PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe Ben, or do you believe his accusers?



SanAntonioSteelerFan
04-14-2010, 07:22 AM
If you believe his accusers, his behavior has been abhorrent, criminal, and unethical, among others. He clearly shouldn't be in a Steeler uniform. "Suspension" for a guilty repeat rapist just doesn't seem to cut it.

If you believe Ben, then he did nothing wrong . He is clearly being targeted by lying women. All this that's going on in the media, including these forums, is just a lynch mob. He's being crucified for having consensual sex with that woman in Vegas, and going out on his birthday with body guards. He didn't rape that woman in Vegas, and nothing illegal happened in Georgia - he didn't buy underage drinks, he didn't have illegal contact of ANY sort with that woman, he didn't have sex in the bathroom with her (remember, that's illegal, and his lawyer said he didn't do anything illegal). Read the DA statement/Q&A closely:


Q: Could you talk about the report that one of his bodyguards possibly blocked the place off from her sorority sisters?

A: The Capital City Club has a main dance floor. They have a curtain you can move over and screen it off. They let him and his entourage use what they call the V.I.P. area. So heís got him and his eight, nine, 10 friends. They did say, ĎLet only girls back here. Let only girls back here.í Capital City did have one bouncer stationed in front of the black curtain. There were two bodyguards back there. There was just a lot of drinking and talking and socializing back there. The best from a prosecution point of view that we get is one of the Ė none of the bodyguards or anyone in the entourage talked about Ben being back there by himself with the victim, about any sex, about knowing of any sex, nothing like that Ė the best from our angle that we get is one of the bodyguards said the victim asked to use the restroom, that she has to use the restroom, and so she was escorted back there and sat on a stool. Thatís all he saw. He didnít see Ben go back there. None of the bodyguards or any of the entourage saw anything improper going on back there between Ben and the victim.


Q: How long were they in the bathroom?

A: Nobody really knows. The only two people that know about them being in the bathroom were he and she. Heís never said he was alone in the bathroom with her. All he said was he remembered the girl and she fell and hit her head, and again there was no head injury. He never said how long. Her details are somewhat foggy I think due to the level of intoxication. Putting all the bits and pieces of the puzzle together, the best guess would be about 10 minutes, but nobody really knows. Iím guessing 10 minutes from her going back there and coming out.



Q: It was reported at one point that Roethlisberger admitted to having sexual contact. But he didnít say that to you, right?

A: Right. Iíve sat at the computer at night and just Googled and Yahooed everything I could. Iíve read every account that I could about this case. I read the same thing that you did, but that was not provided to law enforcement. The only information that came out of his lips to law enforcement was just a brief five, 10-minute bug 4328 and there was no discussion of sex.

The DA wouldn't/couldn't even say Ben was in the bathroom, much less assaulted the woman. He went out of his way to say that.

So, IMO, there's really no middle ground. If you believe his accusers, then surely you believe there's no place for him on the Steelers - multiple rapist/sexual assaulter that he is? But if you believe Ben - should he even be suspended for simply being a VICTIM of lying females?

Who do you believe?

SteelAbility
04-14-2010, 07:39 AM
I believe both sides seem credible from a reasonable scenario point of view. Quite frankly, I am in doubt and it's about 70/30 (in Ben's favor). I have been a Ben homer since the day we drafted him. But the information on the table is not ignorable in my view.

There are two extremes. Blanket guilt. Blanket innocence. Neither extreme is reasonable at this point.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
04-14-2010, 07:45 AM
I believe both sides seem credible from a reasonable scenario point of view. Quite frankly, I am in doubt and it's about 70/30 (in Ben's favor). I have been a Ben homer since the day we drafted him. But the information on the table is not ignorable in my view.

There are two extremes. Blanket guilt. Blanket innocence. Neither extreme is reasonable at this point.

But he either did these things or he didn't. How is there a grey zone - did he 70% not rape/assault these women? Not saying you're wrong SteelAbility, might be me, but I don't see how there's another option besides, "Innocent", or "Guilty". I'm not talking about juries, I'm talking about what apparently only Ben and these women will ever know about what happened.

