Sobering write-up

[selias 2,398]

Meggs went on to say that there was no evidence that sex between Winston and the victim was "a forceful act." Sure, that could be true, if you ignore the bruises that a sexual-assault nurse noticed on her left knee and right elbow, the blood in her underwear, and the fact that Winston's DNA was found in her panties.

http://deadspin.com/why-i-believe-jameis-winstons-accuser-1479782169?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[AUDub 11,204]

Heartbreaking piece.

[cooltigger21 0]

He is lucky that was not my daughter. I would be in jail for murder.

[berrytgr 0]

I agree that is a heartbreaking piece to read. Her own personal story along with the testimony of the victim is tragic. It will remain a mystery forever if the sex was mutual or if Jameis committed rape. I tend to agree that Jameis should have at least been interviewed if not charged. There is no doubt this did not happen because of the position the FSU football team is in. If Willie Meggs had charged Jameis he might as well have said "I plan on losing my next election."

I have some strong personal feelings on the subjects brought up in the article. The stat from RAINN that 60% of rapes go unreported is damn scary. Unfortunately that sword cuts both ways. Look at the story of Brian Banks for a man jailed when falsely accused of rape. I know from personal experience that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Both situations are tragic and unfortunately there is no easy answer or solution.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

The police requested an interview. Winston (wisely) exercised his rights and declined. There was not nearly enough evidence to warrant a felony charge. There was ZERO chance of a conviction, and that fact had nothing to do with Tallahasee being a football town.

[cooltigger21 0]

The police requested an interview. Winston (wisely) exercised his rights and declined. There was not nearly enough evidence to warrant a felony charge. There was ZERO chance of a conviction, and that fact had nothing to do with Tallahasee being a football town.

the TPD screwed this up royally. They failed everyone and it had everything to do with football.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

How so? What do you think they screwed up so badly? They interviewed the accuser. She couldn't ID Winston until almost a week later. They took DNA sampling and conducted the "rape kit" at the time of the initial report, and preserved the evidence.

The only mistakes made were (1) not locating the cab driver that night and (2) not handing over the evidence faster. There's an unproven and unsubstantiated accusation that TPD essentially threatened her or told her to drop it, but their story is at least as plausible. They say she stopped communicating not long into the investigation. In sex assault cases, that happens very frequently.

Even if there were mistakes, they didn't greatly effect the case because the physical evidence was preserved.

[milehighfan 1,240]

If this were Auburn and involved say, Cam, Nick, Tre, some big name on the team, and he was not even interviewed by police, you can imagine what kind of press the Tigers would be receiving. You know how they say all press is good press? hat would not be true if this were Auburn.

[SawC4AU 3]

They screwed up by sweeping it under the rug. She didn't identify him because she wasn't sure who he was. Do you know how this girl has been persecuted on the internet? She had to leave college. This explains why her lawyer quit cooperating, the girl thought if she left it alone, ppl would leave her alone. It took so much courage for her to get a rape kit. A rape kit examination is very invasive, and to do this after already being invaded in the most intimate way. If she was crying wolf, I just don't think she would put herself through that. I have a daughter and I have a son, so I have looked at both sides. Being a woman, I know how easily you can put yourself in a vulnerable situation. I hope my daughter realizes this and never has to learn the hard way. As for my son, if a girls drunk, take her home, leave no questions. And if a girl says no, then leave her alone. This whole thing has left me sick to my stomach. This shouldn't have been about football, but it was. I wanted to believe and be told there was no evidence of a rape. I was so impressed w Winston, but I see beyond football. Just upsets me to my core.

[AU-24 3,119]

How so? What do you think they screwed up so badly? They interviewed the accuser. She couldn't ID Winston until almost a week later. They took DNA sampling and conducted the "rape kit" at the time of the initial report, and preserved the evidence.

