Even Steelers fans know there's no defense for Roethlisberge

[Captain Lemming]

Her full cooperation is his best evidence. Without that sure there is no case. Sure if Ben TOLD WILLIE, "dude she was saying no" or she was screaming no I dont want to go, while being dragged against her will into the bathroom, and witnesses testified to it, he would still proceed even if she didnt want to. But lacking obvious additional evidence, his case depends on her testimony.

If a woman says she was raped and she say she recognizes the dude and it is not deemed "impossible" due to clear evidence the guy "could not have done it" (ex. he was at work with multiple witnesses) it almost always goes to trial.

People who "never never saw the victim in their life" who were home with only familiy as witnesses have been convicted of rape based on a looking like a drawing and being ID'd in a lineup. The mistaken testimony of ONE PERSON is all that it took. DNA is proving many long time inmates innocent.

Ben was there, they were together talking dirty, flirting, and drinking. There was a bathroom where it was alleged to have happened.

The testimony of the alleged victim is all the evidence you need to go to trial, even when the dude never met the woman.

There is no way this does not go to trial if she wants to go after him.

Legality? Payoffs happen all the time. Many said from day one Ben should do that and cited examples where others have done this.

Sure if she is called she is legally obliged to do so honestly. But really how hard is it for things to become a little "unclear" for her. The prosecuter knows this. Why waste the time.

[cruzer8]

Yes, there is no defense.

Forensic evidence, it turned out, was scant. Although testing showed the presence of male human DNA from the woman, there was no way to match it to Mr. Roethlisberger or anyone else, according to Ted R. Staples, GBI's manager of forensic biology.

"It was an extremely small quantity of that, and there simply was not enough to generate a nuclear DNA profile from that male" Mr. Staples said. "We carried it forward and made an attempt [to obtain a DNA profile.] The only profile generated was that of the female."

Even with today's technology, the sample was so infinitesimal that nothing could be determined.

"Normally what we're looking for is about a nanogram of DNA, which is a billionth of a gram. A raisin weighs about a gram, so if you could cut a raisin into a billion pieces, we need one of those. So this particular result was far less than even a nanogram. There was something there. It just wasn't enough."

Mr. Staples said scientists could not discern the source of the DNA in the sample, whether it was from saliva, semen or something else.



Read more: [url="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10108/1051441-66.stm#ixzz0lZ83Gpwk"]http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10108/10 ... z0lZ83Gpwk[/url]

One billionth of a gram. Wow. They didn't even have that.

Ben is the one getting raped here.

[eniparadoxgma]

[quote=Captain Lemming]

One more time: it is NOT responsible to recite and retread witness statements from four VERY drunk college girls - who lied about their age, falsified IDs, and followed Ben around the town from bar to bar - as gospel. Please.

The DA, who WANTED to prosecute, had to discount these witness statements so much he had to drop the case. But now these "journalists" are reciting them, without a so much as "allegedly". And it's influencing the opinion of just about everyone who hears it.

Dirtbags.

Actually, not prosecuting has zip to do with "four VERY drunk college girls" being poor witnesses.
ONE very drunk college girl, the ONLY GIRL who knows if a crime occured does not want the McNulty treatment and does not want to pursue the matter.

If she is forced to testify, an unwilling witness can suddenly "have difficulty recalling events," after all she had a lot to drink.

When you see her drivin a new Beamer you will know why the prosecution has no case.

At best the prosecution had a "he said she sajd". That is all you need to prosecute and believe me THEY WILL prosecute with no other evidence.

But no "she said", no case.

I am completely and utterly in disagreement with your sentiments.

That is all.

Yes, but you cannot explain "why" can you.

In order to be "completely and utterly in disagreement" with me you must believe that that if the "alleged" victim was insistent on going after Ben she would have been ignored. That is ridiculous. Do you know what a stink she could raise if it looked like the rich famous athlete was "let off" easy. For political reasons alone that would never happen.

Women who were drunk women testify "ALL THE TIME" in these situations. You dont drop a case because you dont believe her because she was drunk. Heck "she was drunk" all by itself can make it criminal.

The credibility of her friends is meaningless without her because they werent in the bathroon. If the accuser insists on pursuing it, her friend can only testify on what they saw, which was not a crime.

Drunk, fake ID doesnt stop it from being prosecuted. The jury would decide whether or not they are credible. Unless he "knows" they are lying the prosecuter will prosecute. His job is not to be judge and jury.

The fact that suddenly the alleged vic does not want to pursue the matter (Payoff) and she is the the only one who "can" testify to a crime if a crime happened, is the only reason the case was dropped.[/quote:t8a0fn1i]

Yes I do know why I'm in disagreement with you, whether it is complete and utter or not.

You're throwing out conspiracy theory (PAYOFF) as fact when it's actually just speculation. It's also speculation that I see no evidence for.

Do I really need to get more in depth than that?

[Captain Lemming]

Yes I do know why I'm in disagreement with you, whether it is complete and utter or not.

You're throwing out conspiracy theory (PAYOFF) as fact when it's actually just speculation. It's also speculation that I see no evidence for.

Do I really need to get more in depth than that?

That is perfectly reasonable. I do not "know" she was paid.

Throw that out.
She implied that she doesnt want the circus, reasonable considering the McNulty stuff. He said she said, with a very rich defendant, she with almost certainly lose regardles of what the truth is.

My point is her being drunk is not why the prosecution did not run with it. If she wanted to pursue it the DA will not drop the case. He will need to KNOW that it did not happen, before he just throws it out.

Testimony from an alleged victim plus circumstances to make it "possible" is more than enough to move forward.

To drop the case just based on her being drunk with a false ID, he is doing the job of the jury who have the job of determining how "credible" she is.

The repercussions of letting a famous athlete off would be devastating to his career.

It is clear that the DA would love to prosecute, that is what this thread is about.

To say he "could not" for lack of evidence, if he had a willing accuser makes no sense.

[eniparadoxgma]

Yes I do know why I'm in disagreement with you, whether it is complete and utter or not.

You're throwing out conspiracy theory (PAYOFF) as fact when it's actually just speculation. It's also speculation that I see no evidence for.

Do I really need to get more in depth than that?

That is perfectly reasonable. I do not "know" she was paid.

Throw that out.
She implied that she doesnt want the circus, reasonable considering the McNulty stuff. He said she said, with a very rich defendant, she with almost certainly lose regardles of what the truth is.

My point is her being drunk is not why the prosecution did not run with it. If she wanted to pursue it the DA will not drop the case. He will need to KNOW that it did not happen, before he just throws it out.

Testimony from an alleged victim plus circumstances to make it "possible" is more than enough to move forward.

To drop the case just based on her being drunk with a false ID, he is doing the job of the jury who have the job of determining how "credible" she is.

The repercussions of letting a famous athlete off would be devastating to his career.

It is clear that the DA would love to prosecute, that is what this thread is about.

To say he "could not" for lack of evidence, if he had a willing accuser makes no sense.

Cool. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you just said. My disagreement was referring to the "payoff" theory. There are other reasons for her to have not wanted to go through with it, and being paid off is nowhere near the top of the list from my perspective.