The woman who claimed Ben Roethlisberger raped her gave two statements to police -- one shortly after the alleged incident, a second several hours later. Here they are. I am interested in readers' reactions.
The following are excerpts, but make sure you read the full statements for yourself: In the first statement, the woman claims she told Roethlisberger the following: "'I don't know if this is a good idea,' and he said 'it's OK', he had sex with me."
In the later statement, she describes a more elaborate scenario, with critical details not noted in the first statement: "Ben came back with his penis out of his pants. I told him it wasn't ok, 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 OK, and he then had sex with me. He said it was OK. He then left without saying anything."
In the first statement, at best, her words manifested conflict about whether she should be having sex with Roethlisberger -- not whether she consented. (How many of us have ever said, "I shouldn't be doing this," as we plow ahead anyway?) She admits that earlier he had called her a "tease," a characterization she does not deny. Moreover, she says, Mr. Roethlisberger assured her it was OK, and there is no indication as to her reaction. She says he "had sex" with her -- not that he raped her.
In the second note, several hours later, when the events weren't as fresh in her head, and after she had ample opportunity to confer at length with her sorority sisters and to massage her narrative, her statement now reads much more like rape. Her "I don't know if this is a good idea" became "no, this is not OK."
Which statement was more reliable? Which was more credible? On its face, the first statement -- made soon after the incident -- was not rape. The second statement is a material alteration of the first statement, and that is troubling. Her words immediately prior to the sex act are markedly different in the two statements.
While we don't know for certain, the second statement reasonably suggests a woman attempting to manufacture a narrative that included the elements of rape, as she knew them, to insure her "victimhood" would not be questioned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
118 comments:
Okay, the picture is becoming clearer now. Ben and Ms. Nameless were in the VIP area of the club (where she had gone of her own free will, to be with a famous celebrity). He had already made flirtatious comments, crude jokes, and called them teases. So they knew that sex was on his mind, at the very least.
At some point they start having sex. She probably said something like, "Is this okay? Is this a good idea?" and he assured her that it was. (Maybe she isn't used to having sex in public places, after all.)
"We had sex" says it all. It was not rape. It is very, very telling that she never describes how her clothes were removed. A man with his penis out can't just penetrate a woman -- even if it's not against her will -- without undressing her first. Since she doesn't describe him forcing her to remove her clothes, and since there has been no mention of torn clothing (believe me, the press would have eaten that up!) then I have to assume that SHE TOOK OFF HER OWN CLOTHING. If that isn't consent then I don't know what is!
Maybe she isn't a hardcore false rape accuser, but is just a typical woman trying to not look like a slut after the fact.
And I feel very confident that at least some elements of her story are completely false; I don't believe that he just walked in with his penis out, or that she was really attempting to leave.
As for her friends, probably no feminist conspiracy involved: they just became concerned when the bodyguards wouldn't let them join Ms. Nameless and Big Ben in the back. They had probably heard of his prior sexual assault accusation and got nervous.
Good analysis. By the way, for someone supposedly bombed out of her head, her punctuation in the first statemnet was pretty damn good. Anyone who can write like that can consent to have sex.
You cannot sexually liberate women and sexually penalise for men.
IT DOESN'T WORK.
You either liberate both, or penalise both: anything less will retard liberation.
Look at how easy this is ... a liberated college gurl gushes, "this is so naughty! We shouldn't be doing this!"
And when she comes to regret it, that becomes ... "I told him we shouldn't do it!"
Yeah, I bet you told him how 'dirty' it made you feel, right?
Of course, you said that to turn him on, specifically to provoke a reaction in him which would make him want to have sex with you.
But retrospectively, you can say that you said it to rebuff his advances, which he ignored.
Ask me why I can't bring myself to care about women being raped! (Believe me, I try.)
You cannot sexually liberate women and sexually penalise men.*
A woman saying "we shouldn't be doing this" is extremely manipulative: what it does, is make the man shoulder all the burden if anything goes wrong.
It takes two to tango, but that small phrase is her get out of anything free card.
"I TOLD him we shouldn't be doing it." Yeah, you told him that while grinding up against him and unzipping his pants. Real believable.
It is also revealing when she says (paraphrasing), "He had shots there for us, and he told us to drink."
He TOLD us to drink.
So she is framing this in such a way as to avoid any responsibility for the encounter. Shots were laid out for her and he TOLD her to drink, and that's why she drank. She didn't CHOOSE to drink.
This supports the view that this was a consensual encounter that is being described by a woman who is afraid of being called a slut. He probably just showed her the booze and said, "Drink up!" Like any good host would. That is not a COMMAND.
is it proper to infer that they did have intercourse? i thought that the decision not to request roethlisberger's DNA came from the revelation that they would not find any of it. i thought oral sex was a more likely scenario, which would make her phrasing all the more curious.
