The Goat Pen

KeviNole wrote:

Its in "the public" because the "victim's lawyer" probably put it there to generate as much sympathy as he can to crank up the eventual out-of-court civil settlement.

Her lawyer is her aunt. It's a bit humorous to me that a relatively unknown reporter from Tampa unearthed this story to the shock and horror of her family, then they grant him an exclusive statement to release yesterday. He is a family friend or a friend of a friend... And I don't believe the girl herself initiated this thing and the fact that the SAO has yet to talk to her indicates she's still not interested in pursuing it criminally.

You and I both know why she isn't pursuing it criminally. She isn't pursuing it because she CAN'T. She has no case, its not rape.

The girl had sex with Jameis Winston either forcibly or consensually in December last year. That very night/morning, perhaps immediately, she contacted police, made the complaint, presumably she also went to a hospital and evidence, like the contents of her panties, was collected. She claims that she did not know him, and apparently gave a pretty bad description of him. In January she apparently saw Jameis Winston or was made aware through other means, and notified police that he was the person about whom she made the report.

Consider this my gift for you, a plausible set of facts to wrap in your worldview rather than the ones you make up that make it quite clear that you retain no more than the haziest notion of what you read before you start painting over it with the pigments of moronity.

atm wrote:The girl had sex with Jameis Winston either forcibly or consensually in December last year. That very night/morning, perhaps immediately, she contacted police, made the complaint...

STOP! What is that? What is "made the complaint?" Did she press charges or not? Did the boy get arrested or not? Is he still on the street able to rape anyone (even her) again? Do you have any clue what you are typing? Oh that's right, she didn't know who it was... right?

You get raped, you don't "make a complaint" to the police. This is not someone calling the police to complain that their neighbor won't turn the volume down on their stereo after you've politely asked them to do so. This is a criminal act, in my opinion, the second worst thing a man can do to a woman. It's serious.

atm wrote:...presumably she also went to a hospital and evidence, like the contents of her panties, was collected. She claims that she did not know him, and apparently gave a pretty bad description of him. In January she apparently saw Jameis Winston or was made aware through other means, and notified police that he was the person about whom she made the report.

STOP! What is that? Did she press charges or not? Now she knows who he is, did the boy get arrested or not? Is he still on the street able to rape anyone (even her) again? Do you have any clue what you are typing?

atm wrote:Consider this my gift for you, a plausible set of facts to wrap in your worldview rather than the ones you make up that make it quite clear that you retain no more than the haziest notion of what you read before you start painting over it with the pigments of moronity.

Yeah, consider this...

http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpre ... t-dialect/

... my gift to you about what "consent" is to women, a plausible set of facts about women to wrap in your worldview rather than drowning in feminism so much that you can't tell the difference between a rape victim and someone looking to score some money.

SunshineMary wrote:What does it mean for a woman to consent to having sex? You can find all kinds of silly feminist platitudes about what enthusiastic consent means, but when you start looking at the narratives feminist women tell of their sexual encounters, you can’t help but notice that consent is essentially a meaningless word for them. It changes all the time, and furthermore it changes after the fact. For example, Rosie from the feminist website Make Me a Sammich, relates this story about her cheatin’ ex (highlighting mine):

Make ME a sammich wrote:“Violation” is a word that keeps coming up for me around dealing with betrayal. When you secretly bring a third person into a committed two-person relationship, you violate not only loyalty and trust, but you eliminate informed consent. Would I have consented to sex with my ex if I’d known he was having sex with someone else? Absolutely not.

My ex created a situation where any intimacy between us happened essentially without my informed consent. I consented to intimacy with a person who had committed to a monogamous relationship with me. I did not consent to share my body with someone who was sharing his body with another person while pretending I was the only one. So, in effect, he did not have my consent. He removed my ability to consent.

Was it really rotten of this man to cheat on the authoress? Of course it was. Was it wrong to have sex with his partner if he was cheating on her? Yes, because he could have exposed her to disease. But does the fact that her partner was cheating on her mean that she had non-consensual sex (which would be sexual assault)? No, it doesn’t.

Get it? Why is this rapist not in jail (or released on bond) pending a trial date? This is the big time.

Maybe she couldn't find her handcuffs?

I don't have much information, like pretty much all of us. My strongest gut feeling is that Winston is guilty and going to jail is mainly because of the side you picked in this thread.

IB is parody. That's the only possible scenario that makes sense.

IB, if you want an approximate timeline of events, check out http://www.tallahassee.com/article/2013 ... nston-case.

Im curious as to why aTm is so involved in this discussion. Could it be a Johnny Football bias? Weird timing.

AlabamAlum wrote:IB is parody. That's the only possible scenario that makes sense.

Been saying that since forever.

In non-Winston news, the FSU men's basketball team destroyed #10 VCU last night. They had a 30 point lead with a few minutes to go before losing focus and allowing VCU to score the last 12 points.

FSU is 4-0 and has thus far avoided the annual WTF??? game. The next two games are against #14 Michigan and #16 UF so it's unlikely we'll head into the ACC game undefeated.

Just think if ya'll had gotten Wiggins...

He'd be fighting for playing time!

atm wrote:I don't have much information, like pretty much all of us. My strongest gut feeling is that Winston is guilty and going to jail is mainly because of the side you picked in this thread.

Fair enough.

Funny how this news came out now. It's a year old news story right?

Media was supplied with the case number from an "anonymous" source the day after Oregon lost and it was apparent that JW was headed for the Heisman and FSU was headed to Pasadena.

Who stood to gain the most? Ohio State? Baylor?


What about Muschamp? He's had a horrible season, but they have a legit D.



That's it. I will guess Colonel Muschamp in the library with the candlestick.

Bama. Skerred.

Heh. Yeah. Must be.

The Nick leaked the story...

Two interesting tweets this morning on the Winston case:

Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
Willie Meggs, Fla. state atty, just told me investigation is ongoing and he is “as certain as I can be” charges will not be filed this week.

Jon Morosi @jonmorosi
Willie Meggs did say his office has made “a lot of progress” in Winston investigation and that there is “not a lot” of work left to be done.

If there's not a lot of work to be done and there will not be charges filed imminently, the logical conclusion is that they will never be filed. I suppose they are awaiting social media and phone company subpoenas (Facebook and Twitter usually have a turnaround of several weeks) and the expectation is they will support Winston. If they had enough evidence to charge him now, you'd have to believe they would...the TPD and SAO has had their eyes blackened by the press on this, and to let someone you are going to charge anyway roam free for an extra couple of weeks so he could finish up the season would make it seem even more improper.

In addition, if he's awaiting these subpoenas that are expected to support his innocence, the SAO would want to have this evidence firmed up before declaring he won't be charging so that his reasoning is airtight.