The only mistakes made were (1) not locating the cab driver that night and (2) not handing over the evidence faster. There's an unproven and unsubstantiated accusation that TPD essentially threatened her or told her to drop it, but their story is at least as plausible. They say she stopped communicating not long into the investigation. In sex assault cases, that happens very frequently.

Even if there were mistakes, they didn't greatly effect the case because the physical evidence was preserved.

Really, did you miss this part?

Meggs went on to say that there was no evidence that sex between Winston and the victim was "a forceful act." Sure, that could be true, if you ignore the bruises that a sexual-assault nurse noticed on her left knee and right elbow, the blood in her underwear, and the fact that Winston's DNA was found in her panties.

[alexava 6,973]

she failed to mention the toxicology results did not back the accusers story. I have no idea what happened, don't care if he is charged or not. I don't see enough evidence to convict though.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

I don't know if he did it or not.

One thing he is guilty of is being stupid.......should have never put himself in the situation for this to happen in the first place.

[ECEstudentUA 9]

I don't know if he did it or not.

One thing he is guilty of is being stupid.......should have never put himself in the situation for this to happen in the first place.

Agreed.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

They screwed up by sweeping it under the rug.

This is an unsubstantiated charge.

She didn't identify him because she wasn't sure who he was.

She actually gave a description that was much different than what he looks like. She said 5'7" to 5'10", 240 lbs. Winston is 6'4" and weighs 218. 5'10" and 240 looks like a bowling ball. Nothing like Winston. That's enough to make the police question whether she was accusing the right person.

Do you know how this girl has been persecuted on the internet? She had to leave college.

And this is despicable.

This explains why her lawyer quit cooperating, the girl thought if she left it alone, ppl would leave her alone. It took so much courage for her to get a rape kit. A rape kit examination is very invasive, and to do this after already being invaded in the most intimate way. If she was crying wolf, I just don't think she would put herself through that.

It could explain why she quit cooperating. But it also means the TPD didn't "sweep it under the rug." They can't pursue a case where the alleged victim isn't cooperating.

And also, invasive or not, getting a rape kit doesn't change the known facts of the case or make her accusations more credible. Women who have had consensual sex but then decided for some reason to make a rape accusation get rape kits. It's called leverage.

I have a daughter and I have a son, so I have looked at both sides. Being a woman, I know how easily you can put yourself in a vulnerable situation. I hope my daughter realizes this and never has to learn the hard way. As for my son, if a girls drunk, take her home, leave no questions. And if a girl says no, then leave her alone. This whole thing has left me sick to my stomach. This shouldn't have been about football, but it was. I wanted to believe and be told there was no evidence of a rape. I was so impressed w Winston, but I see beyond football. Just upsets me to my core.

I don't have a big opinion on Winston, but there are more than enough reasons to question her version of events here and none of them have a thing to do with football.

[channonc 466]

While I agree that we will never know the truth, if this had been John Q. Public accused of rape, I have no doubt he would have been interviewed by police. Especially given the DNA sample matched his.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

While I agree that we will never know the truth, if this had been John Q. Public accused of rape, I have no doubt he would have been interviewed by police. Especially given the DNA sample matched his.

Winston at the time of this alleged rape wasn't famous. He was just a freshman on the football team.

[channonc 466]

While I agree that we will never know the truth, if this had been John Q. Public accused of rape, I have no doubt he would have been interviewed by police. Especially given the DNA sample matched his.

Winston at the time of this alleged rape wasn't famous. He was just a freshman on the football team.

I know. But he was still a member of the football team. At best, the police work was sloppy, at worst it shows police bias. I believe the truth likely is somewhere in the middle.

Not saying he did it, but the AG press conference was much different than that of the one regarding the Duke lacrosse players, where the NCAG stated that the kids were innocent. No such proclamation was made here which does leave questions that will likely remain unanswered. All I am pointing out is I think there are legitimate questions about the police procedures here.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

On the flip side, this is what happens when accusations that lack substantial proof are accepted with little questioning. And it happened right here at Auburn:

Taranto: An Education in College Justice

Under pressure from the Obama administration, a university tramples the rights of the accused.