SteelAbility
04-14-2010, 07:57 AM
Ok, just went back and read over the DA transcript you posted.

The DA is coming at it from the viewpoint of what can be established. He simply was not willing to assert something that could not be established. He was clear that nobody knows other than Ben and the girl ... and that's not enough for criminal prosecution. There's no middle ground from a criminal prosecution point of view (almost by definition because it requires "beyond a reasonable doubt"), but there is still a middle ground from an opinion point of view.

What I DON'T like is that Ben bought shots for everyone. The girl was heavily intoxicated and everyone knew it. Surely Ben knew it too. Ben's alcohol purchases, no doubt, played a significant role in here drunken state. It doesn't mean he did what she said he did. It does establish reason for doubt.

What's making the money scam idea seem weak in my mind is that when you are in the act of pulling off a scam, you generally don't get drunk. Getting drunk clouds your judgment and decision making. Furthermore it destroys your testimony/witness. When you are scamming you need to be sharp and on top of things (at least somebody told me :) ). Unless these are just rookie/hack-job scammers who planned it half-way through a night out drinking.

SteelAbility
04-14-2010, 08:01 AM
I believe both sides seem credible from a reasonable scenario point of view. Quite frankly, I am in doubt and it's about 70/30 (in Ben's favor). I have been a Ben homer since the day we drafted him. But the information on the table is not ignorable in my view.

There are two extremes. Blanket guilt. Blanket innocence. Neither extreme is reasonable at this point.

But he either did these things or he didn't. How is there a grey zone - did he 70% not rape/assault these women? Not saying you're wrong SteelAbility, might be me, but I don't see how there's another option besides, "Innocent", or "Guilty". I'm not talking about juries, I'm talking about what apparently only Ben and these women will ever know about what happened.

The gray zone comes in because neither you nor I REALLY KNOW what happened. Did you see "The Incredibles?" Remember that scene where Edna is asking Mrs. I if she knows where Mr. I is? "Yes. He told me he's on travel with work."

Edna's reply was "Do you KNOW where he is, dahling?"

Djfan
04-14-2010, 09:12 AM
At this point I see two girls who have demonstrated their inconsistancies and disregard for appropriate boundries. I see one attorney who overstepped appropriate legal (IMO) boundries and told of a mystery woman who said the same stuff? There are double stories, stories of wackiness, "Very" drunk changed stories, etc.

On Ben's side I see dumb choices, but ownership to some of them, and apologies.

His side shows more credibility IMO. Not that I back his stupidity, mind you.

phillyesq
04-14-2010, 09:43 AM
McNulty doesn't seem credible at all. With the Georgia situation, we'll never know what happened. I've generally found that the truth lies somewhere in between the two stories.

papillon
04-14-2010, 10:49 AM
I believe Ben was behaving in a roguish manner; the girl initially was game for a little public display of affection; the girl changed her mind in the bathroom; Ben didn't appreciate this and something ensued and we'll never know exactly what.

If Ben were to say "I wasn't in the bathroom and nothing happened." I wouldn't believe him. If the girl were to say, "Ben followed me into the bathroom, his bodyguards allowed it and Ben assaulted me." I wouldn't believe that either.

Both parties were very much wanting to rip one off, once they were alone something changed and that is what we will probably never know.

Pappy

SteelAbility
04-14-2010, 10:57 AM
I believe Ben was behaving in a roguish manner; the girl initially was game for a little public display of affection; the girl changed her mind in the bathroom; Ben didn't appreciate this and something ensued and we'll never know exactly what.

If Ben were to say "I wasn't in the bathroom and nothing happened." I wouldn't believe him. If the girl were to say, "Ben followed me into the bathroom, his bodyguards allowed it and Ben assaulted me." I wouldn't believe that either.

Both parties were very much wanting to rip one off, once they were alone something changed and that is what we will probably never know.

Pappy

This is where I'm leaning right now.

ikestops85
04-14-2010, 11:36 AM
I believe Ben was behaving in a roguish manner; the girl initially was game for a little public display of affection; the girl changed her mind in the bathroom; Ben didn't appreciate this and something ensued and we'll never know exactly what.

