Jameis Winston Rape Allegations

[Tidewater]

Okay, it's off-season so please indulge the question.
Over dinner tonight, I was talking about the "Me, Too" phenomenon and I mentioned Jameis Winston getting away, quite literally, with rape, which might have a chilling effect on abused women coming forward.
A colleague from Florida challenged my interpretation. He said that no proof ever arose that Winston had raped the woman in question and that she had a reputation, shall we say, of "playing the field," particularly with athletes.
Now, I had not heard any such reputation, not that this is any excuse for rape, but his allegation was that consensual sex got turned into rape later.
My memory is not as good as some (looking at you, Bill), but I recall (without getting too graphic) physical evidence of forceful entry and DNA evidence tying Mr. Winston to the act.
I recall thinking Mr. Winston was getting away with rape.
Set aside, for the moment, the "she had a reputation" angle, was there not physical evidence from the immediate aftermath that any sexual contact between the two was not consensual?
Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I do not want to besmirch anyone's reputation unjustly, but my colleague and I remember things quite differently.

 

[Jon]

Okay, it's off-season so please indulge the question.
Over dinner tonight, I was talking about the "Me, Too" phenomenon and I mentioned Jameis Winston getting away, quite literally, with rape, which might have a chilling effect on abused women coming forward.
A colleague from Florida challenged my interpretation. He said that no proof ever arose that Winston had raped the woman in question and that she had a reputation, shall we say, of "playing the field," particularly with athletes.
Now, I had not heard any such reputation, not that this is any excuse for rape, but his allegation was that consensual sex got turned into rape later.
My memory is not as good as some (looking at you, Bill), but I recall (without getting too graphic) physical evidence of forceful entry and DNA evidence tying Mr. Winston to the act.
I recall thinking Mr. Winston was getting away with rape.
Set aside, for the moment, the "she had a reputation" angle, was there not physical evidence from the immediate aftermath that any sexual contact between the two was not consensual?
Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I do not want to besmirch anyone's reputation unjustly, but my colleague and I remember things quite differently.

my recollection is that people who wanted to hate Jameis for going there/not here kind of ignored the how flimsy the evidence was as they were convinced he was a "thug" and not just another over indulged spoiled athlete teenager. This case was particularly week the appearance the FSU PD and school where blatantly incompetent and not at all interested in figuring it all out didn't help matters. Lots of groupthink here on those threads in my opinion. Never really can know what happened but I came away with doubts based on the evidence provided

 

[DzynKingRTR]

The "she had a reputation" angle seems new or sound like Winston's camp. I remember there being video that supposedly cleared Winston, but gosh darn it would you know it was somehow deleted and unrecoverable.

 

[81usaf92]

my recollection is that people who wanted to hate Jameis for going there/not here kind of ignored the how flimsy the evidence was as they were convinced he was a "thug" and not just another over indulged spoiled athlete teenager. This case was particularly week the appearance the FSU PD and school where blatantly incompetent and not at all interested in figuring it all out didn't help matters. Lots of groupthink here on those threads in my opinion. Never really can know what happened but I came away with doubts based on the evidence provided

Yeah I'm leaning towards that way as well. Ive also heard different stories of how the story went down as well. I really think there is more to it than what was being presented, and that the evidence wasn't as concrete as many seem to believe. But who really knows at this point?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I do not know enough about the specifics of the Winston case to have an informed opinion and please bear something in mind - the case hit the press in November 2013, literally just days after my wife of (then) 22 years blew her stack in a marriage counseling session (that was 11/7/13) where I pretty much figured my marriage was probably over (that was the same day as Oregon-Stanford btw).

However, from what I DO know about it, I tend to concur with what Jon has written.

(To give everyone a timeline.....the Winston allegations were a slow drip like a political scandal usually is from mid-November 2013 right after we had beaten LSU through the national title game in January; through that time I was actually more preoccupied with trying to
spend time with my son, finishing my thesis (I turned in the hard copy on 11/14/13 and hit a tire on the interstate returning home
on I-35), depressed over the Iron Bowl, the whole Nick Saban to Texas saga (which was ten times more depressing for me living here
than for y'all there as you can imagine), and doing several interviews with news outlets as that was when all the "60 Minutes" interview
(conducted 10/28) and NPR (12/12) and other places - so I really did not pay that much attention to it).

Cam Newton was pretty much open and shut but the Winston case was a lot different.

