A report out of Pittsburgh says that the alleged victim in the Ben Roethlisberger "sexual assault" case has declined to be re-interviewed by police. Roethlisberger is the two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, and one of the highest profile men falsely accused of rape in recent times.
"Sources close to the investigation say that investigators have had trouble re-interviewing the woman since the night of the incident. Sources say the 20-year-old co-ed did not show up for a scheduled interview a week ago yesterday and that as of Friday she still had not come in to be questioned. And the same source says the investigation seems to have it a brick wall."
The report also notes: "In an interview, lead investigator Tom Davis of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation openly discussed the fact that Roethlisberger has not been re-interviewed, but declined to comment on whether the victim had been re-interviewed." Link: http://kdka.com/steelers/Ben.Roethlisberger.investigation.2.1587357.html
This revelation follows closely the news that Georgia authorities no longer are requesting Roethlisberger's DNA, potentially significant because it means there is no physical evidence linking Roethlisberger to any potential crime. Georgia officials previously sought the DNA, likely indicative that they had determined it somehow would be necessary or helpful to determining if a crime was committed. No one has explained why the request was dropped.
Mike Florio of NBC Sports wrote this: ". . . there's the possibility that there has been a secret and confidential settlement, and that the deal specifically required her to no longer cooperate with the criminal investigation."
Sorry, Mike. Any such contract would not be worth the ink used to sign it. Any bargain for the purpose of stifling a criminal prosecution, whether or not the bargain is criminal, is always contrary to public policy and unenforceable.
Comment: Now, apparently, Mr. Roethlisberger is in a waiting game. We know that he has refused to be interviewed by police beyond his initial cooperation the night of the purported incident. It is likely that his counsel knows that the young woman is not cooperating and that there is no reason to subject Big Ben to the ordeal of an interview, where one slip ultimately could prove fatal, assuming the young woman changes her mind and decides to cooperate.
For what other crime do we so readily hand one group of private citizens the power to deprive another group of private citizens their liberty? Mr. Roethlisberger's liberty, and his future as an NFL star, could ride on whether the 20-year-old accuser decides to press charges.
Given the nature of these types of claims, even if the investigation closes without charges against Mr. Roethlisberger, the young woman likely won't be charged for filing a false report. That means that even though he could be completely innocent, Ben Roethlisberger will always carry the taint of a man who possibly committed sexual assault. That is neither fair nor just, and it's one of the reasons we advocate for the presumed innocent charged with rape and sexual assault to retain their anonymity unless and until convicted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
What's the possibility FRA#2 was done specifically to undermine the lawsuit against FRA#1?
Can you say "conspiracy"
Well, I doubt it, but I would be foolish to rule anything out. My guess is that the plaintiff's team in the rape lawsuit are looking to see how they can use this to their advantage in their suit.
"This revelation follows closely the news that Georgia authorities no longer are requesting Roethlisberger's DNA, potentially significant because it means there is no physical evidence linking Roethlisberger to any potential crime."
Given that her claim amounted to an assertion that Roehtlisberger had touched her inappropriately, I had always wondered why his DNA was ever sought in the first place.
To me, it seem more like a police version of a "sh*t test" designed to see how Roethlisberger would react, and if he would be cooperative.
if I'm right, then his willingness to comply served to indicate to investigators that he believed he had nothing to hide - increasing the likelihood that no crime had actually occurred. This might well explain why he would not be re-interviewed. [Of course, as is so often the case, I'm just giving my own conjecture here, lest any one be tempted to (mis)quote my words as indicative of the views of this site's proprietors.]
I would add that the women's reluctance to cooperate should come as no surprise to any of the regulars here who have seen any number of instances when a woman quickly fabricated an FRA, then, once sober, knew that any investigation would likely disprove it. Just saying...
Anonymous - "And the same source says the investigation seems to have it a brick wall."
I gather that we can also conclude that the recorded video surveillance of the restroom entrance also provided no solid indication that Roesthlisberger A) shoved her into the restroom, nor B) that she came running out, noticeably distraught.
We just don't know because we've never heard the story. "Sexual assault" and even "rape" have been passed around like yesterday's leftover hot dogs but for all we know the accusation may amount to very little.
Some people complain that rape accusations aren't reported with the same seriousness as in the past, but what do they expect when so many rape accusations either turn out to be false or turn out to be a little drunken ass-grabbing? Whatever they were doing in that bathroom, Ben may have had every reason to believe he had her consent. He did not rape that woman.
To play devil's advocate, the woman's reluctance to give another interview could stem from the media coverage and fear about anything she says becoming public. It does not necessarily mean she is lying, although it is quite odd she her refuse to help the police when the police seem to want to pursue the case.
That said, I agree that this case is an excellent example of why the accused should remain anonymous unless there is an conviction. The bell has already been rung, so Roethlisberger will have to live with the scrutiny that follows high-profile cases like this one regardless of the outcome. Even if the police find the woman lied, in some people's mind Roethlisberger would be still guilty because there would have to be a reason the woman lied.