If Ben were to say "I wasn't in the bathroom and nothing happened." I wouldn't believe him. If the girl were to say, "Ben followed me into the bathroom, his bodyguards allowed it and Ben assaulted me." I wouldn't believe that either.

Both parties were very much wanting to rip one off, once they were alone something changed and that is what we will probably never know.

Pappy

This is where I'm leaning right now.
My feeling is somehow the girl thought her actions from that night would get back to her family and embarrass them. To take the heat off of her she and her sorority sisters came up with the "assault" story and it snowballed from there. I don't think she is a gold digger like the McNutty lady.

MeetJoeGreene
04-14-2010, 12:53 PM
I believe Ben was behaving in a roguish manner; the girl initially was game for a little public display of affection; the girl changed her mind in the bathroom; Ben didn't appreciate this and something ensued and we'll never know exactly what.

If Ben were to say "I wasn't in the bathroom and nothing happened." I wouldn't believe him. If the girl were to say, "Ben followed me into the bathroom, his bodyguards allowed it and Ben assaulted me." I wouldn't believe that either.

Both parties were very much wanting to rip one off, once they were alone something changed and that is what we will probably never know.

Pappy

This is where I'm leaning right now.
+1

roguish. that is a very accurate word.

SteelAbility
04-14-2010, 01:17 PM
I believe Ben was behaving in a roguish manner; the girl initially was game for a little public display of affection; the girl changed her mind in the bathroom; Ben didn't appreciate this and something ensued and we'll never know exactly what.

If Ben were to say "I wasn't in the bathroom and nothing happened." I wouldn't believe him. If the girl were to say, "Ben followed me into the bathroom, his bodyguards allowed it and Ben assaulted me." I wouldn't believe that either.

Both parties were very much wanting to rip one off, once they were alone something changed and that is what we will probably never know.

Pappy

This is where I'm leaning right now.
My feeling is somehow the girl thought her actions from that night would get back to her family and embarrass them. To take the heat off of her she and her sorority sisters came up with the "assault" story and it snowballed from there. I don't think she is a gold digger like the McNutty lady.

Not out of the realm of possibility. But if you think about it, the assault story guarantees the word gets back to her parents and doesn't help cast her in a positive light with her family. It does stir up sympathy from her family though. No assault story and there is still a chance the family doesn't hear about it. Then again, drunk teens aren't exactly known for any kind of sound situational analysis, so point well-taken. :)

feltdizz
04-14-2010, 01:36 PM
It makes no sense for the girl to accuse Ben to save face from her family... Who would know or have proof she boned Ben if she didn't speak up? She could just deny it and be done with it... going public makes it known to the world...

I believe something happened but we will never know the truth. The frustrating thing about this was having to wait, wonder and speculate about Ben's innocence...AGAIN. It's so much easier to have a quiet off season wondering about where Ben's place in the HOF would be instead of wondering if he is a rapist...

His press conference didn't help his image at all either. I was surprised how many posters who were previously in Ben's corner backed off a little from the complete innocencestance they had. I know it was just based on appearance but damn... he looked Jesse James greasy in that press conference. I'm afraid we may have a talented QB who plays hard off the field and has a fluck it attitude.. It works on the field but off it.... we see where it has taken him.

snarky
04-14-2010, 02:09 PM
While McNulty's overall credibility is shot, one thing about the Georgia case that has bothered me is this business about the bodyguard standing outside the door while Ben was in there.

Here's why: part of McNulty's claim was that he basically trapped her in his hotel room. For all the other noise in her claims this seemed to parallel in a way this stuff about having a bodyguard outside the door.

Now Ben did say something to the press (not to law enforcement) about non-consummated sexual contact. That to me would be consistent with a small amount of male DNA being collected as part of the rape kit (to put it graphically , pre-ejaculate).

I'd say the odds are not on Ben's side. While there are a number of high-profile false rape allegations, the nuts and bolts of the matter is that only something like 8% of rape charges turn out to be false accusations. Note that this is different from having not enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

So, if I had to make a guess, I would say that Ben probably committed a crime in that bathroom.

