a state attorney is only supposed to be a paper pusher or middle man between PD and GJ
Justice was not served in this case--far far too many people in Fla and in the SEC opted to worry more about making the alleged rapist into a victim than they did in seeing the justice system played out to what the law calls for---and I am a BIG BIG fan of SEC teams in general. IMO, this girl got screwed three times. Once by FSU's star qb--once by her boyfriend, and again by the DA and FSU fans.

GB apparently You and I are going to disagree. You think its one way and I think its another. touché

 

[Tim/South]

What lady gets "raped" then goes to her boyfriend for round two?
Her story apparently did not add up from the beginning. Now she claims to have been too inebriated to remember details. Blood tests say she was not drunk. She was texting the evening she made the accusations. Does not appear she mentioned rape to her friends in any of the texts.
The original police investigation did not add up. The police told her this would make the front page since it involved an athlete and that the press would leave no stone unturned. Did she wish to continue? Answer, "No".

This is just my take from what I have read.
Girl meets guys at a bar. They flirt and she enjoys the attention. She goes to an apartment with three guys. She and one of the guys begging turning each other on. Boy and girl get private and play hokey pokey.
Afterward one guy drops her off near where she lives.
Boyfriend wants to play hokey pokey which turns into the 3 little bears. Boyfriend wants to know who has been drinking his porridge. She says it was stolen. She accommodates boyfriend then to convince him it was theft, goes to the police and hospital. Police investigate and smell a rat. They inform her how big this is going to be, says some things to not add up. She has filed a report, mission accomplished, life goes on, turn the page.
Football player becomes big star. Friends who know about the accusations and believe them as fact, call a local news paper and break the story.
DA becomes involved and assigns 2 investigators, one male, one female. They track down boyfriend now living in Ohio. Pieces of the puzzle do not fit. They dig into phone records and find nothing mentioned or amiss during the time this supposed forced entry took place. People at the bar remember a different series of events than what she told friends and police.
DA announces there is not enough evidence to take it before a grand jury.
Case will never close in the court of public opinion. They did not interview the man on the grass knoll.

Everyone is going to have their opinion. This is simply mine from what I have read.

BTW:
Florida State is in the ACC, not the SEC.

 

[TexasBred]

The DA let 2 things influence his judgement.
1. His ties to FSU.previous history does not suggest this
2. His chances of re-election had he opted to send this to a grand jury. not running for reelection

It's a grand jury's job to determine whether to indict or no-bill. Any time a prosecutor usurps the grand jury's responsibility, he/she has left open the door of doubt and malfeasance. Had the case gone to the grand jury, and they no billed him, I would have been fine with it. It is THEIR job to determine if there is enough evidence to move forward--not an elected official's job. so a state attorney is only supposed to be a paper pusher or middle man between PD and GJ
Justice was not served in this case--far far too many people in Fla and in the SEC opted to worry more about making the alleged rapist into a victim than they did in seeing the justice system played out to what the law calls for---and I am a BIG BIG fan of SEC teams in general. IMO, this girl got screwed three times. Once by FSU's star qb--once by her boyfriend, and again by the DA and FSU fans.

GB apparently You and I are going to disagree. You think its one way and I think its another. touché

Actually the DA is a bit more than a pencil pusher but it is not his job to determine guilt or innocence. His job is to evaluate the evidence and present it to a grand jury and they determine if there is justification for an indictment to be issued. Having served on a grand jury I do know that most grand juries simply apply a rubber stamp to whatever the DA recommends. He could have kept his name out of any "what ifs" had he simply presented the evidence to the GJ along with a recommendation that they "No Bill" the accused. Case closed. !!!!! Accused goes free to file counter suit against accuser which is what I understand is now happening. Seems his family now has the $$$$$$ in their eyes. :lol2:

 

[greybeard]

so a state attorney is only supposed to be a paper pusher or middle man between PD and GJ

That, is the way it was supposed to be from the beginning, and the GJ system was set up that way to prevent favoritism, cronyism, graft, bribery etc. Some states have moved away from that in recent decades and the DAs have now garnered more power and taking flack from almost every corner because of it. In the interim bad ol years of the early 20th century, DAs and even some state AGs were in the pockets of organized crime, union bosses, and even local gangs. The grand jury prevents that--prevents what is known as showing "even the appearance of impropriety". That, is important in maintaining public trust. Integrity.

 

[Tim/South]

I just read the original police reports and their investigation as it unfolded.
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that there is any sort of cover up they may want to take the time to read just how through and intense the investigation was. Every claim is documented and investigated. The only discrepancies come from the accuser and her friend. They seem to be the only stories that are inconsistent.
The accusers story changes and does not match the witnesses at the club or apartment. Her parents requested their daughter's blood sample be tested again as the original sample taken at the hospital did not show her drunk or drugged. The results of the second test were the same. The friend who originally called police was told a different story as well, originally saying her friend said she had been struck on the head and carried out of the bar.
All the statements and evidence are there for the public to read. Even the text messages. Even the ones deleted from her phone.

 

[TexasBred]

Then the evidence should have been given to a grand jury so they rather than the DA could no bill the accused. Removes all semblance of impropriety by anyone.