I'm with Jon on several points here

my recollection is that people who wanted to hate Jameis for going there/not here kind of ignored the how flimsy the evidence was as they were convinced he was a "thug" and not just another over indulged spoiled athlete teenager.

Agree, and Winston being black played into the oversexed, entitled stereotype, too. I also think that Winston was hurt by the fallout
from the Penn State situation. It would have been 100 times worse on him had his allegations come post-Baylor or post-Larry Nassar.

This case was particularly week the appearance the FSU PD and school where blatantly incompetent and not at all interested in figuring it all out didn't help matters.

I think this is the linchpin of the whole thing. Just like the Penn State admin, they didn't WANT to find out about it.

Lots of groupthink here on those threads in my opinion. Never really can know what happened but I came away with doubts based on the evidence provided

There's been a lot of groupthink (hell, look at the Trump thread for Pete's sake) here, and I try to NOT engage in it for the most part. That's why I held my cards to the vest on the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin thing (too many folks don't seem to realize you can think Zimmerman is a loose cannon but STILL look at the forensics - as I did - and determine that Martin picked a fight with him and tried to beat him up and got shot in the process) and why I'm always trying to wait on the whole "unarmed black vs the police" situations that we have all the time (most of these are NEVER as simple as the press tries to make them out to be. Sometimes the cop needs to go to prison and sometimes the unarmed black did enough to at least justify the use of force).

I've literally NEVER criticized Hillary over Benghazi, a situation which to me is similar to Weinberger with the Marines in Lebanon or perhaps everyone's favorite, "Why did Bush wait seven minutes and stay with those kids after the WTC attack?" Duh, because that's where the
Secret Service told him he'd be the safest, morons).

On Winston, it also became easier to make the jump from, "If a guy would steal crablegs, he'd rape a girl."

I'd have to look at it closer, and it's just never been that important to me, I guess. I can understand forensics (I'm not a doctor, but I HAVE been to med school and I have taken Pathology and other courses), and I certainly can understand anything related to lab science.

But there's no doubt the girl THOUGHT she was raped and he THOUGHT it was consensual. (One of the telling things there is where vaginal abrasions are located).

I also think it was easier because he was the lead QB on a top football team; had he been a white QB at Rice University, it would have been a blip on the radar screen even if he really did it.

Let me give a somewhat similar situation: Mike Tyson. I realize that Mike was a bit thuggish and brutish in his behavior, and I also realize he came across as rather stupid and even primitive. But I've never been completely convinced he was guilty of what he went to prison for, either. I think his attorney did bad by him by portraying him as a sexual predator that the young gal should have known what he was. And I also think he paid the price for Clarence Thomas getting onto the Court and William Kennedy Smith being acquitted of rape in the months preceding Tyson's trial. Sexual ethics was big then as now (that was the so-called Year of the Woman in politics) and I've always thought Tyson bore the brunt of folks angry at those cases. It shouldn't be but does anyone actually believe OJ walks if the Rodney King riots had not happened? He may have, but I doubt it (although I'll concede the prosecution was bumbling).

I know, I've rambled, but what I've read on it, it was NOT an open/shut case where the cops bungled - even though they did mess it up.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Okay, it's off-season so please indulge the question.
Over dinner tonight, I was talking about the "Me, Too" phenomenon and I mentioned Jameis Winston getting away, quite literally, with rape, which might have a chilling effect on abused women coming forward.
A colleague from Florida challenged my interpretation. He said that no proof ever arose that Winston had raped the woman in question and that she had a reputation, shall we say, of "playing the field," particularly with athletes.
Now, I had not heard any such reputation, not that this is any excuse for rape, but his allegation was that consensual sex got turned into rape later.
My memory is not as good as some (looking at you, Bill), but I recall (without getting too graphic) physical evidence of forceful entry and DNA evidence tying Mr. Winston to the act.
I recall thinking Mr. Winston was getting away with rape.
Set aside, for the moment, the "she had a reputation" angle, was there not physical evidence from the immediate aftermath that any sexual contact between the two was not consensual?
Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I do not want to besmirch anyone's reputation unjustly, but my colleague and I remember things quite differently.

I'll check it out, though, and get back with you. Most of the time these reports are now online.

 

[LA4Bama]

I do not know enough about the specifics of the Winston case to have an informed opinion and please bear something in mind - the case hit the press in November 2013, literally just days after my wife of (then) 22 years blew her stack in a marriage counseling session (that was 11/7/13) where I pretty much figured my marriage was probably over (that was the same day as Oregon-Stanford btw).

