News Article: SIAP - Erica Kinsman Goes Public (Jameis Winston's Alleged Victim)

[CoastGhost]

I should have known better than to post this during off season!

 

[dWarriors88]

- OP: "Jameis Winston's accuser is going public as part of a documentary."
- Everyone: "My daughter is going to be locked in our basement for life."
- "We just need to lock up anyone ever accused of rape."
- "No we shouldn't, that's stupid."
- three pages of "guilty until proven innocent" or "innocent until proven guilty" for anyone accused of rape
- Ohio State fan(s) somehow makes it for years on a Bama board with nary a conflict even in the midst of a game between the two teams with a month of build up, but this one sent them over the edge
- "Why is this still on the Football board?"
Which leads up to here, when you are asking us to actually talk about Winston and Kinsman. IMO, FSU and TPD are the bigger stories.

Ah, I see I didn't miss too much then. Thanks bro.


this is obviously a touchy subject that invokes a lot of different emotions in some folks. Perhaps this should be considered before hitting that submit button. nobody honestly knows what happened that night. And GD is correct, bold print is the bigger picture.

 

[IH8Orange]

And GD is correct, bold print is the bigger picture.

If they find out that university officials or TPD administrators or officers knowingly covered up the story or withheld information, those people should be fired AND charged with obstruction, impeding, tampering, and whatever else is applicable. Then, under the spirit of "not profiting from a crime", FSU should be forced to vacate their BCSNC. They should make it very clear, however, that vacating the NC does not give it to the barn.

As for Winston, if they can salvage a case I hope they "throw him... right in the slammer."

 

[IH8Orange]

I should have known better than to post this during off season!

Don't worry. We're not blaming you. That would make us responsible for all post hijacking across the interwebs because we would be protecting hackers, the illuminati, and the aliens at Area 51.

 

[bamabelle1991]

Has to be a legend. Someone else's thoughts. Even females are trying to protect the predators.

I'm not making light of rape, but rational discussion seems to be tangent to some or one poster.

haha. So much of a legend, that I have actually seen similar situations THREE times this year!! Maybe because I am a juvenile court attorney, but I see cases like this all the time. Had one yesterday where a girl who looked 17 because of the way her mother groomed her but was actually 13 had sex with a 17 year old boy. It's statutory rape as defined in the Code of Alabama. What is more disturbing to me is there was a witness in the room that corroborates my clients story, but because this girl isn't of age to consent, it doesn't matter that she came on to him, pulling his pants down, {fill in the blank}, then pulls him into the bed to have sex. We are going to move it to adult court as he has since turned 18, but he has a better chance in front of a jury, than he does in front of just a judge. He didn't "rape" her. I have huge issues with this 2 year age difference in our laws regarding statutory rape and I'm not sorry about it.

 

[bamamc1]

Who would have thought that a post about Winston's case would turn into an argument... I mean, if there's anything all of us can agree on, surely it's Winston being a scumbag, right?

^^^^^YES^^^^^

 

[IH8Orange]

haha. So much of a legend, that I have actually seen similar situations THREE times this year!! Maybe because I am a juvenile court attorney, but I see cases like this all the time. Had one yesterday where a girl who looked 17 because of the way her mother groomed her but was actually 13 had sex with a 17 year old boy. It's statutory rape as defined in the Code of Alabama. What is more disturbing to me is there was a witness in the room that corroborates my clients story, but because this girl isn't of age to consent, it doesn't matter that she came on to him, pulling his pants down, {fill in the blank}, then pulls him into the bed to have sex. We are going to move it to adult court as he has since turned 18, but he has a better chance in front of a jury, than he does in front of just a judge. He didn't "rape" her. I have huge issues with this 2 year age difference in our laws regarding statutory rape and I'm not sorry about it.

If they'd have had statutory rape laws during the centuries prior to the 20th, most of us wouldn't be here. There is an old cemetery near my parents' house and years ago my grandmother was pointing out the people buried there and telling me about their lives. A common story would be a man (in the 1850's or so) who was 19 and married the neighbor's daughter who was 14. They would have eight children, two of whom would die in infancy or as toddlers, and then the wife would die at age 23 during childbirth of the ninth child, which was stillborn. The widower, now 28, would remarry another girl who was 15 or so and they would have six or seven more kids of which two or three wouldn't live to age 10. Then the husband would die at age 41 or 42 and the wife would perhaps live another 15 or 20 years. The families would need 10 or so kids to handle all the work on the farm, but they could expect to lose maybe 2 out of every 8 to 10 kids to disease or accidents. All that childbearing took a toll on the women, so they married young so that they could produce as many as possible before they started breaking down.

