She was getting death threats and didn’t want to keep going. Nothing odd about her not wanting to go forward at all. That’s actually the norm, not the exception.
Look, I’m not saying he didn’t do it, or that her intent was to frame him. I’m just pointing out that there are countless possibilities as to what actually happened, and rape is certainly one of them. But since there is enough doubt, imo, I have to rely on the facts. And the facts appear to be that there isn’t enough evidence to draw even a charge, after a month of information gathering and analysis. This isn’t an OJ situation where the facts were obvious and he just got lucky with an inept court system and a jury of idiots.
So relying on the facts means to accuse her of framing him, eh? Sounds like a stretch.
The facts look pretty damning.
-
Roethlisberger reportedly denies having sex with the woman.
-
The woman claims he raped her. There is physical evidence of sex. Not enough DNA to identify him. He does not dispute that they were in the bathroom together while his bodyguards kept her friends away.
-
He no longer appears to claim they didn’t have sex (though I don’t think he has admitted they did). His lawyer said the woman was with him consensually, which strongly implies they had sex, even if not an outright admission.
It is difficult to imagine an innocent reason for this chain of events.
This is not the scandal to invoke this philosophical argument; the proper time was back during the Duke Lacrosse scandal. (As I personally did, most vehemently.)
Yeah, it is. He clearly raped her.
If that’s the case, and she’s that drunk, then maybe she’s too drunk to consent? This argument isn’t helping your case.
This shouldn’t be construed as a way to make excuses for Rothlisberger (though it probably will anyway) but this article raises some interesting questions regarding the role his concussions could have played in his poor judgment over the last little while. Obviously he displayed poor judgment before any of this by riding his motorcycle without a helmet and all that but that’s not really that uncommon and it’s a far cry from (maybe) raping underage women.
No wonder the NFL wants him out of the game for a bit. They will probably want a lot more information to see if they need to go into cover their ass mode regarding head injuries. Remember the game against the Ravens where the league got very involved with making sure the team kept him out of the lineup following his concussion against the Chiefs.
What a crock of shit that article is. Roethlisberger’s “self destructive behavior?” I’ll buy that as a description of riding a motorcycle without a helmet, but it’s a piss poor euphemism for sexual assault.
on edit: Not directed at HongKongFooey, but rather at the author of the article and the tone that he used.
-
The women in question were not underage.
-
He didn’t rape anybody. Like the DA said, he doesn’t prosecute morals, he prosecutes crimes.
-
Hate him if you want to, find his behavior distasteful, whatever, but stop making allegations that are demonstrably untrue.
-
The article about how he might be affected by concussions raises a good point. We’ve hashed that around a few times here previously.
Wasn’t Ben being a boorish, drunken, womanizing lout before these concussions?
I recall seeing the photos of him drinking with college-aged girls, obviously hammered, wearing the “Drink Like A Champion” t-shirt…
No worry, I didn’t take it that way. Saw the article mentioned on a few Steelers sites today and wanted to hear some more opinions. Regardless of how it applies/doesn’t apply to Roethlisberger some of the cases from other former Steelers are sobering reminders of the effect head trauma can have on people.
Depends on how you define “underage.” One of his victims was “underaged” for Roethhlisberger to be poring booze into her.
You know this how?
They are not demonstrably untrue. The victim just doesn’t want to go forward with charges and destroy her own life. The prosecution cannot meet the reasonable doubt standard without the cooperation of the victim, but that doesn’t make the allegations “demonstrably untrue.” It’s pretty obvious that everyone with inside knowledge of the case thinks he did it. It’s undisputed that he got this girl drunk, took her into the bathroom, had his thug bodyguards keep her friends from being able to get to her and that she came out of trhe bathroom sobbing with vaginal tearing and went straight to the cops. It is, to my mind, highly implausible that anything but a sexual assault occurred in that bathroom, especially since he’s got two other accusations against him besides this one. Your indignation is a little hollow. There is a lot of credible evidence backing up this allegation. This isn’t Duke. Not all accusers are lying sluts, you know.
And he knew that how? Not his fault.
He wasn’t charged.
Cite? Other than your assertion, that is. I know you’re not good with citing anything but yourself, but indulge me.
I never said she was a lying slut. I’d thank you to not attribute motives that do not exist, if you can. I doubt that you can because that’s your schtick.
“I didn’t know how old she was, your honor” is not an excuse, nor does it make her not underaged.
So what? What does that have to do with whether he did it? Do you think if a rapist doesn’t get charged it isn’t rape?
Read this thread. Everything is already linked.
If you’re saying you know definitively that Roethlisberger didn’t rape her, then you’re calling her a liar.
This is not Duke. The evidence is very damning. The cops think he did it. The prosecutor thinks he did it. The Rooneys think he did it and the NFL thinks he did. it.
Tell me why the off-duty cops working as his bodyguards were suspended if everything was innocent.
If you can still stomach rooting for the guy, more power to you, but I think you’re kidding yourself.
By the way, I never had anything against him or against the Steelers before these latest two allegations. I ignored the first one in Vegas, but these last two have soured me on the guy completely.
He was almost certainly referencing the Duke lacrosse pit thread that went on for 20 pages. (Though as a nitpick it was titled “Lying whore”, not “slut.”)
Yes, “lying whore.” Thanks for the correction.
You gotta admit, that’s some funny shit right there.
Cites??? First of all, the prosecutor doesn’t think he did it, since he doesn’t believe that a crime was committed. (His own words): “We only prosecute crimes and not morals” is a clear statement that he doesn’t think that a crime was committed. Otherwise, his statement would have been: “While we believe that a crime was committed, we don’t have enough evidence” or “In order to accommodate the wishes of the victim, we will not continue with legal proceedings against Mr. Roethlishberger.”
Now you’re really stretching. Maybe the cops did something improperly. But this does not indicate that a rape occurred. Are you implying that the rape was pre-meditated in some way? Plus, I didn’t hear of anyone else getting charged or arrested. Why weren’t they accused of kidnapping or illegal imprisonment or something similar?
The prosecutor clearly thinks he did it. The prosecutor does not think he can get a conviction without the victim’s cooperation, but he knows Roethlisberger did it. So does the League and so do the Steelers.
The cop are suspended pending an investigation. Just because they haven’t been charged yet doesn’t mean they won’t be. It’s undisputed that they blocked this girl’s friends from beinbg able to o to yer aid in the bathroom. What do you think Ben was doing with that girl in the bathroom that caused her to come out sobbing with vaginal tearing and go straight to the cops?
What evidence do you have that the prosecutor thinks he did it? The quoted statement does seem to indicate that he doesn’t think that, and I assume he has nothing to do with suspending the cops. I don’t know the context of the quote though - maybe someone asked if the known skeezy behavior was something that could be charged.