However, from what I DO know about it, I tend to concur with what Jon has written.

(To give everyone a timeline.....the Winston allegations were a slow drip like a political scandal usually is from mid-November 2013 right after we had beaten LSU through the national title game in January; through that time I was actually more preoccupied with trying to
spend time with my son, finishing my thesis (I turned in the hard copy on 11/14/13 and hit a tire on the interstate returning home
on I-35), depressed over the Iron Bowl, the whole Nick Saban to Texas saga (which was ten times more depressing for me living here
than for y'all there as you can imagine), and doing several interviews with news outlets as that was when all the "60 Minutes" interview
(conducted 10/28) and NPR (12/12) and other places - so I really did not pay that much attention to it).

Cam Newton was pretty much open and shut but the Winston case was a lot different.

I'm with Jon on several points here



Agree, and Winston being black played into the oversexed, entitled stereotype, too. I also think that Winston was hurt by the fallout
from the Penn State situation. It would have been 100 times worse on him had his allegations come post-Baylor or post-Larry Nassar.




I think this is the linchpin of the whole thing. Just like the Penn State admin, they didn't WANT to find out about it.



There's been a lot of groupthink (hell, look at the Trump thread for Pete's sake) here, and I try to NOT engage in it for the most part. That's why I held my cards to the vest on the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin thing (too many folks don't seem to realize you can think Zimmerman is a loose cannon but STILL look at the forensics - as I did - and determine that Martin picked a fight with him and tried to beat him up and got shot in the process) and why I'm always trying to wait on the whole "unarmed black vs the police" situations that we have all the time (most of these are NEVER as simple as the press tries to make them out to be. Sometimes the cop needs to go to prison and sometimes the unarmed black did enough to at least justify the use of force).

I've literally NEVER criticized Hillary over Benghazi, a situation which to me is similar to Weinberger with the Marines in Lebanon or perhaps everyone's favorite, "Why did Bush wait seven minutes and stay with those kids after the WTC attack?" Duh, because that's where the
Secret Service told him he'd be the safest, morons).

On Winston, it also became easier to make the jump from, "If a guy would steal crablegs, he'd rape a girl."

I'd have to look at it closer, and it's just never been that important to me, I guess. I can understand forensics (I'm not a doctor, but I HAVE been to med school and I have taken Pathology and other courses), and I certainly can understand anything related to lab science.

But there's no doubt the girl THOUGHT she was raped and he THOUGHT it was consensual. (One of the telling things there is where vaginal abrasions are located).

I also think it was easier because he was the lead QB on a top football team; had he been a white QB at Rice University, it would have been a blip on the radar screen even if he really did it.

Let me give a somewhat similar situation: Mike Tyson. I realize that Mike was a bit thuggish and brutish in his behavior, and I also realize he came across as rather stupid and even primitive. But I've never been completely convinced he was guilty of what he went to prison for, either. I think his attorney did bad by him by portraying him as a sexual predator that the young gal should have known what he was. And I also think he paid the price for Clarence Thomas getting onto the Court and William Kennedy Smith being acquitted of rape in the months preceding Tyson's trial. Sexual ethics was big then as now (that was the so-called Year of the Woman in politics) and I've always thought Tyson bore the brunt of folks angry at those cases. It shouldn't be but does anyone actually believe OJ walks if the Rodney King riots had not happened? He may have, but I doubt it (although I'll concede the prosecution was bumbling).

I know, I've rambled, but what read on it, it was NOT an open/shut case where the cops bungled - even though they did mess it up.

Breathtaking post.

I think Winston is like a lot of young people. There is a hook up culture that both men and women partake in. I do not excuse Jamies, but it is a whole cultural scene of ugly behavior. It was a sordid affair at best. Winston probably got away with a deed that is worthy of some punishment.

 

[Aledinho]

The DNA proves they had sex; her bruises mean it wasn't consensual.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Okay, it's off-season so please indulge the question.
Over dinner tonight, I was talking about the "Me, Too" phenomenon and I mentioned Jameis Winston getting away, quite literally, with rape, which might have a chilling effect on abused women coming forward.
A colleague from Florida challenged my interpretation. He said that no proof ever arose that Winston had raped the woman in question and that she had a reputation, shall we say, of "playing the field," particularly with athletes.
Now, I had not heard any such reputation, not that this is any excuse for rape, but his allegation was that consensual sex got turned into rape later.
My memory is not as good as some (looking at you, Bill), but I recall (without getting too graphic) physical evidence of forceful entry and DNA evidence tying Mr. Winston to the act.
I recall thinking Mr. Winston was getting away with rape.
Set aside, for the moment, the "she had a reputation" angle, was there not physical evidence from the immediate aftermath that any sexual contact between the two was not consensual?
Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I do not want to besmirch anyone's reputation unjustly, but my colleague and I remember things quite differently.

