In which "Doper" Ellis Dee demonstrates, err, proclaims, his ignorance and/or stupidity

The BBQ Pit
1

Mind you, the lone reason I craft this pitting is to give “Doper” Ellis Dee a proper platform to demonstrate his ignorance, since he seems anxious to do so, but in the wrong places—hijacking at least two other threads.

ED Claims the prosecutor in the Ben Roethlisberger alleged rape case in Georgia would have prosecuted the case, even though he admittedly had no forensic evidence, if the “victim” agreed to testify.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13432110&postcount=50

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
The only reason Ben Roethlisberger wasn’t prosecuted for rape is because the victim decided not to cooperate at the last minute so the DA had to drop the case. If that’s the kind of thing you like to root for, root for the Steelers.
[/QUOTE]

Original Thread:

post:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13420734&postcount=21

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Ben is also guilty; the only reason he wasn’t tried was because the victim changed her mind and decided not to cooperate.
[/QUOTE]

Here, ED clearly states that the “only reason” [Ben Rothlisberger] “wasn’t tried” [for rape] was because the D.A. lacked the testimony of the alleged victim.

I respond to his (incorrect) presumption with facts:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13420781&postcount=22

[QUOTE=Me]
That she decided not to cooperate was incidental. The real reason [Roethlisberger] wasn’t tried is An emergency-room doctor and two nurses examined her and noted in their report a “superficial laceration and bruising and slight bleeding in the genital area”, but could not say if trauma or sexual assault was the cause; A rape kit was collected, but no semen was recovered, and the amount of male DNA found was insufficient to create a profile or establish that an assault had taken place; The doctor’s report also quoted the alleged victim telling them that, “A boy kind of raped me;” district attorney Fred Bright held a press conference to announce that Roethlisberger would not be charged. Bright said “…looking at all the evidence here, I can not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[/QUOTE]

Doubting the Wiki article (though it contained indisputable facts), ED posted a link (in three parts) to the press conference the D.A. hosted:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13423263&postcount=47

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
You guys arguing that Ben is innocent, did you even watch the DA’s press conference or are you just talking out of your ass with nothing more than wiki cites to back you up? Here’s a clue: Steelers fans can edit wiki pages too.

In that press conference, the DA made it crystal clear he thought Ben was guilty, but he couldn’t convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt without the victim’s testimony.

Press conference:
Part 1 (13:42)
Part 2 (12:38)
Part 3 (11:40)
[/QUOTE]

Note his question “…did you even watch the DA’s press conference or are you just talking out of your ass with nothing more than wiki [sic] sites to back you up?”

So now we must course the DA’s press conference to determine what the hell ED is on about.

Part 1:

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
The sexual allegation against Mr. Roethlisberger cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
Everyone agrees that the victim was highly intoxicated due to consuming alcohol.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
Almost four weeks ago, in a letter to me, dated March 17, 2010, the victims lawyer advised me that the victim did not want to prosecute this matter further (as if “victims” determine whether crimes are prosecuted), and explained her reasons in a letter that is available to you today.
[/QUOTE]

*emphasis added

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
And if I were on the jury, I’d say nice try Mr. Prosecutor, but based on this evidence, even without that letter, you didn’t prove the crime of rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
[/QUOTE]

*emphasis added

[QUOTE=reporter]
What about probable cause?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
Looking at all the evidence here, we don’t even have probable cause.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, nothing there; let’s review part 2:

http://www.wtae.com/r-video/23127501/detail.html

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
In the words of the first officer, to whom the outcry (alleged victims outcry of rape), his initial incident report, he said…quote “it is unclear as to what happened due to the complainants recollection being foggy from her intoxication level.”
[/QUOTE]

Ok, still nothing to support ED’s position that the D.A. would have prosecuted this case if the “victim” had not written a letter telling him not to. In fact, all evidence to this point counters ED’s belief, and belief it is. But maybe the third part will vindicate ED:

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
That’s one fact that’s been agreed to by everybody in this case; the “victim” was ext…(stops short of saying extremely?), was very intoxicated.
[/QUOTE]

Now I’m going to interject here after ED made the following post

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13433209&postcount=57

in response to this post of mine:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13424458&postcount=57

I said (highlighted):

[QUOTE=Me]
Fred Bright: “Let me make this perfectly clear: it made it, as a prosecutor, yes it made it easier. But had she not written, taken that position, the victim [alleged] , her family, and her lawyers, that they did not want us to prosecute the matter at all. And they made it crystal clear in the letter. An honest answer is I would still be announcing the same result.” (no prosecution).
[/QUOTE]

and he responded (highlighted):

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
And I like how the Steelers sycophants stuck their own [alleged] commentary in the quote when the DA said no such thing. He repeatedly referenced the victim. You’ll note that the DA who took over the Duke Lacrosse case never called the accuser a victim, he called her the accuser. Big difference.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, I was correctly identifying the woman as an alleged victim when the D.A. consistently referred to her as an actual victim. He even admits as much in the third part:

[QUOTE=Fred Bright, D.A.]
Probably the best way for me to describe it would be alleged victim; and I could keep saying alleged every time before I say her name, but for brevity sake I say victim. The best way for me to say it would be purported or alleged victim. I think that’s the fairest way of saying it.
[/QUOTE]

I guess the D.A. is a “Steeler sycophant.”

