For the last time and I really have to just move on because this is just going nowhere.
Now, I will give you credit for at least giving a better summation of SOME of the facts than you've done thus far.
However, and this is IMPORTANT.
Tox screens DO NOT TEST FOR NOR SCREEN FOR ROHYPNOL.
So if the TPD or any of the TPD defenders wanted to get out from under THAT claim, all they have to do is to state that they ordered that test. It's an EXTRA test. They have not. All they have stated is that they ordered a standard tox screen which DOES NOT TEST FOR NOR SCREEN FOR ROHYPNOL.
Now, I really don't like doing the caps thing, but this is just beyond ridiculous. We know that they did NOT order the extra test because if they had ordered the extra test than they, they being the Tallahassee PD, they would have said so in order to not look so damned incompetent the umpteen times the media has grilled them over this botched investigation.
Conjecture and assumptions. The reports do not go into detail on the tests that were ordered. What we do know is that when testing for date rape drugs, you test urine samples. The hospital took both blood and urine samples. Both were tested. There is no specificity provided on the tests themselves beyond the results.
We do not know that. You are making an assumption. I understand what you're saying just fine. I'm telling you that you don't know what you assert to know and that your reasoning is flawed.
Also, several of your facts that purport to support Jameis Winston either are inconclusive or support the victim.
- Winston's consensual sex claims are supported by testimony of Casher and Darby
- ***Considering these two may be co-conspirators, their testimony must be viewed in that light and can't be viewed as exculpatory.
No, they don't. You're only proving that you are incapable of looking at this without bias. What are they co-conspirators of? Neither had sex with her. Neither drugged her. What did they do?
And yes, their testimony absolutely is a relevant fact consider they were the ONLY witnesses at the apartment. It absolutely supports Winston.
- Accounts from victim's friends dispute her story
- ***This is just untrue. The victim had inconsistencies in her story which is perfectly consistent with Rohypnol poisoning. The job of a good investigator would be to parse the inconsistencies and determine the material facts from her testimony. The victim's friends have details which differ. That's a FAR CRY from the friends' stories DISPUTING the victim's story.
Incorrect. The account of her friends say that she wasn't drunk to the point of incapacitation, seemed lucid, and decided to leave the bar under her own free will. Different friends spoke about her original versions of events which differed from the version of events she later told the cops. This testimony disputes some of the facts in her own story. You can blame that discrepancy on her being drugged(which also cannot be proven) but you can't claim there aren't any elements of the story in dispute.
- Victim's story was inconsistent(it changed) and was different from the story she told her friends
- ***See above. Consistent with Rohypnol poisoning and differing details does not meet the criteria for dispute as you would have us believe. The friends of the victim are NOT via their testimony essentially calling the victim a liar, which is what YOU are doing.
Point again about bias. Your conclusion is that she was drugged so you're only willing to view the facts from that vantage point. The discrepancies in her story is a fact that supports Winston's argument. A drugging would explain discrepancies but that cannot be proven with the facts we have now. Her story changed. If you want to take that as her being a liar. That's your prerogative. I am only reporting the facts.
- Urine and Blood tests were done -> No drugs found in her system and BAC at time blood was drawn(about 2 hours after supposed rape) was 0.048(which makes it highly unlikely that she was overwhelmingly intoxicated when rape occurred)
- ***Have repeated this. Unless they specifically ordered a Rohypnol screen IT WAS NOT DONE. Rohypnol will NOT show up on a Tox screen. Considering the level of incompetence, delay and obstruction in this investigation by TPD as well as FSU, I am incredulous that the investigator would order the EXTRA test. Downright incredulous. As in... I don't believe it for a damned minute.
It was done. We don't know what tests were ordered. But some tests were conducted. And that is what they said. As I said, I am laying out the facts. Not speculation.
Now, given the facts YOU'VE acknowledged... even if you dispute the counter-argument that I've made... I'm totally at a loss as to how you reconcile this. And this is not the only troubling sexual encounter he's had. We do not know if the other encounter was similar in nature to this. We just know that the other young lady was so upset that she visited a crisis counselor about it. She didn't just drop in to tell the crisis counselor that she had casual sex. She stated that she refused to call it rape because she "didn't say no". That doesn't mean it wasn't rape. We don't know if she was incapable of saying no. That's another aspect to Rohypnol poisoning. We do know that the encounter was so troubling that the crisis counselor forwarded the incident information.
You're not making counter-arguments(there wasn't an original argument because that was the FACTS not my opinion or argument of what happened). I laid out the facts to see if you're willing to view it objectively. You weren't. I am not going to continue to argue this. You've entrenched yourself in your theory. I asked you to keep an open mind in viewing the facts of both sides and you were unwilling. Every single fact on Winston side, you viewed from the perspective that he drugged her. Maybe it's unrealistic for me to expect for any person to shed their conclusions in order to view the facts anew but I was hoping you'd try.
I have argued this enough. Not going anywhere because you've already decided that you are reasonably certain what happened that night. Your mind is made up.
As far as the other girl, even that slanted New York Times piece said that it wasn't rape. It's immaterial.
So, that makes TWO young women who've had... troubling sexual encounters with this young man. And since LESS THAN 2% of rape accusations are false... it's very likely that he's guilty. What's more, this young lady has done everything right and so much of what should be there....isn't there only because of TPD's obstruction. That phone video was crucial evidence, for example. Gone forever now.
The issue isn't "coming to a baseless conclusion." There is enough information out there to get pretty damned close.
By your logic, it's very likely that every person accused of rape is guilty. So your stance is that we should regard every person charged with rape with a presumption of guilt?(I'm not talking in the court of law either) Where does that 2% figure even come from? Does that mean that 98% of people charged with rape are convicted or that only 2% are PROVEN to be false?
As I said before, the other woman is immaterial. It wasn't rape. That is specifically said.
No, there's not enough information out there to come pretty damned close. You can't even prove the most important element of your theory...the date-rape drug.
Lets go a step further, WHO DRUGGED THE GIRL? There is no allegation that Winston, Casher, or Darby gave her a drink or had any contact with her drinks that night. In fact, she was sharing drinks of her friend. I believe she, additionally, said that she took one shot from either a bartender or a friend of a friend. But there is never a claim that Winston or Casher or Darby gave her any drink or touched any of her drinks.
So if they didn't give her the date-rape drug that you allege she ingested, WHO DID?
Sorry but you can't get pretty damned close. You can't prove that she was drugged and you can't prove who might have drugged her. That's what holds your theory up.
I'm not going to make conclusory judgement on something as serious as rape based on a complete lack of evidence.