Snark: we also don't know how much clothing she had already removed when Big Ben came out. For all we know she was sitting there with her pants off already. Both reports seem to be deliberately vague on that point.
I thought they did find sperm, but "not enough to establish a match.'
Translation: the wrong sperm!
"Snark: we also don't know how much clothing she had already removed when Big Ben came out. For all we know she was sitting there with her pants off already. Both reports seem to be deliberately vague on that point."
Yeah, I was speaking more generally, about these type of situations.
Where poor girls are tricked into thinking that they want to have sex. Then afterwards, the awful traumatic poor truth hits them that they have changed their minds.
Eric, my post was just based on the two statements. The big unresolved question is whether even the first statement was true -- whether they actually had sex. If I were the D.A., I could drop the whole thing just on the basis of the girl's own words.
Snark, don't get jaded -- don't be confusing this woman with a rape victim.
"Snark, don't get jaded"
It may be too late for that.
"don't be confusing this woman with a rape victim."
lol! I wouldn't dream of it.
Just imagine how embarrassed this girl had to feel after running in the bathroom and having sex -- then having to face her girlfriends. And what if she was pregnant? Better cry rape now just in case. And, yeah, she probably felt "used" after-the-fact because Ben Roethlisberger isn't going to have anything to more do with some 20-year-old college girl who's out bar hopping with her girlfriends. She probably had these throughs simultaneously: "I just did the dumbest thing ever," and "that jerk."
Can anybody make out what the scratched out words in the initial report say?
Archivist: I think the key here is the clothing issue. He assures that "it's okay" and "then he had sex with me" doesn't make sense unless her clothes were already off.
In which case she left a whole lot of the story out!
I think her girlfriends got freaked out when his bodyguard wouldn't let them pass, and that caused her to flip. She sounds like a flighty, easily startled creature with a convenient memory.
Here's a story - Ben and his crew are out for a good time bar hopping while they are at his lake house. They are out for a good time, nothing else. As they start hitting the bars a group of college girls start hanging with them and follow them to the next bar. As they start to get a buzz on the flirting gets more aggressive. At the last bar Ben is feeling generous and invites the group in to the VIP area and shoots "come drink my shots bitches!" This one chick is getting really drunk and starts bragging she gives the best head in Georgia and is ready to prove it.
Ben now has 3 choices
1. Tell her Sorority sisters to take her home, she is too drunk and might get in trouble. Grade - Good Guy
2. Tell his security guy to get the bouncers and get these girls into a cab and out of the bar before these crazy drunk bitches get him in trouble. Grade - Smart Business Man
3. Have his security guy take this drunk woman to the bathroom to let her prove her skills and have the security guard to watch the door and not let anyone in. By the why she says “I don’t if this is a good idea” on the way. He does this not knowing if this will be a one time BJ, if this chick will be proud and post it all over campus and Face Book, Or freak when she realizes what she got her self into and all of her sisters know. Bad shit will follow.
Grade - Ben here's your stupid sign go stand in the corner and wait your ass wuppin.
Also tell the truth she still claims he had sex with her, she just doesn’t want to go through the embarrassment of going public. Question can a really drunk person have "consensual" sex? It's like playing Russian Roulette, sooner or later there is going to be a bullet in that f**king chamber.
Actually I am not a hater of FRS. The terror that crazy ex or soon to be ex wife’s or crazy pissed off girl friends is terrible. They have a double barrel shot gun. If the false rape charge doesn’t suit them they can throw in a false charge that you molested her kids. I just think the support of a guy like Ben hurts your cause due to the fact he freely chose to put that gun to his head and hope there was no shell in the chamber. Ben, here’s your stupid sign go stand in the corner and wait for your wuppin, your lucky she's afraid to press charges. To f**k with a Sorority Girl in the deep south earns you your stupid sign.
By the way, friends, my guess is that no mainstream news outlet is going to come close to either my analysis or yours. My guess is that none will point out the material differences in the two statements. The average reader will go right to the second one, since it's easier to read, and conclude, "HE RAPED HER!"
"I just think the support of a guy like Ben hurts your cause due to the fact he freely chose to put that gun to his head and hope there was no shell in the chamber."
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't realise that consensual sex under certain circumstances might justifiably lead to a false rape accusation. Thanks, Anon!
You know, just because you and a couple of friends do this Game shit, doesn't mean that the vast majority of men care.
I don't care about Game, beyond it being a trivial amusement, and I've never had any personal 'woman problems' worth dwelling on.
So your leading a drunk woman wether she is a twenty year old college girl out with friends , or a drunk married MILF pissed at her husband, and after first saying lets go, then changes her mind and says "I don't think this is a good idea" you say its ok and hustle her in for the deed. Penitration or not this is a deviant shelfish act.
You know what? It is.
It is so god damn SHELLFISH.
I bet Ben was happy as a CLAM while the poor girl sat waiting by the phone.