James Taranto

Updated Dec. 6, 2013 6:25 p.m. ET

Joshua Strange will never forget the girl he met in May 2011.

Both were underclassmen at Alabama's Auburn University when a common acquaintance introduced them. "We instantly became attached at the hip and did everything together," she recalled six months later. "I rather quickly moved into his place. . . . Everything was great until pretty much June 29."

That night, an intimate encounter in Mr. Strange's bed went wrong. She called police, who detained him for questioning. She said she had awakened to find him forcing himself on her; he said the sexual activity was consensual and initiated by her. There was no dispute as to the physical acts involved.

The accuser did not press charges that night. In fact, before sunrise she returned to his apartment, and the couple agreed to continue dating. When I asked him why in a recent phone interview, he told me: "I cared about her."

But the relationship soon disintegrated. Phone records show their communications ended in mid-August. In early September he was arrested again after she told police that two days earlier he had confronted her in a public place and struck her. He flatly denied it, saying he was 15 miles away at the time. This time she did press charges, for misdemeanor simple assault as well as for felony forcible sodomy in the June 29 incident.

Mr. Strange was cleared on both counts. On Feb. 3, 2012, a grand jury handed up a "no bill" indictment on the sodomy charge, meaning the evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for prosecution. On May 24, when the simple-assault case went to trial, the accuser didn't show up. "I don't have a witness to go forward with, your honor," said city attorney Michael Short. Case dismissed.

So Mr. Strange got his day in court and was treated fairly. But he had already been punished for the unproven crimes. Auburn expelled him after a campus tribunal found him "responsible" for committing the catchall offense of "sexual assault and/or sexual harassment." A letter from Melvin Owens, head of the campus police, explained that expulsion is a life sentence. If Mr. Strange ever sets foot on Auburn property, he will be "arrested for Criminal Trespass Third," Mr. Owens warned.

Joshua Strange, now 23, is a civilian casualty in the Obama administration's war on men. In an April 2011 directive, Russlyn Ali, then assistant education secretary for civil rights, threatened to withhold federal money from any educational institution that failed to take a hard enough line against sexual misconduct to ensure "that all students feel safe in their school." The result was to leave accused students more vulnerable to false charges and unfair procedures. The prospect of losing federal funds has left university administrators "crippled by panic," Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education told me. "The incentives are pointing toward findings of guilt, not accurate findings."

The injustice of such proceedings is largely hidden from the public, because most universities conduct them secretively. Auburn is no exception. Its Discipline Committee's hearings are closed to spectators, "private and confidential" under university bylaws. But Auburn keeps on file an official audio recording, a copy of which I obtained.

Ms. Ali's directive had an effect even before Mr. Strange's hearing began. At the time, Auburn's bylaws stipulated that accusers in campus disciplinary cases had to show "clear and convincing evidence" to establish guilt. Less than three weeks before the Nov. 8, 2011, hearing, Brandon Frye, then director of the Office of Student Conduct, informed Mr. Strange that the rules had changed. As per Ms. Ali, the standard was reduced to "preponderance of the evidence."

Joshua Strange in 2010, when at Auburn. Courtesy of the Family

Mr. Strange still should not have been convicted. The grand jury found there wasn't even probable cause, a looser standard than preponderance of the evidence. But the university hearing that yielded his expulsion was a travesty of a legal process.

The most striking quality of the 99-minute proceeding is its abject lack of professionalism. Imagine a courtroom with a jury and witnesses, but no judge or lawyers. Mr. Strange and his accuser had lawyers present—the only people in the room with legal training—but they were forbidden to speak except to identify themselves at the outset.

