first, i apologize for starting another ben thread, but i feel this is a very good read that every steeler fan should read.
while i do not condone his behavior at all whatsoever, the media is lynching him with details in the police report that are from one side of the story and that is wrong. steeler fans are doing it as well. all these "details" are ACCUSATIONS, NOT FACT. it is POSSIBLE that they can be true but it is also possible that they are NOT TRUE. the fact remains, the da did not have enough evidence for probable cause for an arrest, let alone a trial. we all need to step back and realize that these details that are being released are accusations. just because someone makes an accusation does not make it a fact. i can accuse ben of raping me and somebody would believe it as ridiculous of a claim as it is.
here it is:
The Media Lynching of Ben Roethlisberger
The media is lynching Roethlisberger. The reporting isn't factual; it's an ideological and contrived version of events. People are printing the stuff that supports their bias or that has shock value. I've seen reports that the girl was dragged into the room by the "bodyguard." I've seen reports that she tried to exit the building because he had exposed himself, but she ended up accidentally going into the bathroom. I've seen all sorts of irresponsible claims: "victim told him 'no.'" And that, "she immediately reported it." What is the goal -- to lynch Roethlisberger?
What if, instead, the story had said this:
1. The DA indicated that both parties were exchanging sexual comments (that he would not repeat in public, because of their graphic nature). He did confirm, however, that, "There were conversations, actions -- and it was a two-way street, It was. When I say a two-way street -- him to her, her to him -- [it was] of a sexual nature." 7:35, DA-interview. PART-4. )
2. The accuser and her sorority sisters were wearing stickers that "had 'DTF' written on the bottom of the name tag ... [which] stood for 'down to ****.'" See Page 4 of 6 of police report, exhibit 16. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...sberger15.html
3. The accuser was heavily intoxicated. [numerous sources].
4. The accuser was led down a hall to a bathroom. DA News Conference, PART-1, 3:10. )
5. The bathroom had crampt quarters -- less than 5 foot wide single-commode bathroom. DA News Conference, PART-1 )
7. Police staement: "Roethlisberger explained to Aurila that nothing had happened and that Roethlisberger was in the back with a girl and they were "messing around." Roethlsberger then explained that the girl slipped and he helped her up and then came back out. Aurila stated that he took "messing around" to mean" kissing, whatever. ... Roethlisberger indicated to Aurila that the girl had slipped and that he had helped her up and once Roethlisberger had helped her up he told the girl that they were not going to continue." ("During the conversation, Aurila described Roethlisberger's demeanor as angry and shocked that this [the accusation] was happening.")-- Police report, pg. 5 of 7, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...sberger19.html
6. The accuser had a "superficial laceration" in the genital area, described by DA as consistent with having sex. (Or slipping while having it?). DA interview, PART-1 at 3:50. )
8. THE ACCUSER NEVER REPORTED A RAPE. It was never the accuser who said it was a rape; it was her sorority sisters who felt she was too drunk to be fraternizing with him. So they acted based upon that judgment. THEY are the ones who alleged it. They told the police this. See DA news conference, PART-2, starts 2:42 and key part at about 3:10: )
-- From the DA conference: "The Sorority Sisters were doing the talking [making the accusation]." DA interview, PART-2, starts 2:42 and key part at about 4:00: )
When the officer on the spot said "I need to talk to the alleged victim, not you," he asked the alleged victim if Roethlisberger had raped her. She said:
(A). "No." DA news conference; PART 2, starts 2:42, key point: about 4:10: http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/index.html
-- When asked if the two had sex, she said "well, I'm not sure." DA interview, PART 2, starts 2:42, key point: about 4:20: )
(B) She gave a statement that night to police that said, "They met us at the Brick and called us a 'tease.' .... His body guards took him back to the rooms in 1 bathroom. I said, 'I don't know if this is a good idea,' and he said, "it's ok.' He had sex with me ... ." See Police report: march 4th. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...isberger3.html
(C) At the hospital that night, she said "a boy kinda raped me." DA interview, PART-2 at 6:00. )
(D). The next day, she offered this story: "I told him it wasn't okay, no, we don't need to do this, and I proceeded to get up and try to leave. I went to the first door I saw, which happened to be a bathroom. He followed me into the bathroom, and shut the door behind him. I still said no, this is not okay. And he then had sex with me. He said it was okay" DA interview, PART-2 5:25. )
[Note several things. 1. This suggested they started having sex OUTSIDE the bathroom. This contradicts the eyewitness claims that she was led to the bathroom by an escort.** 2. It also selectively fixes earlier statements. It fixes equivocation while retaining other things as accurate (e.g., "he said it was okay."). In other words, what helps her is accurate, what doesn't is fixed].
**Further support of this "problem." DA said there is no evidence of sex being had outside of the bathroom. No one in the VIP area of any entourage or any body guard saw anything like that. In fact, one body guard said she asked to use the restroom and was escorted back there and sat at a stool. (He didn't even see Ben go back there). See: DA CONFERENCE, PART-3, starting at 8:30. )
(E) On March 17th, through her attorney, she says she doesn't want to go forward with it. [You will note that the vast majority of civil plaintiffs want criminal cases going on concurrently. Any lawyer will tell you why a civil plaintiff would want a criminal case going forward concurrently. One must assume that her reluctance here indicates one of two things: (a) the civil matter was already on a quick course of settlement; or (b) depositions and other matters may have rendered the next-day statement-of-events problematic. It is true that media frenzy and privacy are good reasons not to pursue things. But is this true if you have been wronged and can receive a major damage award? Or is it true if you have a drunken encounter and regret it? How many people get raped by millionaires and don't want to pursue even a civil case? And how many want to pursue one without pursuing a criminal case (the former helps the latter) -- [again, ask anylawyer].
9. Both the DA and the police believe not only that there was not enough proof to win their case, but that THERE WAS NOT EVEN PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST. Think about that. Law enforcement officials think the charge wasn't even worthy of an arrest. See DA News Conference, PART-1 12:00. )
Will anyone out there listen? People have every right to indict Roethlisberger for being an irresponsible frat boy. They have every reason to be disgusted with things like buying shots for girls and wanting a gigolo lifestyle. Or with having drunken sex. But they DON'T have ANY right to be disgusted with body guards dragging people back to rooms, with sex against a person's will, with "she reported it quickly," and that, "he exposed himself and she ran away, accidentally to a bathroom."
Where are you guys on this? They are MURDERING him. At worst, he's guilty of being a meathead and a playboy. Can you do nothing to make sure that, if people abuse him, it is for the FACTUAL THINGS and not a public lynching?
Regards and thanks.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 11:11PM by Sean Wilson | 12 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version