I don't know if Winston is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not. Behavior indicting a belief that rules didn't apply to him cropped up on a number of fronts, some sexual, some not...crab legs, anyone?

I'm assuming your colleague is a fellow academic, and almost certainly male. For him to throw up the, "she's a ho anyway," defense is truly surprising.

Followed logically, that's a one-way street to an untenable position. It leads pretty quickly to gang rape is OK because she has a large chest, wore a low top, and really short pants.

Would he want to defend that?

 

[Bazza]

---snip---
I know, I've rambled, but what I've read on it, it was NOT an open/shut case where the cops bungled - even though they did mess it up.

While you are on a roll.....what about OJ? Did he kill Nicole and Ron? :rolleye2:

 

[Jon]

The DNA proves they had sex; her bruises mean it wasn't consensual.

I don't recall any of that. I recall speculation with no evidence but admit that I didn't follow it closely. What did I miss?

 

[RTR91]

I don't recall any of that. I recall speculation with no evidence but admit that I didn't follow it closely. What did I miss?

Here’s the AG’s investigation report on it.

www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Details-On-TPD-Investigation-Report--234701811.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I appeared to maybe not read your post close enough (I saw my name, which got my attention, ha ha)

Okay, it's off-season so please indulge the question.
Over dinner tonight, I was talking about the "Me, Too" phenomenon and I mentioned Jameis Winston getting away, quite literally, with rape, which might have a chilling effect on abused women coming forward.
A colleague from Florida challenged my interpretation. He said that no proof ever arose that Winston had raped the woman in question and that she had a reputation, shall we say, of "playing the field," particularly with athletes.

1) There was not CONCLUSIVE evidence that he raped her, no.
2) Even if she did play the field, so what? Does this mean a prostitute can never be raped?

I'll try to not judge your friend that I've never met and maybe he was spitballing, but that kind of comment is about as clueless as I can imagine on this subject.

Now, I had not heard any such reputation, not that this is any excuse for rape, but his allegation was that consensual sex got turned into rape later.

OK, now this is a problem that Staci has actually touched on before, that occasion on the college campus (especially there but not limited to there) where a girl finds out she was just a one night thrill and retaliates.

I did read a couple of summaries of the investigations. It was never conclusive either way.

However, that the TPD AIDED Winston is beyond dispute. When the Tampa Bay Times called the TPD and asked for the police reports on whom was alleged to be Winston, they FIRST forwarded them to the FSU police dept - this 11 months after the initial complaint. And the FSU fan website out there arguing "three separate entities cleared him" is amusing for all of what it omits - namely, accusations from State Atty Meggs over what TPD did. And Winston's attorney got the details BEFORE the state attorney (I'm not a lawyer but I doubt this is normal).

My memory is not as good as some (looking at you, Bill), but I recall (without getting too graphic) physical evidence of forceful entry and DNA evidence tying Mr. Winston to the act.

When you say "forceful entry," are you referring to intercourse? (I'm not trying to be crude here but she did willingly go back to his apartment in a cab. When asked about why she didn't refuse, she said she was intimidated by Winston, his buddies, and even the cab driver.

There's NO QUESTION they had sex. Both admitted that. His DNA was found in her underwear, but that is not inconsistent with consensual sex.

I recall thinking Mr. Winston was getting away with rape.
Set aside, for the moment, the "she had a reputation" angle, was there not physical evidence from the immediate aftermath that any sexual contact between the two was not consensual?
Or is my memory playing tricks on me?
I do not want to besmirch anyone's reputation unjustly, but my colleague and I remember things quite differently.

There's no doubt they had sex.
He says it was consensual, she said no.
The SANE test was inconclusive regarding rape.
She had bruises but they were also not inconsistent with consensual sex.

The real thing, though, is that TPD basically helped cover it up by not acting sooner.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The DNA proves they had sex; her bruises mean it wasn't consensual.

That's actually only 1/2 correct.