All three parts of the press conference which ED used to prove that the D.A. would have prosecuted the case of rape had the “victim” agreed to testify actually prove the contrary. In fairness, though, I’d like to give him a chance to produce one quotation from that press conference–or other source–which indicates the D.A. would have prosecuted but for the “victim’s” refusal to testify. He can’t of course, and instead of saving face by admitting so, he bluntly presses ahead:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13436712#post13436712

[QUOTE=Airman Doors]
How many times are you going to perpetuate that lie? You were already proven wrong in another thread, but here you go again. Might as well hijack another thread with your nonsense, right? You’ve only tried twice so far.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
No such thing was proven.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s your chance, Ellis Dee, to prove yourself correct without the stigma of a hijack. You’ll not have to beg out of this thread for that reason.

And, btw, I should pit you again for making me give the appearance I’m defending Roethlisberger. I’m not; I’m just defending logic against your ignorant assault on American jurisprudence.

2

I thought **E.D. **was a “she”, but I could be wrong.

3

Nope.

Ellis is probably wrong. But just out of curiosity, Mince, would you leave your intoxicated college-aged daughter (or sister) alone with Ben?

4

Ellis is a he.

5

Wow, lot O Effort There.

6

Pretty long post to defend a rapist.

Superbowl blue balls angst?

7

I’m seeing "Mrs Mince Roethlisberger " scrawled out on a Trapper Keeper somewhere.

8

[QUOTE=Mince]
And, btw, I should pit you again for making me give the appearance I’m defending Roethlisberger.
[/QUOTE]

Since you’re not defending Roethlisberger, do you agree that he is a scumbag?

9

For better or worse, I don’t care to pretend I’ll have any direct control over the potential antics of my daughter when she reaches college age. My hope is that she’ll be smart enough to not get so drunk that it’s an issue.

I think it’s pretty clear that A) you can be a scumbag to women without being a rapist, and B) Roethlisberger needs to stop being a scumbag or one of these days he WILL cross that line.

10

At least this post acknowledges (reluctantly) that the OP makes a solid case.

This post somehow turns the effort in making a solid case into a negative. If the complaint is made without the cites, then it’s “Link?” and “Cite?” When the OP makes the effort, the result becomes, “Wow, you sure put a lot of work into this meaningless thing!”

This one goes even further in that direction.

As does this one.

Wow. Brilliant “fighting ignorance,” every one. Just fucking brilliant.

How about, “OP: excellent post, you are right, and Ellis Dee was wrong, based on the evidence you provided.”

If you’re butthurt at making that admission, you can still add, “Of course ol’ Ben is still a slime, albeit one without any criminal liability for this incident,” just to make you feel better.

11

I didn’t know you were a Steeler fan, Bricker. :wink:

12

My post – here in the Pit, mind you – wasn’t addressing who was wrong or right in the Is Big Ben A Big Dick Sweepstakes – for, truly, who gives a shit?

However I found the degree of pedanticness required to compose such a Supreme Court worthy defense because someone said something not very nice about Ben ‘Can I Buy You A Drink’ Roethlisberger somewhat laughable.

Of course, I didn’t need to explain this. I just wanted to get it into evidence.

13

The “Sure we fight ignorance, except in the Pit,” defense?

14

No. The ‘Untwist Your Undies’ defense.

15

I’d let her make her own decision. But that’s not the point.

16

Sure; it reads like a law school case brief. That’s why I gave people the option not to read it.

17

The Lord of the Kingdom of What’s Important has made a decree. Maybe in the next bulletin, His Majesty will direct us commoners as to how much we should care about things and what our OP word count limit to importance ratio is.

18

No decree. Just ask next time and all will be cool. Glad I could help.

19

Wait, why is it “fucking brilliant” for me to question whether the OP thinks Roethlisberger is a scumbag? **Mince **went to a lot of trouble to point out that there is a lack of evidence to prove that Roethlisberger raped anyone, and yet states at the end that he/she is not defending Roethlisberger. And no, I’m not saying scumbag=rapist.

20

I think Roethlisberger makes a lot of dubious decisions which put him in bad situations and I think he, like a lot of men, may have tried to take advantage of a compromised female, in that she may have seemed willing, but her judgment isn’t sound. But he was being investigated for rape and my “I’m not defending him” statement was a probably poorly worded attempt to dissuade the inevitable “Oh, you just want to have Roethlisberger’s babies, don’t you?” type posts. It seems a lot of people think you’re defending the character of the man, not the charge against him.

[QUOTE=Barkis is Willin’]
**Mince **went to a lot of trouble to point out that there is a lack of evidence to prove that Roethlisberger raped anyone,…
[/QUOTE]

Your “a lot of trouble” isn’t necessarily my “a lot of trouble.” Hell, if you burn off all the cites, you’ll actually see I did very little work. I just had to arrange a few posts and add a bit of commentary. Most of the work was done for me. And even if I had done a lot of work, I would never apologize for it, regardless of subject matter.