The settlement idea Florio floated is not technically implausible. Something similar happened with Michael Jackson with his first accusation. He paid off the family of the boy who accused him and the boy left the United States some time afterward. It is possible that a settlement has been reached, but it seems improbable that the police or prosecutors are completely unaware of this. I do not think such agreements can be legally binding though, so even if there is a settlement, the only thing the accuser would lose was the money.
As someone who was also falsely acussed of a rape that simply never happened...I feel it is a societal, and now law enforcement perversion to let girls say they have been raped..when they have not!!
Guys,
As I've said before and will say again: Roethlisberger is the QUINTESSENTIAL Alpha male; he has no NEED to force himself on anyone! Is he tall? Check. Is he handsome? Check. Is he a physical specimen? Check. Is he famous? Check. I could go on, but you get my point. He's what Uzem & Luzem calls a natural alpha. He's the kind of guy who can walk into a bar, and pick up a hottie within seconds. Come on!
MarkyMark
"As I've said before and will say again: Roethlisberger is the QUINTESSENTIAL Alpha male; he has no NEED to force himself on anyone! Is he tall? Check. Is he handsome? Check. Is he a physical specimen? Check. Is he famous? Check. I could go on, but you get my point. He's what Uzem & Luzem calls a natural alpha. He's the kind of guy who can walk into a bar, and pick up a hottie within seconds. Come on!"
You could say the same thing about Ted Bundy. I'm not suggesting that Roethlisberger is guilty, but saying that he could get any women he wants is an extremely poor argument for his innocence.
A rapist is not motivated by a desire to get sex from willing participants. A rapist wants to force sex on unwilling victims.
FYI, I just posted on the FWO blog about a number of things in this case that don’t pass the smell test. For example, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has now dropped their request for a DNA sample from Roethlisberger because they likely have nothing to compare it to. That means that there’s likely NO forensic evidence to support the still, un-named, accuser’s accusations.
7:58, thanks for making an EXCELLENT point. Rape is about control, power and dominance -- and has nothing to do willing sexual partners.
MarkyMark said...
Guys,
As I've said before and will say again: Roethlisberger is the QUINTESSENTIAL Alpha male; he has no NEED to force himself on anyone! Is he tall? Check. Is he handsome? Check. Is he a physical specimen? Check. Is he famous? Check. I could go on, but you get my point. He's what Uzem & Luzem calls a natural alpha. He's the kind of guy who can walk into a bar, and pick up a hottie within seconds. Come on!
MarkyMark
Mar 25, 2010 7:10:00 PM
/ / / /
You cannot just make such generalities.
Mr. Roethlisberger could have gotten any hotel room he wanted, too ---instead he entered a women's shitter!
Mr. Roethlisberger could get any WOMAN he wanted to go to a hotel room with him - rather than a women's bathroom.
If a gorgeous woman cries rape against a homely or inadequate Beta male - does it automatically make it true because "a guy like THAT couldn't get a woman like her"?
There are many good reasons to believe this is a false accusation - but "he could get any women he wanted" is NOT one of them.
Don't forget the circumstances in Reno when he requested that a technician be sent to his room to adjust the sound on the TV. Uh...yeah. She's suing him in civil court for sexual assault, starting with Fraud.
It is a perversion of the law enforcement protocol over the last 20 years that has led to the false rape accusation culture that we now live in.
Gender feminist perverts who dominate policy in this area, are not men of the law. Get gender feminism out of our legal system, for they are perverting it to the point where statistics are manufactured and the truth is irrelevant.
"Rape hysteria" is about control, power, and dominance, and has nothing to do with protecting women.
A rapist is not motivated by a desire to get sex from willing participants. A rapist wants to force sex on unwilling victims.
****
A rapist is just a common criminal who happens to commit a rape. For decades feminists and other law enforcement "experts" have promoted the view that rapists are somehow a special category of criminal, and that by focusing like a laser beam on this one crime you can eventually eliminate it. Not so.
The vast majority of rapes are committed not by serial rapists, but by criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity. As such, it is silly to suggest any one motive for rape, just as it would be silly to try to reduce burglars or drunk drivers to any one motive.
With few exceptions, rapists are just criminals. To reduce rape you have to reduce crime in general; extreme sentences don't help unless they're applied to the hardcore few who really are serial rapists.
I am glad to see a blog like yours. Clearly what we are witnessing in our society is a new McCarthyism.
So any celebrity accused of infidelity, rape, going our with a call girl is automatically guilty. No evidence is necessary. The accusation by itself destroys your career. You are blacklisted, for life.
The presumption of innocence does not apply to men accused of sexual impropriety of any kind. You are guilty by suspicion. Its not just true of Rothesbuger, its true of Lawrence Taylor- wonder why we haven't heard anything about any forensic evidence- it's true in any case where a man particularly a celebrity is accused of doing anything to do with sex. Perhaps sexual McCarthyism is the term we should apply.
Post a Comment