Presiding was an Auburn librarian, Tim Dodge, the committee's chairman. The other members were two students, a staffer from the College of Liberal Arts and a fisheries professor from the Agriculture College. Mr. Dodge was confused and hesitant throughout. At one point he got lost and admitted: "I can't find the script here." On multiple occasions an unidentified voice—Mr. Strange believes it is Mr. Frye—can be heard on the recording whispering stage directions to Mr. Dodge.

The absence of a judge to control the proceedings left Mr. Dodge anxious for authoritative guidance. It was provided by the two Auburn administrators the accuser called as witnesses. First up was Susan McCallister, an associate director with the campus police who doubles as a "safe-harbor advocate," a concierge for purported sex-crime victims. "Any kind of services that they need access to, we provide a doorway," she explained. Such services include counseling, "academic accommodations" and help in filing police reports.

At the hearing, Ms. McCallister proclaimed the accuser "very credible" and attested to the belief that Mr. Strange was "a potential threat to [the accuser's] safety." But Ms. McCallister disavowed knowledge even of the accuser's version of events. "As a safe-harbor advocate, I really don't need to know a lot of details, and so I didn't ask her to go into great detail," Ms. McCallister said. "I don't really want survivors to have to tell their story over and over again."

Ms. McCallister had referred the accuser to Kelley Taylor, the university's sex-discrimination enforcer and the accuser's second witness. Ms. Taylor also described the accuser as "credible" and added that she found the allegation "very compelling."

Mr. Dodge asked Ms. Taylor to describe "typical behaviors" of "somebody who may have undergone a sexual assault." She listed three. First, "they frequently cry." Second, "their storytelling is sometimes disjointed, sometimes not." Third, "there's often a lot of emotion inserted into the story that is about being very upset or in disbelief or unsure what to do next, petrified."

The second "behavior" is tautological; every story either is or is not disjointed. The third is a windy elaboration of the first. Thus Ms. Taylor's testimony amounted to a claim that in principle a woman's tears are sufficient to establish a man's guilt—an inane stereotype that infantilizes women in the interest of vilifying men.

Mr. Dodge was unsatisfied, but not with Ms. Taylor's poor reasoning. Rather, he wanted reassurance that her opinions were authoritative. The ensuing exchange lends new meaning to the exp<b></b>ression "throw the book at him."

Mr. Dodge: "Are typical alleged victims' reactions present in the available literature?"

Ms. Taylor: "Yes. Yes. In fact, there's, um—I mean, I don't have it here to distribute, but—"

Mr. Dodge: "Right."

Ms. Taylor: "—um, there's a whole, um, host of information on victimology, um—particularly sociology. People with specialties in sociology, psychology, have written tomes about how to assess credibility, the victimology behind this kind of thing, why victims don't always report right away—the whole gamut. I haven't read them all, of course, but I've read some of them, and I've been exposed to a number of them in my training."

Mr. Dodge: "So in other words, there is professional literature out there."

Ms. Taylor: "Absolutely."

Mr. Dodge: "OK."

Mr. Dodge declined to be interviewed for this story, citing his duty of confidentiality. Ms. McCallister and Ms. Taylor did not respond to interview requests.

The Ali directive stipulates: "Public and state-supported schools must provide due process to the alleged perpetrator." I asked Auburn spokesman Mike Clardy if the university is confident that its procedures meet that standard. He answered with a written statement from Jon Waggoner, interim vice president for student affairs: "While Auburn University does not comment specifically about specific student conduct cases, we feel confident that each and every student who participates in the process is afforded notice and opportunity to be heard on all matters pertaining to the specific case under review."

Mr. Waggoner was alluding to Goss v. Lopez, the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a due-process standard—notice and a hearing—for high-school students facing suspension of up to 10 days. Whether such minimal protections are sufficient for adults in college is an unresolved legal question, and Justice Byron White wrote for the court that even in the high-school context a longer suspension or expulsion "may require more formal procedures."

The Strange case vividly demonstrates the insufficiency of the Goss standard, at least as applied by Auburn. The committee's procedures were as shoddy as the "evidence" it accepted.