You see, realising that you've made a bad decision, is exactly the same as not having made the decision.
6:10: Did you read what I wrote? Yeah, if you look just at number two, you might say, "That's not good." But her first statement written closest in time to the event says, "I don't know if this is a good idea." And sex in a public restroom usually isn't. Even if it happened, he probably said, "It's OK, my guys won't let anyone in." That's every bit as plausible -- no, it's a lot MORE plausible -- than reading that statement as evidence of rape.
To Chef Snark.
"I just think the support of a guy like Ben hurts your cause due to the fact he freely chose to put that gun to his head and hope there was no shell in the chamber."
What the hell are you talking about?
I am saying that there is a great difference between a guy that gets falsely accused of sexual assault through no fault of his own, and a guy that recklessly and agressivly puts himself into dangerous situations that might blow up. Just like playing Russian Roulette. This guy deserves what he gets.
"I just think the support of a guy like Ben hurts your cause due to the fact he freely chose to put that gun to his head and hope there was no shell in the chamber."
It is very easy to defend the Duke lacrosse boys, the men falsely accused at Hofstra, Dwayne Dail, and many others. It's much more difficult to defend the unpopular people, but a crucial part of our mission here at FRS is to defend the presumptively innocent -- even scumbags and arrogant athletes -- who just might have been falsely accused. They shouldn't suffer reputational harm. They shouldn't be charged based on some politicized witch hunt instead of evidence.
My own personal lifestyle couldn't be any more of a polar opposite than Ben, the unnamed girl, her sorority sisters, and all the rest. I do not drink; I am married and do not fool around; I go to church every Sunday; and most of the people I advocate for here are personally repugnant to me, as is "Game," from what I can tell about it. I don't do this because I am endorsing a lifestyle. I do this because I feel I'm on a mission to help change the public discourse -- it will take me some time, but I am going to do it.
"This guy deserves what he gets."
A guy who did not commit rape deserves to be accused of rape?
With friends like these, who needs feminists?
You asshole.
Archivist, I picture Atticus Finch. Right?
don't know she shows her pussy and and she asks is this okay.And he says ok.
I'm going to break it down for you real simple, Anon asshole. Are you ready?
1. People should only be accused of crimes they have actually committed.
2. Unrelated facts e.g. those relating to the accused's lifestyle have no bearing on the accused's guilt or innocence.
Have you got that, Anon?
I mean, you seem to think that a guy who has casual sex and doesn't call the girl back, DESERVES to be accused of rape, a crime he didn't even commit.
What kind of crazy criminal justice system would this be? Where the crime you commit isn't the one you're accused of.
Not that Ben's lifestyle was CRIMINAL in the first place.
You need to spend more time with your head out of your ass.
Anon at 6:30: Better looking. Unlike Atticus, I breathe fire and could chew up every "real man" at The Spearhead and spit them out like little raisins.
Snark: great line.
6:31: And now it's time for the incoherent, profane comic relief.
Sheesh! You want to post something no one understands, head over to Spearhead.
I picture the Archivists as Atticus Finch and Clarence Darrow.
The more news on this the better. We should start a letter writing campaign to every DA's office that makes the news here to make them aware of False Rape Society. Or better yet, Pierce: How about writing an article for the NDAA http://www.ndaa.org/ ? (The National District Attorneys' Association).
It would be a quick way to get FRS noticed.
So your leading a drunk woman wether she is a twenty year old college girl out with friends , or a drunk married MILF pissed at her husband, and after first saying lets go, then changes her mind and says "I don't think this is a good idea" you say its ok and hustle her in for the deed. Penitration or not this is a deviant shelfish act.
***
I don't think shellfish have drunk sex. Just kidding; I know you can't spell.
Anyhow, nobody is putting a halo on his behavior; it's rock star/sports hero egoism in action, not the sort of thing you should bring up your kids to do. But to chastize Ben over consensual sex while failing to do the same in regards to her is wrong, and utterly ridiculous in the context of a rape accusation.
If she went to the police in the hope of a payout then she is utterly despicable. And I believe she is leaving a lot out when she says "He said it's okay, and then he had sex w/ me."
It sounds like she was being coy, and he talked her into it; and it didn't take much, according to those reports. "It's okay."
anon 6:11
sorry archivist i have dark humor and i just used it.
I found her first statement to be nigh on impossible to read. However from what I gathered, the undisputed facts are,
* She attended a bar with friends.
* She met Ben
* She and her friends accepted Ben's invitation to his VIP area, and also accepted the drinks he gave them.
* She accompanied Ben into the bathroom.
* She felt uncomfortable about having sex, and expressed her discomfort.
* Ben reassured her, and they had sex.
* She immediately reported the incident to the police.
It's point 5 and 6 that's the contentious issues here, and one that can be debated back and forth continiously. If, as in her first statement, she said "I don't know if this is ok", and then accepted Ben's reassurance that it was ok, and proceeded to engage in sexual activity, then of course it's not rape.