An unmarried 18 year-old in the 1800's probably would have been considered an old maid.

 

[AUDub]

If they find out that university officials or TPD administrators or officers knowingly covered up the story or withheld information, those people should be fired AND charged with obstruction, impeding, tampering, and whatever else is applicable. Then, under the spirit of "not profiting from a crime", FSU should be forced to vacate their BCSNC. They should make it very clear, however, that vacating the NC does not give it to the barn.

As for Winston, if they can salvage a case I hope they "throw him... right in the slammer."

You've got a deal!

 

[DocCrimson]

I am a firm believer in guilty until proven innocent when it comes to rape allegations. Backwards, I know, but I have too many women close to me who have been raped. And there is a lot of pressure on those women to just accept some blame for it (they call it "responsibility", but they mean blame) and let it go. Women often recant when it becomes more clear to them exactly hat they will face if they follow through with charges. The shame of a "lie" is a lot easier to deal with than the shame of having been raped.

Sure, some women falsely accuse men of rape, but if I had to bet on the real percentage of those occurrences, I would put it so low as to be statistically irrelevant.

I don't remember for sure, but I think I saw a statistic estimating 98% of accusations of rape are true and 2% are false. It's a remarkably low false-positive rate, which would fly in the face of the conviction rate, and doesn't even start to consider the number of false negatives (no accusation despite actual rape).

 

[DocCrimson]

I'm clearly late to the discussion, but take things a step further and you have Sharia law. It can't be rape because she didn't have a veil. She clearly was "asking for it" because she was wearing a dress above her ankles.

Everything is relative.

Now ask yourself again, where do you draw the line?

I draw the line where the statistical chances of someone's life being ruined skew unbelievably against the purported victim.

If a procedure has a 98% chance that it may severely harm my patient and a 2% chance of success, I'm not scrubbing for surgery.



I do not believe in "Guilty until proven innocent" for cases of violence, including rape, and I fully recognize the convenience of being a bystander in this case and recognizing I easily have seen a preponderance of evidence against JW, but I'm not sure I've seen enough to warrant "without a doubt" so I can't say for certain how I'd vote as a juror if it actually went to court. Nonetheless,
our current legal system does not adequately control for the biases against violence against women. When you have up to a 20% chance of being raped simply as a function of making it to age 21 and having 2 X chromosomes, SOMETHING IS WRONG.


/end rant

 

[Catfish]

I'm clearly late to the discussion, but take things a step further and you have Sharia law. It can't be rape because she didn't have a veil. She clearly was "asking for it" because she was wearing a dress above her ankles.

Everything is relative.

Now ask yourself again, where do you draw the line?

With the above, there is no line. If a person has sexual relations with another person against their will or without their consent (as in the case of the woman who passed out at Vandebilt), that's rape. Period.

It makes no difference how they were dressed, where it happened, whether or not they were a virgin, how many partners they've had in the past, how much they had to drink or anything else. It's still rape.

 

[Just Win]

And I am worried sick about it with a 18 year old daughter heading off to college next fall.

I have a 19 year old daughter in college now, and a 17 year old headed there next year. I can assure you, if either of them was sexually assaulted, and i was 100% certain that it was true and 100% certain who the person was who assaulted them, the police or the coach or the administration of the university or whoever, would be the least of their worries. The police would actually be their friend and protector.

 

[GreatDanish]

I don't remember for sure, but I think I saw a statistic estimating 98% of accusations of rape are true and 2% are false. It's a remarkably low false-positive rate, which would fly in the face of the conviction rate, and doesn't even start to consider the number of false negatives (no accusation despite actual rape).

I'd be curious where that stat came from. I'm having a hard time figuring out how anyone could determine the truth of randomly selected rape accusations. I could see establishing a conviction rate, but not a "truth" rate.
Not that it really matters.

 

[KrAzY3]

nobody honestly knows what happened that night.

Yes, people know, but a coverup was orchestrated to keep the public from knowing. What we do know, is that Winston had sex with her. We know she was left bruised. We know that she didn't know his name, didn't know who he was, and didn't seem happy to have had sex with him (she reported it shortly thereafter), and it would seem was held down.

That's a lot in the way of facts to go off of...