The university flaunted its contempt for the defendant's right to confront his accuser. According to Mr. Strange, a curtain was hung in the hearing room to shield her from his view. And although the panelists were permitted to question witnesses, there was no cross-examination.

Adversarial questioning is a crucial check on false or misleading testimony. Example: During the hearing, the accuser claimed three times that immediately after the disputed sexual encounter, Mr. Strange locked her in his bedroom. That sounds menacing, but Mr. Strange's version, which was not told at the proceeding, is that he wasn't locking her in but locking himself out. He told me that she had "started freaking out" and refused to say what was wrong. "I told her, 'I'm going to get my keys. I'm going to go out of the room and close the door and lock it behind me. I'm going to take the key that operates my bedroom door, and I'm going to put it underneath the door, so that way you have complete control.' "

Six weeks before the university hearing, the accuser had testified in a proper courtroom, when she petitioned successfully for a restraining order. Under questioning from Mr. Strange's lawyer, Davis Whittelsey, she acknowledged under oath that Mr. Strange's account was truthful: "I'm not saying I was locked up in there and had no way out or anything. I'm just saying the bedroom was locked."

With criminal charges pending, Mr. Strange chose not to testify at the university proceeding. Auburn bylaws stipulate that "failure of the student [charged with an offense] to make a statement or to answer any or all questions shall not be considered in the determinate on [sic] of guilt or innocence." Yet Mr. Dodge and the other panelists raised no objection when the accuser, in her closing statement, emphasized that Mr. Strange "never talked about the facts of this case."

Although that statement seems improper, it was consistent with the logic of the proceeding. The preponderance-of-evidence standard enfeebles the right to remain silent. In a she-said-he-said case, the adversaries start on equal footing, so that some shred of additional evidence is necessary to convict. But when it's she-said-he-kept-silent, she begins with an overwhelming evidentiary advantage. In a federal civil lawsuit, which uses the same standard, jurors are permitted to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's refusal to testify.

Further, the right against self-incrimination is indivisible from the right to counsel. Even in a civil case, a courtroom defendant who declines to testify has the benefit of an attorney to make arguments on his behalf. By gagging Mr. Strange's lawyer, Auburn made it impossible for the defendant to remain silent without forfeiting the ability to mount an effective defense.

To be sure, the accuser's lawyer wasn't allowed to speak either. But he prejudiced the "private and confidential" proceeding merely by stating his name: Michael Short, the city attorney, who was prosecuting Mr. Strange on the simple-assault charge.

This story is almost as typical of American universities as it is outrageous. I described the hearing in detail to Mr. Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He told me the only element that struck him as unusual was the prosecutor's presence in the hearing room.

Yet apart from the loose standard of proof, none of Auburn's procedural infirmities are expressly mandated by the Education Department. If the due-process requirement is more than an empty promise, the department will withhold Auburn's federal funding until the university revamps its procedures and makes restitution to Mr. Strange.

It would be better still if universities could get out of the discipline business altogether, except for scholarly offenses like plagiarism, cheating and falsification of data. Ordinary civil and criminal courts are immensely more competent to adjudicate allegations of sexual harassment and violent crime, in open proceedings subject to appellate review, without trampling the rights of the accused.

Mr. Strange's banishment from Auburn didn't become official until the Discipline Committee's verdict had been rubber-stamped by Ainsley Carry, then vice president for student affairs, and Jay Gogue, the university president. That was Feb. 2, 2012, the day before the grand jury cleared Mr. Strange of the charge for which he was expelled. He had to stay in Auburn—but away from campus—for 3½ months, until the misdemeanor charge evaporated amid the accuser's truancy. He now lives with his parents in Spartanburg, S.C., and is a senior at the University of South Carolina Upstate. He graduates next May.