If, she made it clear to Ben that she did't want to have sex, and he refused to take no for an answer and forced himself on her, well that's rape.
Given the lack of supporting evidence, there's nothing in her first statement that suggests that she was raped. I'm surprised that she was allowed to make two statements. Having said that, her second statement she adds extra details in an attempt to clarify that she was against having intercourse. Again, given the lack of supporting evidence, there's nothing here to proves that she was raped.
It's the he said/she said type of case that is so common and in my opinion, shouldn't be the sole basis of a case against a person. Feminists argue that rape cases are a 'special case' in that they are difficult to prove and thus shouldn't be held to the same level of evidence that other criminal cases should be. My responce back to them would be what protections are there for the accused? Personally I'd want make darn sure that there's evidence that a person actually did what they have been accused of doing before laying charges against them.
I am saying that there is a great difference between a guy that gets falsely accused of sexual assault through no fault of his own, and a guy that recklessly and agressivly puts himself into dangerous situations that might blow up. Just like playing Russian Roulette. This guy deserves what he gets.
Sorry. With the benefit of hindsight just about ANY circumstance could be described this way AFTER the fact.
". . . her second statement she adds extra details in an attempt to clarify that she was against having intercourse."
It's that change between the first and second statements that is so damning. She harmed her credibility, in my opinion. At best the first statement was equivocal. The second was adamant. It's my guess that the first statement is what made this one easy for the D.A. to drop.
Funny how Ben R's morals are under such fierce attack, but these young women all get passes for their equally casual attitudes to sex. They're college girls as well - presumably one day they will have degrees and positions of responsibility. Out of the thousands of young college women out sexing it up, some will end up as D.A.s, judges, congresswomen and other people of influence over others.
Would you want this woman deciding your future? With legal anonymity, you'll never know. The next judge you stand before could be a woman who falsely accused someone of rape, and is free of any criminal record because no charges were ever brought against her.
I've had enough of moralizers going after the guy and suspending their morals for women. This is the 21st century. Women are not helpless little damsels in need of big strong men to look after them - they're out competing with men head-to-head, holding powerful and trusted positions, sentencing men to jail, sometimes even turning the keys to their cells. They preside over prisons (re Abu Ghraib). They run for president.
Grow up and face reality. Some women are dangerous and need to be recognized as such, and sometimes hapless men are their victims. Dump this ridiculous chivalry before it turns around and eats you.
I agree with Gwallan. No one -- no one -- asks to be falsely accused. Now, we don't know if he was falsely accused, but giving him the benefit of the doubt as the presumptively innocent man, he doesn't deserve to have his reputation permanently marred just because he was doing what seeral million young men, and women, do every night.
Bravo, 7:12. I agree.
And the same goes for Tiger's cavalcade of home-wreckers who are being treated as innocent lambs.
Puh-lease!
As hard as you guys stand up for Ben and fight "ridiculous chivalry". You fight twice as hard to prove this girl is a slut out to get him. No quarter and no sympathy for any woman.
Again Archivist, I respect what you do but can not side with Chef Snark quote "You see, realising that you've made a bad decision, is exactly the same as not having made the decision" would he watch someone drown because they said I'm not sure going swimming is such a good idea? Or say f**k them they should not have walked into the water.
I'm sure you have some Atticus Finch in you, but remember, defended people on both sides of the track. I don't mean to be SELFISH but I don't have my head up my ass near as far as my buddy Chef Snark
You fight twice as hard to prove this girl is a slut out to get him. No quarter and no sympathy for any woman.
***
But that just isn't true. We express sympathy for women all the time on this blog, in particular when they are suffering due to a false accusation.
And we have discussed the nuances of her motivation, and have not insisted that she was out to get him. We didn't say that she was Ashley Todd.
Anon at 7:33: I keep repeating that it's tough to advocate for Ben(and remember, we're advocating for him because that's the mission of this blog) -- and it really is tough. I try not to moralize, although as you just saw, it comes out every so often, but it's not as if he's a saint and she's a slut. And look, I know these women are free moral agents, but if I'm the Pittsburgh Steelers, I wouldn't want my star quarterback out running loose in the village trying to stick his dick into anything with two X chromosomes. And if I'm her parents, I'd ask myself, what am I paying for her to do at that college? Get knocked up by Super Bowl quarterback??!!
Stepping back away from this blog a minute, this is undeniable: sex, booze, and strangers are a deadly combination for both genders. It's all a recipe for misunderstandings, and worst case scenario, somebody's going to get pregnant, falsely accused of rape, used, or raped. If we could cut that crap out, this blog probably goes away.
But see, the point of this blog is that just as no one deserves to get raped, no deserves to have a false rape claim made against him.
