Say it ain't so, Jameis . . .

[crystalline]

 
I don't agree with PaulinMyrBch here, but this strikes me as an unreasonable and very personal response.

Agreed with you. I don't know what happened in the Winston case or with the TPD. However I would have said
"Aren't you the guy who has been a defense attorney in rape cases and, having seen many, probably knows more about their legal process than 99.9% of people here?"

 

[axx]

Why are people still having problems with the case now? Winston took advantage of a girl who was too drunk to really consent. There's not going to be any evidence of a rape since she willingly did the deed. So douchy, but not a crime (?)

 

[DukeSox]

Too drunk?  BAC was 0.04...that's like 1 drink.

 

[axx]

Too drunk?  BAC was 0.04...that's like 1 drink.

 
.04, Several hours later.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Why are people still having problems with the case now? Winston took advantage of a girl who was too drunk to really consent. There's not going to be any evidence of a rape since she willingly did the deed. So douchy, but not a crime (?)


Didn't you just literally define date rape?

 

[axx]

Didn't you just literally define date rape?

 
Well, there's no evidence that I saw that suggested Winston intentionally got her drunk to have sex with her or that she was poisoned in any way. There's a fine line I guess and the State Attorney decided that Winston didn't cross it.

 

[Kevin Jewkilis]

There isn't a fine line.  The scenario you described is rape, period.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

It doesn't matter if Winston was the one who got her drunk. If she was very drunk, she can't give consent. That's rape.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Police reports here
 
If someone can find the time they drew her blood, that'd be helpful.  I can't find it. FWIW, she was .048 and alcohol generally metabolizes out at a rate of .016/hr.  So we can figure out an approximate BA level. Best guess is its around .10, but like I said, can't find the time in those reports.
 
Also her girlfriend, who was simultaneously hooking up across town, refusing to be interviewed is somewhat of a red flag.

 

[SumnerH]

 
Well, there's no evidence that I saw that suggested Winston intentionally got her drunk to have sex with her or that she was poisoned in any way. There's a fine line I guess and the State Attorney decided that Winston didn't cross it.

 
I don't know about Florida, but in most states if she's too drunk to render informed consent then it's rape, regardless of whether she got drunk of her own volition.
 
OTOH, if the best guess is around a .10 at the time and the method that's arrived at requires some estimation, it could be tough to prove she was too drunk to consent.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
I don't know about Florida, but in most states if she's too drunk to render informed consent then it's rape, regardless of whether she got drunk of her own volition.
 
OTOH, if the best guess is around a .10 at the time and the method that's arrived at requires some estimation, it could be tough to prove she was too drunk to consent.

 
Best guess is based on a few assumptions.  Reports indicate the sex occurred between 1:00-1:30.  The blood was drawn at the hospital after 4:43, so if we assume 5:00-5:30, thats 4 hours.  Evidence is she got to the bar at 11:30 and drank illegally out of a shared cup for approximately 75 minutes. She was .048 when tested, so the estimate is between .104 and .12.  So not a date rape situation IMO.  Plus her statements, texts, witness accounts before and after all support that as well.  There is no evidence she was in a condition where she didn't know what was happening. 
 
I think her lack of memory is completely selective. 

 

[SumnerH]

 
Best guess is based on a few assumptions.  Reports indicate the sex occurred between 1:00-1:30.  The blood was drawn at the hospital after 4:43, so if we assume 5:00-5:30, thats 4 hours.  Evidence is she got to the bar at 11:30 and drank illegally out of a shared cup for approximately 75 minutes. She was .048 when tested, so the estimate is between .104 and .12.  So not a date rape situation IMO.  Plus her statements, texts, witness accounts before and after all support that as well.  There is no evidence she was in a condition where she didn't know what was happening. 
 
I think her lack of memory is completely selective. 

 
The legal question in most states whether she was capable of giving informed consent, which is probably a less drunk situation than "didn't know what was happening" or "blacked out and lost her memory".  Again I'm not sure about Florida in particular, and if she peaked at under .12 then she probably fails to meet that standard anyway.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
The legal question in most states whether she was capable of giving informed consent, which is probably a less drunk situation than "didn't know what was happening" or "blacked out and lost her memory".  Again I'm not sure about Florida in particular, and if she peaked at under .12 then she probably fails to meet that standard anyway.

I was referring to the evidence, not the legal standard. There is evidence, plenty of it, to indicate she knew what was happening. Her story is she said no, not that she couldn't give consent.

The BA evidence is relevant to raise questions about her lack of detail in her statement. My position is it is selective because the BA doesn't explain the memory loss.

If you have an alternate theory about the lack of memory, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Kevin Jewkilis]

Here's an alternate theory of selective memory loss:  being raped is pretty damn traumatic.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Kevin, did you read any part of the case file?