The day after I interviewed him, I received a grateful email from his mother, Allison. "Thank you for allowing Josh to tell his story last night," she wrote. "I could tell that it made him feel better to finally be able to get it out in his own words to someone other than his family and attorney."

I'm a newspaperman, not a therapist. But there are no safe-harbor advocates for survivors of wrongful accusation.

Mr. Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for WSJ.com.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303615304579157900127017212

Accusations, no matter how teary-eyed and sincere sounding, are not sacrosanct. Women sometimes lie about rape and do so for various reasons. Of course rape is a matter to be taken seriously, but that seriousness does not mean that any constitutional rights including the presumption of innocence goes away. The bad thing about it is, it could be 100% false but the mere accusation permanently harms the accused's reputation.

[icanthearyou 4,464]

Estimates are as high as 25% of all 4 year female college students being sexually assaulted while in college. Sad and disgraceful.

[channonc 466]

Titan, I get what you are saying. Again, I am not saying he's guilty. I'm not saying he's innocent either. I'm just questioning the police procedures here.

And of course, I don't think anyone should be falsely accused of rape. But based on this investigation, I'm not sure we would know that either.

[berrytgr 0]

This has to be one of the most difficult topics society has to face. It is such a terrible crime that happens far too often, it is so difficult to prove in court, and it is so easy to use as a tool for revenge.

[FootballFanatic 4]

Just please be real when you say what happened with Jamis Winston. The DA didn't prosecute the case. Charges have not been dropped by the accuser and he hasn't been cleared. It is in that muddy place between. The fact that interviews were not done on the day the charges were pressed is a miscarriage of justice.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

There were NO CHARGES. What are you talking about? A "charge" is what the STATE brings against an accused. When people colloquially use the phrase "pressing charges," it means the accuser wants the person arrested and is willing to participate in the investigation and trial procedure. Even if a person wants to press charges, if there is no evidence, either the DA does not CHARGE the accused or the charges are dropped. That's what happened here. She can file a civil suit if she so chooses (she won't win but she can do it if she wants), but those won't be "charges" those will be "claims". There's an important difference.

As for the interviews, Winston has a right to remain silent, and in this country, silence is not an admission of guilty. When she identified him (about a week after the initial report), according to Meggs and TPD, the police requested an interview with Winston. He declined, which he had a right to do. The cops can't force you to talk. Ever. The state can't even force you to talk on the stand. You have a right against self-incrimination. You don't have to answer potentially incriminating questions. TPD didn't botch this investigation by failing to interview Winston. They asked. He said no. That's all they can do. If you want to take his silence as proof of guilty, I'll quote the words of Jay Jacobs: "I think that would be un-American".

One person on here said the harrassment that forced her to leave school showed why she stopped talking to police. What? The alleged TPD threat and/or her decision not to communicate with police occurred in February/March. At the time, no one knew who she was, and no one knew Winston had been accused. It's chronologically impossible to think community harrassment that occured this fall (when she decided to leave school) had anything to do with TPD's handling of the case (which started in December 2012 and largely ended by spring). One has nothing to do with the other. To the extent she stopped talking to police, it didn't have anything to do with harrassment from the public.

Final point, there are a LOT of unanswered questions here, but most of them are on the side of the accuser. Not Winston. True, the report indicates there was spotting in her panties consistent with sexual assault, but there were other things entirely inconsistent with sexual assault. No bruising in her upper thighs. No DNA under her fingernails (indicating a lack of struggle). Also, spotting isn't air-tight proof of anything. If you have sex when you haven't had sex in a while, that can cause bleeding. If you have intense sex, same. If you have lots of sex in a short period of time, same.

In this case, there were two semen samples detected. One was Winston's. One was her boyfriend. The accuser initially refused to identify her boyfriend, and after he was identified, he declined to interview with police and later the DA. In other words, she wouldn't tell cops who else she was having sex with, and when idenfied, he did the exact same thing Winston did (which is his right because he would have to be a potential suspect given the physical evidence).