Unfortunately plenty of false rape accusations have nothing to do with booze, or with promiscuous behavior on the part of the male victim. But it is part of a deadly combination.
Which is why I find it puzzling when feminists try to justify college girls getting drunk and screwing all the time. They've talked about that at feministing. Apparently if a woman does something it's automatically okay.
o my god, look at at ANON's first comment on this thread:
"Okay, the picture is becoming clearer now. Ben and Ms. Nameless were in the VIP area of the club (where she had gone of her own free will, to be with a famous celebrity). He had already made flirtatious comments, crude jokes, and called them teases. So they knew that sex was on his mind, at the very least."
On her own free will to "be with a famous celeb". Like so WHAT. Thousands of people would like to rub elbows with celebs.
"Ben called them "teases", so these women KNEW that sex was on his mind."
Who gives a flyin' shit what was on his mind. He had a choice and he had the power. The woman he followed to the bathroom was a 20 year old drunk co-ed.
The NFL sees the situation for what it is. Why can't the FRS admit the guy is a jackass?
Once again, blame the victim!
Dawn
GG is that you???
No one really knows what was or was not said in the bathroom.
But her first statement makes it clear that she consented...end of story.
I have been around way too many drunk girls in my life...some of which I had to literally pull off of me they were so horny to assume that it was all Ben's fault.
As far as age difference goes no one seems to have any problem with our 18 year old boys getting killed and their legs blown off in our military...they are plenty old enough.
But a 20 year old woman is somehow and innocent infant.
The first one is almost indecipherable.
Archivist actually touches on, and then walks away from, what is actually a CRUCIAL point here.
I can tell you from my own case that not merely reading, but systematically deconstructing, analysing and examining written statements and affidavits is VITAL.
If you don't, if you just read them like normal people read, you're response will be "What is this BULLSHIT!!??"
If you do, you will be astounded how many errors there are that the liars subconcious and concious minds have let creep in, in just one 40 word paragraph of one of mine I found two serious "gotchas" that nobody else had noticed.
Given a good advocate, neither one of these gotchas can be answered satisfactorily by the person when stood in the witness stand.
A person who did steal a fifty from the petty cash tin is literally unable to think like a person who does not have that personal self knowledge of theft, they will try to think like the innocent person, but they know they are not.
Nobody can mask this by the time they have composed a 10,000 word statement or affidavit.
There will ALWAYS be mistakes made.
Simply "reading" the statement will only ever spot the glaring lies, the proof that they are lies is only visible when you analyse in very great depth.
The first one is almost indecipherable.
Archivist actually touches on, and then walks away from, what is actually a CRUCIAL point here.
I can tell you from my own case that not merely reading, but systematically deconstructing, analysing and examining written statements and affidavits is VITAL.
If you don't, if you just read them like normal people read, you're response will be "What is this BULLSHIT!!??"
If you do, you will be astounded how many errors there are that the liars subconcious and concious minds have let creep in, in just one 40 word paragraph of one of mine I found two serious "gotchas" that nobody else had noticed.
Given a good advocate, neither one of these gotchas can be answered satisfactorily by the person when stood in the witness stand.
A person who did steal a fifty from the petty cash tin is literally unable to think like a person who does not have that personal self knowledge of theft, they will try to think like the innocent person, but they know they are not.
Nobody can mask this by the time they have composed a 10,000 word statement or affidavit.
There will ALWAYS be mistakes made.
Simply "reading" the statement will only ever spot the glaring lies, the proof that they are lies is only visible when you analyse in very great depth.
"Who gives a flyin' shit what was on his mind."
The law. Rape is judged from the perspective of the male: did he reasonably understand she consented.
"He had a choice . . ."
So did she.
". . . and he had the power."
Um, why was that? Because he plays for a football team a thousand miles away? Puh-lease!
"The woman he followed to the bathroom was a 20 year old drunk co-ed."
Not too drunk to give consent, the DA found. And judging by her first statement, not as drunk as some of our readers (no offense, Dawn, she writes better than you do).
"The NFL sees the situation for what it is."
The NFL doesn't think he committed rape.
"Why can't the FRS admit the guy is a jackass?"
He's a jackass. So are you.
"Once again, blame the victim!"
Yes, that's exactly what you did.
It is a perversion of the American justice system that enables women and girls to lie to law enforcement (in the form of false rape accussations)..whenever they feel the whim.
It may take a civil rights act to " BREAK THE ALLIANCE" between gender feminism and law enforcement. Their missinformation; and manufactured statistics for federal VAWA dollars is un-constitutional.
Shots were laid out for her and he TOLD her to drink, and that's why she drank
She seems unable to tell the difference between an invitation and a command.
It occurs to me that she may have told her friends it wasn't consensual because she was worried they'd be jealous if she did Ben and they didn't.
It would make a good post to show how this young woman wants to take no responsibility for her actions.
"It would make a good post to show how this young woman wants to take no responsibility for her actions."