 

[gimpyrancher]

His is guilty of poor judgment and immoral behavior on every level and from what I see he is not taking accountability for his actions although they are not criminal.

I just wonder if you'd say the same thing if it were your daughter?

 

[M5farm]

His is guilty of poor judgment and immoral behavior on every level and from what I see he is not taking accountability for his actions although they are not criminal.

I just wonder if you'd say the same thing if it were your daughter?

gimpy, fortunately my daughter is not a slut. :tiphat:

 

[gimpyrancher]

Then I have to look at you closer. Obviously you must know this woman well to call her a slut.

If not, isn't it just as reasonable for me to call your daughter a slut without knowing her? Or do you really know the other woman that well?

By the way, is your son as much of an innocent stud as you think the young man is?

 

[M5farm]

Then I have to look at you closer. Obviously you must know this woman well to call her a slut.

If not, isn't it just as reasonable for me to call your daughter a slut without knowing her? Or do you really know the other woman that well?

By the way, is your son as much of an innocent stud as you think the young man is?

Gimpy,
I really don't know what you are trying to do with your comments. The girl slept with 2 men on the same night and I know people that do know her personally. My kids are irrelevant in this situation.
You should read my comment again. I explained what he did was not morally right but his act was not criminal. You should look at the facts. I do not condone his behavior. until you have walked in the shoes of being falsely accused you should just shut your pie hole.

 

[Alan]

Then I have to look at you closer. Obviously you must know this woman well to call her a slut.

If not, isn't it just as reasonable for me to call your daughter a slut without knowing her? Or do you really know the other woman that well?

By the way, is your son as much of an innocent stud as you think the young man is?

Gimpy,
I really don't know what you are trying to do with your comments. The girl slept with 2 men on the same night and I know people that do know her personally. My kids are irrelevant in this situation.
You should read my comment again. I explained what he did was not morally right but his act was not criminal. You should look at the facts. I do not condone his behavior. until you have walked in the shoes of being falsely accused you should just shut your pie hole.

M5, I think you have blinders on this one. I did not see she was with two guys except for your claims, if you can produce a valid article I may rethink things. Sounds like her lawyer is still pushing, going to the state attorney general. The lawyer claims is there is two different medical reports and the modified one was the only one in the local courts .... It was by her lawyers accounts dummied down.

BTW, your daughter has nothing to do with this, but I think gimpy was just saying look at it with an open mind. Calling someone a slut without things being complete is harsh ..... My mind says she may have been raped ...... And maybe not.

 

[gimpyrancher]

M5farm,

> until you have walked in the shoes of being falsely accused you should just shut your pie hole.

I absolutely agree. And if you are only a family member or a friend that has been falsely accused, you also might consider keeping quiet. You'd have some knowledge but little true understanding. I spent 15 years on the front lines in Civil Rights enforcement. That means I fought for the rights of our Vets long before it became cool to say I support our vets. I'll match you with stories anytime you want.

If you feel the jury is always right, then you also believe OJ was innocent and Rodney King was guilty before a jury even had a say in it. You'd also would have to agree with the Rodney King beat-down cops being acquitted of all crimes.

 

[Dega Moo]

Then I have to look at you closer. Obviously you must know this woman well to call her a slut.

If not, isn't it just as reasonable for me to call your daughter a slut without knowing her? Or do you really know the other woman that well?

By the way, is your son as much of an innocent stud as you think the young man is?

Gimpy,
I really don't know what you are trying to do with your comments. The girl slept with 2 men on the same night and I know people that do know her personally. My kids are irrelevant in this situation.
You should read my comment again. I explained what he did was not morally right but his act was not criminal. You should look at the facts. I do not condone his behavior. until you have walked in the shoes of being falsely accused you should just shut your pie hole.

M5 - I could be mistaken but I recall reading that the second DNA sample resulted from sex with her boyfriend previously in the week and not from intercourse with her boyfriend that same night after intercourse with Winston. So your contention surprised me, sort of. The sole support for your contention she's a slut appears to be that she slept or had intercourse with two men on the same night. If it is correct that she didn't sleep with 2 men on the same night, while it may or may not mean she's not a slut, would seem to eliminate any support for the basis of your contention. Can you support - cite the DA document - where it's publicly available that states she slept or had sex with two men on the same night?

The reason I said above ...surprised me, sort of .... is that like you initially I thought the state was saying she had intercourse with 2 men the same night. They really allowed that thought to hang out there, maybe even encouraged the perception and that really would have most of us thinking less than kind thoughts about this woman. But later I picked up on this statement that the non Winston DNA they found in her panties was from intercourse with a boyfriend earlier in the week.

 

[M5farm]

Everyone has an opinion. I encourage you doubters to read in investigation by SA it is everywhere on line.

Alan, degamoo the DNA samples from her face contained two specimens also.

 

[highgrit]

M5, that's because she didn't wash her face or panties.

 

[3waycross]

M5, that's because she didn't wash her face or panties.

apparently ever!

 

[M5farm]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/12/2 ... d-renegade