But it's not up to me or anyone else to guess. As some of you might remember, I was (and still would be) in support of the Steelers bringing Michael Vick onto the team. As despiscable as his crimes were, the man paid his penalty to society and (IMO) was returning to the NFL a humbled individual. In Ben's case, our system says it can't even establish that he has a penalty to pay.

So while there is a cloud over his head, it is not up to me to decide whether or not he committed a crime. So I am fine with him remaining on the team -- although I probably will not take much interest in his personal achievements as I did in the past. But at the same time, if they dealt him for a decent return, I would be OK with it.

One thing that I haven't seen discussed here or anywhere is the fact that the people of western PA (myself included while I lived there) chipped in a total of 233 million dollars to build Heinz Field. This was a direct subsidy to the Steelers. In my opinion, when the Steelers took this money they made a commitment to act in good faith with the public at large and in my mind that would include not employing people who they feel are likely to victimize the people who have subsidized the stadium. Now, whether Ben is such an individual, I"m not prepared to say. But there is enough out there to suggest that he might be.

Northern_Blitz
04-14-2010, 05:22 PM
I believe that Ben was at a bar buying rediculous amounts of alcohol for co-eds to get them drunk and hopefully get laid. Some of those chicks were underage.

I believe that he took (at least) one of those chicks to the bathroom and probabally got some head. I believe that at best he treated the girls like cheap sluts so afterward they felt that the encounter was at best regretable (i.e. "Take my shots, bitches!").

I don't believe that this was rape in the sense that he physically beat her, or held her down and had sex with her. However, in Canada I know that someone as drunk as she was cannot give consent. I bet this is why the DA was combing through the internet to try to find a witness to prove that a sex act happened. If they found something, my guess is that he would have been charged if the law in the States is the same as here.

I don't believe there is enough evidence to prove that Ben is a rapist. I do believe that there is enough evidence to show that Ben is a douche bag who probabally treats women like shyte. This will make it harder for me to like Ben in the future, especially after having a daughter 2 months ago. I worry that where there's smoke, there's fire.

I don't believe that we should trade Ben after this incident (unless we get something alot more than the 2 first rounders apparently available from the Rams). But I think we should keep him on a very short leash for off field issues. If we did make the reported trade with the Rams, I dont' believe that I would be extreemly upset (I think those will be 2 very high picks). But as I said, I would be asking for more since he is one of 2 guys with multiple SB wins that are playing right now.

stlrz d
04-14-2010, 08:21 PM
While McNulty's overall credibility is shot, one thing about the Georgia case that has bothered me is this business about the bodyguard standing outside the door while Ben was in there.

The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.



Now Ben did say something to the press (not to law enforcement) about non-consummated sexual contact. That to me would be consistent with a small amount of male DNA being collected as part of the rape kit (to put it graphically , pre-ejaculate).

Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

As for Ike's theory, that's been mine all along. Shawn can attest to that as I PM'd it to him long ago. And I can't believe someone who is onboard with any and every conspiracy theory that's ever been dreamed up can't figure out how something that a person does in college would get back to that person's family.

I also believe that in both cases all contact (sexual or otherwise) was consensual.

feltdizz
04-14-2010, 08:52 PM
While McNulty's overall credibility is shot, one thing about the Georgia case that has bothered me is this business about the bodyguard standing outside the door while Ben was in there.

The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.



Now Ben did say something to the press (not to law enforcement) about non-consummated sexual contact. That to me would be consistent with a small amount of male DNA being collected as part of the rape kit (to put it graphically , pre-ejaculate).

Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

As for Ike's theory, that's been mine all along. Shawn can attest to that as I PM'd it to him long ago. And I can't believe someone who is onboard with any and every conspiracy theory that's ever been dreamed up can't figure out how something that a person does in college would get back to that person's family.

I also believe that in both cases all contact (sexual or otherwise) was consensual.

Few kids would ever be allowed back home if everything they did at college was reported back home to their family. Where was the family when she got the fake ID taken from her? This isn't Andy Griffin.. no one is reporting back to Atlanta about what she is doing at college. My mom and dad never called me to ask about my wild nights in college....