I agree.
In these sorts of incidents, always the guy is the focal point, the target for anyone who wants to take a shot. The fall-guy for invented situations, assumed happenings and fantastic imaginations.
The sleight of hand is that the woman/women remain out of the spotlight. Keep assailing the guy, and no-one notices the woman's part - her motives, her lack of judgment and perhaps her malice. The passing of moral judgment on her doesn't get its opportunity.
Every attack on Ben R is a diversion from Miss X, whether it's intended as such or not - notice how the law is complicit with this diversionary tactic in ordering her name withheld.
For everyone who thinks Ben R's morals are a legitimate topic for public discussion and flagellation, then so too are the morals of all young women prowling for sex with celebrities.
Experiencing such ill-considered and damning language directed at the female half of the equation might be enlightening.
@Dawn
Ok Dawn, here's a situation I'd like you think about.
Imagine your a famious person. Imagine that your out and about and you invite a member of the public to drink with you. Imagine if you will that the member of the public accepts your invitation. Now move forward in time a bit, you've both had a few drinks and flirted with one another. Imagine that you go into a private area with that member of the public to engage in sexual activities. Now imagine that the member of the public expresses some hesitation about proceeding, but goes a head with the sexual activity after you reassure them.
Can you imagine all that? Got it in your head? Good. Now imagine that your a 28 year old woman, and the the member of the public is a 20 year old man. Would you still feel that the young man had been taken advantage of and raped? Inquiring minds would like to know.
"I am saying that there is a great difference between a guy that gets falsely accused of sexual assault through no fault of his own, and a guy that recklessly and agressivly puts himself into dangerous situations that might blow up. Just like playing Russian Roulette. This guy deserves what he gets."
In the case you proffer of a man falsely accused by a vindictive ex, one could still argue (by your own warped reasoning) that he is still to blame for what happens because he chose to marry a bunny boiler and ignore all the warnings about how the family law system is bad for men.
What you offer is a completely false mutual exclusivity, where anyone is either completely innocent or entirely responsible for walking into trouble. In reality, the real world is not that black and white. We all face risks of varying degrees and we must make decisions weighing up the risks and benefits. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
What you are really saying is that anyone who fits your definition of a gentleman gets a free pass and never has to take care, while any man that doesn't is fair game to be blamed for anything that happens to him. You are welcome to your own judgment and bigotry, but please don't present it as some sort of foolproof method of getting on in the world.
"I don't mean to be SELFISH but I don't have my head up my ass near as far as my buddy Chef Snark"
Er, I am terribly sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But you do have your head shoved up your ass. And frankly we don't need to put up with this sort of crap from lowlifes like you.
Once Bitten -- I love it! Exactly right. Men are predators. Women are victims. Maybe that nonsense has been hardwired into our DNA for some grand evolutionary purpose. Whatever it is, it's the gender crap that's at the heart of it. And the girl played into it with her statements.
I will do a full blown post about that.
What is so ridiculous about these situations is that on the one hand society encourages the view that men are basically animals driven solely by base desires, yet at the same time society is happy to condemn men who do not behave like gentlemen in these situations. Makes perfect sense. Put 100% of the responsibility on the shoulders of the gender of the species that is allegedly so naturally primitive.
And it is still the case that women usually prefer men to initiate sex. And so naturally people are shocked when a young man .... gasp!... initiates sex with a woman who shows signs of being willing. What is the world coming to!
"Dawn" (GG?): Well, if you're a scaredy-cat helpless little 20 year-old and big scary Ben kept making crude jokes and calling you a tease, would you follow him to the VIP lounge and have even more drinks, thus exposing yourself to his "predatory" appetites?
The answer: sure, if you were horny. Or if perhaps you thought it would be nice to get into his pants in the hope of getting some hush money.
I sure can't think of any other reason.
What is happening in this forum is utterly disturbing. False rape accusations against celebrities happen, no doubt--just ask Kobe Bryant, or BR before this incident.
We don't know for a fact that Ben R did rape the girl, but we don't know that he didn't, and this case has a certain air of creepiness and trauma to it. It's one thing that the girl in Lake Tahoe was bragging about consensual sex with BR, or that the girl in Bryant's case was nuts and had sex with him in between like 10 other guys that day, or that the stripper in NC was trying to make money off accusing the Duke LaX team. I'm really not so sure about this case. Whether it happened or not, the girl's statement is pretty consistent, and I can't help but be disturbed at how hard you people are trying to interpret a word or two as "proof" that the girl is full of it.
I mean, what do you want her to say? Do you think that she should have filed the report with more emotion? Maybe throw in a little more detail for your reading pleasure? This sick.
At any point before penetration has taken place and no matter what she might have merely suggested or even said earlier, once a girl says "no" that's it. In her story, sure, first she says "I don't think I should," but then she is certain that "it's not ok." That's a pretty clear message.