The bruises didn't prove such.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

While you are on a roll.....what about OJ? Did he kill Nicole and Ron? :rolleye2:

He may as well have killed them on national TV during the busiest time of day at Pier 39.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don't recall any of that. I recall speculation with no evidence but admit that I didn't follow it closely. What did I miss?

There was evidence, but it was hardly conclusive either way.

She was hurt by changing her story but such is not uncommon in such a trauma, either.

 

[Jon]

There was evidence, but it was hardly conclusive either way.

She was hurt by changing her story but such is not uncommon in such a trauma, either.

right? That is why I walked away with the idea that we will never really know either way so I'm not ready to hate Jameis. Is he an entitled spoiled athlete? Likely. A rapist? I can't say either way.

 

[Tidewater]

Obviously, the guilt of innocence of an accused rapist has to be determined by a jury of his peers.
Some of the factors that would weigh on my decision, if I was a juror would be:
1. Recency. If the victims goes to law enforcement/a hospital immediately after the assault, that would seem to me to indicate sincerity of the accusation. Waiting weeks, months or years lessens the credibility of the assertion that the incident was rape.
2. Harm to the victim's body, especially internally, would seem to me to indicate nonconsensual contact.

Both of these were present in the Winston case. That does not mean Winston is a rapist, but he certainly merited extremely close scrutiny by the authorities.

3. The relationship the victim had with the accused rapist before and after the incident. Not that a husband cannot rape his wife, but if the victim maintains a close personal relationship with the alleged rapist after the rape, that would undermine the victim's accusation of rape. On the other hand, a spurned lover who in turn says, "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to call the cops and tell that the sex we had last week was rape!" Anyone who has gone through a divorce knows how spiteful former partners can be.
4. Audio or video recorded evidence of the incident (if any). Again, not to be graphic, but a woman yelling, "Yes, yes, yes!" during the act who, the next morning, says it was rape would lack credibility in my eyes. You do not get to turn post facto buyer's remorse into a criminal accusation.

And I agree that incompetence on the part of FSU police, Tallahassee Police and the State's Attorney's Office does not prove anything other than incompetence on the part of FSU police, Tallahassee Police and the State's Attorney's Office. It neither proves nor disproves Winston's guilt or innocence.

 

[Mystical]

In todays climate athletes better be careful. If they have sex with a female and it was consensual but he decides she is not going to be his girlfriend or take her along for the ride she can say rape. If she says rape today even if its not they are done for. These guys better start carrying consent forms because hell hath no furry and all that. As a normal student girls and guys have all kinds of people coming at them. Just imagine how it must be for truly big time recruits in basketball and football as soon as they step on campus. Over looked in all this regardless of the facts or truth he was un-loyal to his girlfriend at the time.

 

[Intl.Aperture]

In todays climate athletes better be careful. If they have sex with a female and it was consensual but he decides she is not going to be his girlfriend or take her along for the ride she can say rape. If she says rape today even if its not they are done for. These guys better start carrying consent forms because hell hath no furry and all that. As a normal student girls and guys have all kinds of people coming at them. Just imagine how it must be for truly big time recruits in basketball and football as soon as they step on campus. Over looked in all this regardless of the facts or truth he was un-loyal to his girlfriend at the time.

While this is true, and I agree that it is something that can happen, I think we should be careful of framing the issue in this way as the VAST majority of these cases are NOT jilted lovers seeking revenge but are genuine cases of sexual assault. Far more legitimate sexual assault cases occur than frustrated partners lying about their encounters. And while you are absolutely right that it is a possibility, I think we should be careful from jumping to represent the issue immediately from the perspective of "warning athletes about their sexual encounters", because more disturbing and worrying is the amount of reported and unreported sexual assault cases, (unreported figures are derived through various models of extrapolation, so there is the opportunity for error in their calculation - and because they are "unreported" instances, we can never officially know how correct those figures are.)

This isn't an outright rebuke of your statement, but I see it mentioned a lot on these boards in that order. The first thing that is mentioned is how guys should watch out for lying women. I don't think it's done purposefully or with a misogynistic heart or anything - I think it's natural for a male with a moral compass who would NEVER do anything harmful to a woman to immediately be more concerned about an encounter being misrepresented and used to smear or damage them. But those instances are far less frequent than cases of men preying on women, and I think it's important to address this issue upfront because going the other way around can feel like minimizing the plight of those multitudinous victims.