Has anyone questioned the consensual sex Ben has had since he has been a Steeler? Funny how consensual sex has a way of not making headlines... I'm not saying these chicks aren't lying but that isn't the point.

Ben needs to understand chicks will lie and bar hopping with young chicks he doesn't know will get him popped or traded sooner or later.

snarky
04-14-2010, 11:30 PM
The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.

From Bright's presser

The facts as they appear from our investigation are essentially these: On the evening of Thursday, March 4, and going into after midnight on Friday, March 5, Ben Roethlisberger was bar-hopping with his bodyguards and friends here in Milledgeville, Georgia, and attracting a crowd wherever he went. And his victim was bar-hopping with her sorority sisters. Both parties had been drinking alcohol prior to meeting each other. They did not know each other before this evening, but did meet at different bars throughout the night. They participated in conversations, some of a sexual nature. After midnight, Mr. Roethlisberger and his entourage were at the Capital City Club and the manager let them use the V.I.P. area. The victim went with her sorority sisters to the nightclub later. Mr. Roethlisberger invited them into the V.I.P. area where he provided shots of alcohol for them. Everyone agrees that the victim was highly intoxicated due to consuming alcohol. One of the bodyguards guided the victim down a back hallway. Mr. Roethlisberger followed her down the hallway into a small bathroom. The issue is what happened in that small, less than five-foot-wide, single-commode bathroom, between Mr. Roethlisberger and the victim

While it is true that Bright later said that Ben himself has never said he was in the bathroom, he clearly indicated that the investigation places Ben in the bathroom with this woman.




Now Ben did say something to the press (not to law enforcement) about non-consummated sexual contact. That to me would be consistent with a small amount of male DNA being collected as part of the rape kit (to put it graphically , pre-ejaculate).

Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

OK well, I guess the word sexual was inferred. But the use of 'not consummated' coupled with the minute amount of male DNA recovered leads me to the conclusion I mentioned above. And like I've said elsewhere, I don't expect everybody else to agree with me.

Steel Life
04-15-2010, 02:01 AM
While McNulty's overall credibility is shot, one thing about the Georgia case that has bothered me is this business about the bodyguard standing outside the door while Ben was in there.

The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.



Now Ben did say something to the press (not to law enforcement) about non-consummated sexual contact. That to me would be consistent with a small amount of male DNA being collected as part of the rape kit (to put it graphically , pre-ejaculate).

Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

As for Ike's theory, that's been mine all along. Shawn can attest to that as I PM'd it to him long ago. And I can't believe someone who is onboard with any and every conspiracy theory that's ever been dreamed up can't figure out how something that a person does in college would get back to that person's family.

I also believe that in both cases all contact (sexual or otherwise) was consensual.
Count me on Ben's side...that isn't to say that he didn't have relations or interaction though. McNulty is clearly an obsessed woman who able to coerce Ben into having sex with her & when it became a one night stand & not the dream relationship she envisioned, she took aim.

As for Georgia...I see a combination of events - 1st Ben's birthday bash rolling through & 2nd this girl's "night out" with her pals. What Bright neglected to mention was that the girl was already drunk when the free VIP drinks were being poured - don't forget how the place has culpability here, hence the disappearance of the security tapes - & it's likely that the scene became a bit rowdy, perhaps to a "Girls Gone Wild" level. Perhaps she had a make-out session with Ben...perhaps she had one with someone else, we don't know because she was too drunk to remember. And some of her injuries could easily be the result of falling down drunk. Either way there are too many loose ends on her story that along with the lack of physical evidence & witnesses to believe her at all. Another thing guys...get it right, the potential charge was for sexual assault not rape - big difference.

snarky
04-15-2010, 02:17 AM
Another thing guys...get it right, the potential charge was for sexual assault not rape - big difference.

From Bright's presser

The crime that was being investigated was rape. Under our official code, section 16-6-1, the elements of rape are having carnal knowledge Ė that means having sexual intercourse, which requires penetration Ė of a female forcibly and against her will. In this judicial circuit, we have always strongly held that a woman has a right to be safe from attack, but every case must be viewed in the context of its circumstances. Here, the overall circumstances do not lead to a viable prosecution. If they did, I would pursue it vigorously.