OK, back to the original question about comparing the "victim's" statements.
It isn't unusual for people who are telling the truth to 'adjust' their perception or their statements after the fact - especially if they were drunk, or being egged on by soroity sisters or cops.
If anyone here is claiming they never vary their initial response or perception from the first moments after something happened - I'd this is one pot calling the kettle black.
"Hindsight is 20/20" is a well used saying for that very reason.
It's like comparing Sandra Bullock's first statements after finding out the horrible truth her marriage was a sham to statements she NOW makes.
I'm not defending the accuser here.
It is why attorney's and law professors advise us to NEVER speak to police under any circumstances - even the totally innocent will make statements that can be bent to convict themself.
"Slight' adjustments are actually more an indication of truth than lies.
Sorry, Anon, nice try. This is how trials are won. I learned as a young lawyer, "liars lose." There is a material and marked difference between the initial statement, written actually on March 4 -- almost contemporaneous with the incident, and the one written several hours later. Sorry if you can't see that. In the crucial aspect of what she conveyed immediately before they "had sex," the difference is stark, is startling, and is likely the reason the charge was not pursued. This was a very important matter to this young woman, and her words when the event was freshest in her mind do not suggest rape. At best they are neutral. That, combined with her second statement, where she claims she was adamant in her refusal to have sex, paint her as less than credible on this crucial issue.
Despite all your twisting and pounding, you can't reconcile the two. This is nothing like the Sandra Bullock example. This was akin to reporting on a car accident. Your description immediately after the fact will always care more weight than the description you give after you've been able to think about it, talk about it, and massage it. Trust me.
We don't know for a fact that Ben R did rape the girl, but we don't know that he didn't, and this case has a certain air of creepiness and trauma to it.
****
Oh bologna; you saying that is like saying that we don't KNOW FOR SURE that a fat jolly man doesn't slide down chimneys on Christmas Eve. I guess you're right in a way, we don't know for sure that Santa doesn't exist, but there's no reason to think that he does; similarly there is no reason to think that Ben committed rape, unless you're ignorant enough to believe that media gossip alone is always rooted in truth.
We know he didn't rape her because SHE NEVER SAID THAT HE DID. The ACCUSATION ISN'T THERE, much less proof of any accusation.
Even if everything she said is 100% correct, all he did was to convince her to have sex after she initially didn't want to. That isn't rape; it's seducation.
And we have no idea how her clothes ended up coming off because she conveniently doesn't discuss that. We do know that he didn't rip them off, and that the medical report was negative.
The vast majority have little understanding of the effect the spotlighting of fame can create.
As a young man I was an "up and coming star" athlete. I was put on display numerous times as a consequence from the time I was eighteen. I got to hobnob with the rich and famous with regularity.
I had also been the victim of childhood rape by a woman. The sexual aggression of so many women in that time frightened me to the point where - whilst not the only reason - I gave the sport away completely. I simply couldn't handle the visibility it created and the constant barrage of propositions** it led to.
Too many people simply don't get it.
(** Example - televised fund raiser prior to the 1980 Olympics one of several women whose rather forceful "invitations" I'd rejected grabbed my genitals to "see if there was anything there".)
@Anon 11:29pm
I'll make the invitation to you that I made to Dawn. Imagine that the genders were reversed, that it was a 28 year female sports star picking up a 20 year male. Everything else is the same about the couple, their actions before and after the sexual activity took place.
Now answer me this, with the gender's reversed are you still convinced that the female sport's star's behaviour is creepy and that it's likely (even though it can't be proven) that she raped the male?
I'd like to add something to all of this. Bear with me.
In her affidavits, she states that they met at the first bar, and took some pictures with Ben. Then walked off and had nothing else to do with Ben. He and his group left and went to another bar. This young woman and her friends show up at that bar, and start talking with Ben and his group again, with sexual remarks made by Ben. Ben and his group leave, and head to a third bar. This woman and her friends show up at the third bar a bit later, and he invites them to the VIP area with his group. I probably would as well, thinking by this point, that they were groupies (way beyond coincidence that they show up at all 3 bars AFTER Ben and his group do).
He offers them shots, which they voluntarily take, he gets to talking with her about "nothing in particular", they went to the bathroom, she wasn't sure if it was a good idea, he said "it's ok", and "we had sex". NOT, "the he raped me", but "we had sex".
She has maintained all along that she wasn't raped. Her friend was the one who reported that, not her. Due to the major differences in the 2 reports, there is absolutely NO way the D.A. was going to press forward with this.
@Dawn,
Who gives a flyin' shit what was on his mind. He had a choice and he had the power. The woman he followed to the bathroom was a 20 year old drunk co-ed.
Gee and who said the Duke Sexual Assault policy about, and I quote directly from the policy:
Real or perceived power differentials between
individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of
coercion.
