SURPRISE!! Winston Cleared by FSU

B1GTide said:

The girl never had a chance - this whole proceeding was slanted in a way which ensured that Winston would walk. Consider this - there was testimony allowed by Winston and his two witnesses, but no cross-examination allowed. Winston read a 5 page prepared document into testimony. That document included the viewpoints of his two team mates who refused to testify. This would never be allowed in a court of law and I am not sure why it would be allowed in these proceedings. You cannot give testimony for someone else, and you cannot give testimony without the opposition being allowed to cross you against the points offered in that testimony. You can plead the 5th to avoid testimony, but once you testify that right is waived and no longer available. Once Winston read that statement into testimony, he should have been forced to answer questions. If he was not going to answer questions, he should never have been allowed to offer testimony.

What happened here is a farce - a sham that makes the decision not to prosecute look legitimate. I understand that it was not a court of law, but the rules of our court system are in place for a reason. This proceeding ignored those rules and allowed Winston's attorney to twist the process into something which robbed the victim of her right to face her attacker - again.

Click to expand...

GP for Bama said:

I think this was the retired Florida supreme court justice who made this decision. I give considerable weight to his opinion. He seems to confirm what the other authorities said. (Even if the police and DA seemed like bozos.)

Click to expand...

B1GTide said:

The girl never had a chance - this whole proceeding was slanted in a way which ensured that Winston would walk. Consider this - there was testimony allowed by Winston and his two witnesses, but no cross-examination allowed. Winston read a 5 page prepared document into testimony. That document included the viewpoints of his two team mates who refused to testify. This would never be allowed in a court of law and I am not sure why it would be allowed in these proceedings. You cannot give testimony for someone else, and you cannot give testimony without the opposition being allowed to cross you against the points offered in that testimony. You can plead the 5th to avoid testimony, but once you testify that right is waived and no longer available. Once Winston read that statement into testimony, he should have been forced to answer questions. If he was not going to answer questions, he should never have been allowed to offer testimony.

What happened here is a farce - a sham that makes the decision not to prosecute look legitimate. I understand that it was not a court of law, but the rules of our court system are in place for a reason. This proceeding ignored those rules and allowed Winston's attorney to twist the process into something which robbed the victim of her right to face her attacker - again.

Click to expand...

oregonbltzkrieg said:

In all honesty though, FSU fans are so sold on Winston's innocence (that he's a good kid that made a few poor decisions that have been grossly exaggerated by the media) and Jimbo's Fisher's gallant defense of his players, that they are almost convincing.

Click to expand...

B1GTide said:

The girl never had a chance - this whole proceeding was slanted in a way which ensured that Winston would walk. Consider this - there was testimony allowed by Winston and his two witnesses, but no cross-examination allowed. Winston read a 5 page prepared document into testimony. That document included the viewpoints of his two team mates who refused to testify. This would never be allowed in a court of law and I am not sure why it would be allowed in these proceedings. You cannot give testimony for someone else, and you cannot give testimony without the opposition being allowed to cross you against the points offered in that testimony. You can plead the 5th to avoid testimony, but once you testify that right is waived and no longer available. Once Winston read that statement into testimony, he should have been forced to answer questions. If he was not going to answer questions, he should never have been allowed to offer testimony.

What happened here is a farce - a sham that makes the decision not to prosecute look legitimate. I understand that it was not a court of law, but the rules of our court system are in place for a reason. This proceeding ignored those rules and allowed Winston's attorney to twist the process into something which robbed the victim of her right to face her attacker - again.

Click to expand...

Moro Creek said:

Maybe with a little luck, a duck will break his leg.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

clicky

"This was a complex case, and I worked hard to make sure both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present information. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence has not shown that you are responsible for any of the charge violations of the Code. Namely, I find that the evidence before me is insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof."

Click to expand...

Snuffy Smith said:

It is done everywhere. It seems that in society today if you hear something enough from enough media outlets a large majority of the population will begin to believe it is true. They think it simply has to be or people wouldn't be repeating it.

Click to expand...