Captain Lemming
04-15-2010, 02:27 AM
The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.

Dude you keep saying this. Do you know what else Ben never said? He never publicly said he WASNT in the bathroom did he? Why not? Why let the world THINK he was in the bathroom if he wasnt? He had the mics, he had the presser. He refused to say anything about it. If he wasnt in the bathroom with the chick, THIS WHOLE THING DIES period. No suspensions, no angry fans, NOTHING.



Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

He used the term not "consummated". When used in such a context it means some sexual type of activity that was not completed. Why use such a sexually charged term if there is no sexual context.

You do a business deal and shake the hand of a beautiful woman representing the other company. At a restaurant wifey sees the woman, the woman smiles and nods at you. Your wife says "who is she?" Will you tell your wife you met a woman and that, "sure there was contact but it was not consummated?" Please tell me that your wife will not be convinced that you have engaged in some level of hanky panky.

Same scenario, business deal done with a company represented by a gay dude. You shake hands. What would you be implying if you say "we had contact that was not consummated?" Why would a straight guy EVER say that in such a context.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Your homer take on this whole matter is blinding you to what is all to obvious to anyone with common sense

I dont know who is telling the truth. The girl may be lying, or Ben may have done something terrible.

But nobody can tell me that Ben was not in that bathroom alone with that girl. Only they know what really happened.

stlrz d
04-15-2010, 07:59 AM
From Bright's presser

The facts as they appear from our investigation are essentially these: On the evening of Thursday, March 4, and going into after midnight on Friday, March 5, Ben Roethlisberger was bar-hopping with his bodyguards and friends here in Milledgeville, Georgia, and attracting a crowd wherever he went. And his victim was bar-hopping with her sorority sisters. Both parties had been drinking alcohol prior to meeting each other. They did not know each other before this evening, but did meet at different bars throughout the night. They participated in conversations, some of a sexual nature. After midnight, Mr. Roethlisberger and his entourage were at the Capital City Club and the manager let them use the V.I.P. area. The victim went with her sorority sisters to the nightclub later. Mr. Roethlisberger invited them into the V.I.P. area where he provided shots of alcohol for them. Everyone agrees that the victim was highly intoxicated due to consuming alcohol. One of the bodyguards guided the victim down a back hallway. Mr. Roethlisberger followed her down the hallway into a small bathroom. The issue is what happened in that small, less than five-foot-wide, single-commode bathroom, between Mr. Roethlisberger and the victim

While it is true that Bright later said that Ben himself has never said he was in the bathroom, he clearly indicated that the investigation places Ben in the bathroom with this woman.



I've seen that but since there are no details that appears to be HER side of the story.

stlrz d
04-15-2010, 08:03 AM
[quote="stlrz d":2ke8pepn]
The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.

Dude you keep saying this. Do you know what else Ben never said? He never publicly said he WASNT in the bathroom did he? Why not? Why let the world THINK he was in the bathroom if he wasnt? He had the mics, he had the presser. He refused to say anything about it. If he wasnt in the bathroom with the chick, THIS WHOLE THING DIES period. No suspensions, no angry fans, NOTHING.



Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

He used the term not "consummated". When used in such a context it means some sexual type of activity that was not completed. Why use such a sexually charged term if there is no sexual context.

You do a business deal and shake the hand of a beautiful woman representing the other company. At a restaurant wifey sees the woman, the woman smiles and nods at you. Your wife says "who is she?" Will you tell your wife you met a woman and that, "sure there was contact but it was not consummated?" Please tell me that your wife will not be convinced that you have engaged in some level of hanky panky.

Same scenario, business deal done with a company represented by a gay dude. You shake hands. What would you be implying if you say "we had contact that was not consummated?" Why would a straight guy EVER say that in such a context.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Your homer take on this whole matter is blinding you to what is all to obvious to anyone with common sense

I dont know who is telling the truth. The girl may be lying, or Ben may have done something terrible.