Edit: Let's examine a scenario in which it wasn't rape. She voluntarily left the bar with a complete stranger, never bother to ask his name or anything about him. She then had consensual sex with the stranger. Then, after this happened, perhaps because he was too rough with her (but consensually of course), she decided to accuse him of rape. But, she had to have decided that after she left, because if this was fixed in her mind at the time, she would have at least asked his name or phone number. So, shortly after they parted ways, she would have decided to report it as rape, and gone in and reported it soon enough for the bruises to show up during the interview.

What human being capable of logical thought really thinks that is what happened? Who decides to falsely accuse someone of rape when they can't even identify the individual? What incentive would she have had to go to the police and do that? And then, additionally take the step of later identifying him once she knew who he was? If she was making a false accusation because of some need for attention, why would she ever have identified Winston? There's only one logical conclusion to reach based on the facts and timeline of what happened.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Yes, people know, but a coverup was orchestrated to keep the public from knowing. What we do know, is that Winston had sex with her. We know she was left bruised. We know that she didn't know his name, didn't know who he was, and didn't seem happy to have had sex with him (she reported it shortly thereafter), and it would seem was held down.

That's a lot in the way of facts to go off of...

Edit: Let's examine a scenario in which it wasn't rape. She voluntarily left the bar with a complete stranger, never bother to ask his name or anything about him. She then had consensual sex with the stranger. Then, after this happened, perhaps because he was too rough with her (but consensually of course), she decided to accuse him of rape. But, she had to have decided that after she left, because if this was fixed in her mind at the time, she would have at least asked his name or phone number. So, shortly after they parted ways, she would have decided to report it as rape, and gone in and reported it soon enough for the bruises to show up during the interview.

What human being capable of logical thought really thinks that is what happened? Who decides to falsely accuse someone of rape when they can't even identify the individual? What incentive would she have had to go to the police and do that? And then, additionally take the step of later identifying him once she knew who he was? If she was making a false accusation because of some need for attention, why would she ever have identified Winston? There's only one logical conclusion to reach based on the facts and timeline of what happened.

The further we fall down this rabbit hole in discussion the more my stomach turns to think that this is what high profile people who make others a lot of money or enrich their lives in some way can get away with. Let's face it, he will get away with it. He will be rich, famous, and his psyche will not be changed one single solitary bit. She might get some money from him, but she can't get back the living torment she's going through right now with the fanbase and people who don't even know her judging her by the typical stereotype of a college female and a football player. Just makes me sad.

 

[Tideflyer]

The further we fall down this rabbit hole in discussion the more my stomach turns to think that this is what high profile people who make others a lot of money or enrich their lives in some way can get away with. Let's face it, he will get away with it. He will be rich, famous, and his psyche will not be changed one single solitary bit. She might get some money from him, but she can't get back the living torment she's going through right now with the fanbase and people who don't even know her judging her by the typical stereotype of a college female and a football player. Just makes me sad.

Sadly, in our society, unless there`s actual irrefutable evidence ( a la Ray Rice ), all you have to do is be able to throw a football 60 yards on a frozen rope, put up 30 a night, etc., etc. and there`s not much you can`t get away with. Just the way it is, apparently. You`ll never get me to believe that if this was me and you, we`d be corresponding from prison right now.

 

[Tideflyer]

Sadly, in our society, unless there`s actual irrefutable evidence ( a la Ray Rice ), all you have to do is be able to throw a football 60 yards on a frozen rope, put up 30 a night, etc., etc. and there`s not much you can`t get away with. Just the way it is, apparently. You`ll never get me to believe that if this was me and you, we`d be corresponding from prison right now.

Insert " not" before "believe". Sorry.

 

[DocCrimson]

With the above, there is no line. If a person has sexual relations with another person against their will or without their consent (as in the case of the woman who passed out at Vandebilt), that's rape. Period.

It makes no difference how they were dressed, where it happened, whether or not they were a virgin, how many partners they've had in the past, how much they had to drink or anything else. It's still rape.

My point exactly.

 

[DocCrimson]

She then had consensual sex with the stranger. Then, after this happened, perhaps because he was too rough with her (but consensually of course), she decided to accuse him of rape.

By definition, "He was too rough with her" = rape. If he was "too" rough for her, that's not consensual and thus rape.

 

[KrAzY3]

By definition, "He was too rough with her" = rape. If he was "too" rough for her, that's not consensual and thus rape.

I was trying to play devil's advocate, but yeah... pretty much no matter how you look at it, the bruising and the fact that she reported it afterward pretty much adds up to only one thing. I think a lot of people didn't really look at the details of this case (I saw some do that with Penn State to, questioning if Paterno would have known, when there were multiple times he would have become aware) and they can go oh well we don't really know what happened...