The accuser had to have sex with her boyfriend either before the incident or after the incident but before reporting. She wouldn't talk about that, even though it could explain some of the issues with the physical evidence. Additionally, the only witnesses located couldn't corroborate her claim that she was blackout drunk when she left with Winston.

I have no idea what he did or didn't do. What I do know is that the delay didn't change the evidence, and it didn't cost the state potential witnesses. There was not sufficient evidence to get a conviction. As a result, the DA RIGHTLY decided not to charge Winston with a felony that he couldn't prove. That decision had nothing to do with getting elected or TPD's unfortunate delay. In the end, all the state had was she said/he said with poor physical evidence and zero eye-witness support.

[TitanTiger 20,544]

If only Auburn would have handled it more carefully like TPD and the State of Florida did.

[alexava 6,973]

There were NO CHARGES. What are you talking about? A "charge" is what the STATE brings against an accused. When people colloquially use the phrase "pressing charges," it means the accuser wants the person arrested and is willing to participate in the investigation and trial procedure. Even if a person wants to press charges, if there is no evidence, either the DA does not CHARGE the accused or the charges are dropped. That's what happened here. She can file a civil suit if she so chooses (she won't win but she can do it if she wants), but those won't be "charges" those will be "claims". There's an important difference.

As for the interviews, Winston has a right to remain silent, and in this country, silence is not an admission of guilty. When she identified him (about a week after the initial report), according to Meggs and TPD, the police requested an interview with Winston. He declined, which he had a right to do. The cops can't force you to talk. Ever. The state can't even force you to talk on the stand. You have a right against self-incrimination. You don't have to answer potentially incriminating questions. TPD didn't botch this investigation by failing to interview Winston. They asked. He said no. That's all they can do. If you want to take his silence as proof of guilty, I'll quote the words of Jay Jacobs: "I think that would be un-American".

One person on here said the harrassment that forced her to leave school showed why she stopped talking to police. What? The alleged TPD threat and/or her decision not to communicate with police occurred in February/March. At the time, no one knew who she was, and no one knew Winston had been accused. It's chronologically impossible to think community harrassment that occured this fall (when she decided to leave school) had anything to do with TPD's handling of the case (which started in December 2012 and largely ended by spring). One has nothing to do with the other. To the extent she stopped talking to police, it didn't have anything to do with harrassment from the public.

Final point, there are a LOT of unanswered questions here, but most of them are on the side of the accuser. Not Winston. True, the report indicates there was spotting in her panties consistent with sexual assault, but there were other things entirely inconsistent with sexual assault. No bruising in her upper thighs. No DNA under her fingernails (indicating a lack of struggle). Also, spotting isn't air-tight proof of anything. If you have sex when you haven't had sex in a while, that can cause bleeding. If you have intense sex, same. If you have lots of sex in a short period of time, same.

In this case, there were two semen samples detected. One was Winston's. One was her boyfriend. The accuser initially refused to identify her boyfriend, and after he was identified, he declined to interview with police and later the DA. In other words, she wouldn't tell cops who else she was having sex with, and when idenfied, he did the exact same thing Winston did (which is his right because he would have to be a potential suspect given the physical evidence).

The accuser had to have sex with her boyfriend either before the incident or after the incident but before reporting. She wouldn't talk about that, even though it could explain some of the issues with the physical evidence. Additionally, the only witnesses located couldn't corroborate her claim that she was blackout drunk when she left with Winston.

I have no idea what he did or didn't do. What I do know is that the delay didn't change the evidence, and it didn't cost the state potential witnesses. There was not sufficient evidence to get a conviction. As a result, the DA RIGHTLY decided not to charge Winston with a felony that he couldn't prove. That decision had nothing to do with getting elected or TPD's unfortunate delay. In the end, all the state had was she said/he said with poor physical evidence and zero eye-witness support.

agreed. Are you Atty. or LE