But nobody can tell me that Ben was not in that bathroom alone with that girl. Only they know what really happened.[/quote:2ke8pepn]

You make a good point about the bathroom. I'll not deny that. Perhaps it was because he was in there at some point or perhaps there's a legal reason why. I don't know for sure.

How is stating that he never used the word "sexual" a homer take? I'm only pointing out facts. He never said that word so if pointing out a fact makes me a homer (or lemming) then so be it.

For the record, my take is that whatever they did was consensual.

Jom112
04-15-2010, 10:16 AM
You make a good point about the bathroom. I'll not deny that. Perhaps it was because he was in there at some point or perhaps there's a legal reason why. I don't know for sure.


http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs428.snc3/24679_113667551993148_100000497105764_206215_58601 91_n.jpg

feltdizz
04-15-2010, 10:36 AM
[quote="stlrz d":d4w4vv1i]
The only mention of the bathroom is that the accuser's friend said she thought the accuser was in there and the bodyguard wouldn't let her in. It was never even said that Ben was in there.

Dude you keep saying this. Do you know what else Ben never said? He never publicly said he WASNT in the bathroom did he? Why not? Why let the world THINK he was in the bathroom if he wasnt? He had the mics, he had the presser. He refused to say anything about it. If he wasnt in the bathroom with the chick, THIS WHOLE THING DIES period. No suspensions, no angry fans, NOTHING.



Ben never used the word "sexual". That was added by the media. Ben said, "There was contact that was not consummated".

He used the term not "consummated". When used in such a context it means some sexual type of activity that was not completed. Why use such a sexually charged term if there is no sexual context.

You do a business deal and shake the hand of a beautiful woman representing the other company. At a restaurant wifey sees the woman, the woman smiles and nods at you. Your wife says "who is she?" Will you tell your wife you met a woman and that, "sure there was contact but it was not consummated?" Please tell me that your wife will not be convinced that you have engaged in some level of hanky panky.

Same scenario, business deal done with a company represented by a gay dude. You shake hands. What would you be implying if you say "we had contact that was not consummated?" Why would a straight guy EVER say that in such a context.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Your homer take on this whole matter is blinding you to what is all to obvious to anyone with common sense

I dont know who is telling the truth. The girl may be lying, or Ben may have done something terrible.

But nobody can tell me that Ben was not in that bathroom alone with that girl. Only they know what really happened.[/quote:d4w4vv1i]
:Bow

:Beer

:Cheers

spyboots
04-15-2010, 09:45 PM
I think with all the sexual conversation the DA said they had that she agreed, then changed her mind and so he stopped. That's why they "sort of" had sex per her. That's why there wasn't DNA evidence.

Captain Lemming
04-16-2010, 01:19 AM
I think with all the sexual conversation the DA said they had that she agreed, then changed her mind and so he stopped. That's why they "sort of" had sex per her. That's why there wasn't DNA evidence.

Hmmm, seems like a very likely scenario.

BlackJackGold
04-16-2010, 03:11 AM
The cop who first investigated Ben Roethlisberger for sexual assault has "resigned" in the wake of the release of a police report that shows he may have referred to the accuser as a "f*cking bitch" ... but TMZ has learned the cop didn't really have a choice.



We're told the Milledgeville Police officer -- Sergeant Jerry Blash -- turned in his resignation yesterday. He had been with the force for 8 years.

In the report, investigators claim that on the night of the alleged incident, Blash admitted that after he encountered the accuser, he may have made a comment similar to "this f*cking b*tch is drunk" or "this b*tch is drunk off her a$$ accusing Ben of assaulting her."

Investigators also report that on the night of the incident, Blash informed the accuser and her friends that "Roethlisberger has a lot of money" and if the women were to follow through with a police report, they "would be wasting their time."

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ Blash was given a lose-lose option -- resign...or be fired.

FYI -- Blash is the same guy who posed for photos with Ben hours before he was approached by the alleged victim outside the Capital City nightclub in Georgia.





Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/15/ben-roeth ... z0lFEnap5t (http://www.tmz.com/2010/04/15/ben-roethlisberger-sergeant-jerry-blash-officer-cop-quit-resign-milledgeville-police-rape-sexual-assault/#ixzz0lFEnap5t)