Sure, because he had all the power. That didn't take long to catch on, did it?
"Oh bologna; you saying that is like saying that we don't KNOW FOR SURE that a fat jolly man doesn't slide down chimneys on Christmas Eve. I guess you're right in a way, we don't know for sure that Santa doesn't exist, but there's no reason to think that he does; similarly there is no reason to think that Ben committed rape, unless you're ignorant enough to believe that media gossip alone is always rooted in truth."
Wow. You really likened the possibility of a star NFL QB raping someone to that of the existence of a fictional character? I don't care if it's Ben Roethlisberger or Tim Tebow. That's just an incredibly ignorant and stupid thing to say and, like much said on this website, creepily sounds a lot like a denial of any rape altogether.
BR is innocent until proven guilty. Believe me, I know very well that the media takes info and twists it, especially when it comes to sports. Again, I don't know for a fact that Ben committed it-none of us do. But don't pretend that you know the girl or exactly what happened. If you have some inside info, then fair enough. But you don't know without a doubt that the girl is some dumb, lying slut. And to be honest, I don't think she seems like someone who loves to share the details. That doesn't automatically mean that she wasn't raped.
Sure, it's entirely possible that she was always in a situation over which she had total control and that she is just trying to alleviate any regrets. But why go to the police for that, especially when it doesn't seem like she's after money? To me, that she didn't want to pursue a case is more telling. Rape is traumatizing, and many cases go unreported--mainly because of possible stigma, but also because the victims don't want to have to go over the details. Some victims don't even know that what they've experienced is a crime.
This absolutely could just be dirt picked up by the media about BR's party life being rather shady since it's not about a potential case. But there being a media circus and the girl actually being raped are not two mutually exclusive things.
My main issue here is that I think BR could very well be a shady guy whose sexual encounters may involve some murky definition of consent, but that's my own take--I could very well be wrong. On the other hand, you guys seem way too quick to assume that a story involving a celebrity possibly committing some sexual impropriety, whether reported or not, is automatically as untrue as the previous cases involving blatantly false accusations. And when you are so quick to compare the veracity of a rather creepy and real-sounding situation to that of a made-up fairytale, well, that's when things start to get creepy.
Sure, it's entirely possible that she was always in a situation over which she had total control and that she is just trying to alleviate any regrets. But why go to the police for that, especially when it doesn't seem like she's after money?
***
LOL! And where did you get the impression that she's not after money? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.
Yeah, Ben is innocent until proven guilty -- but before that, he should be innocent until somebody at least accuses him of being guilty! You can't even give him that.
There has been no allegation of rape, and there are many indications that there was no rape -- vast holes in the evidence where something should be there if that is the case.
And you're incorrectly accusing us of calling her a "lying slut." Admittedly Ben is as much a slut as she is, and her lying is definitely not on the level of a Crystal Mangum; a true false rape accuser.
I think that this is an average, not terribly bright twenty year-old groupie who reported a non-rape in the hope of getting something out of it. Her wording in the second version of her story is somewhat deceptive, but the story is essentially the same; she's trying to make herself sound like a virginal innocent who has no responsibility for the drinking or sex, but she isn't just making things up (probably).
She really did follow Ben from club to club, they really did flirt, he really did call her a tease, later on she really was offered shots (which she drank willingly), he really did initiate sex, she really did say "Are you sure this is a good idea?" He really did assure her that yes it was, and then I'll quote her:
"He had sex w/ me."
And then he was a jerk, he said nothing, just walked away because he was done with her, and she and her friends ran off and reported what happened.
Which was nothing.
So maybe YOU have some inside knowledge that the rest of us don't, but nobody else has claimed any. The accusation (let alone the evidence) just isn't here. Sorry.
And there really is no Santa, but you can feel free to believe whatever.
"On the other hand, you guys seem way too quick to assume that a story involving a celebrity possibly committing some sexual impropriety, whether reported or not, is automatically as untrue as the previous cases involving blatantly false accusations. And when you are so quick to compare the veracity of a rather creepy and real-sounding situation to that of a made-up fairytale, well, that's when things start to get creepy."
There's something very creepy about someone who keeps maligning people who haven't committed any crime, and where both the purported 'victim' and D.A. state that no crime occurred.
You sound like you're itching for a lynching.
The fact is, young women prowling for sex with celebrities are sexual predators. They're seeking out trophies - notches on their belt - to show off to their friends. They're nasty as well - just look what happens when things don't quite go as they want. Police, ruined reputations, destroyed careers.
They're also the ultimate in cowardice. They lie, impugn - and walk away unnamed and unpunished. They've seen other women doing it all before, so they know they can pretty well say whatever they like, do as much harm as their caprice calls for, and suffer no consequences.
Oh yes, there's a lot of shady, disturbing creepiness at play here.
I say we vote good ole Ben, Nice Guy of the Month, Assistant to the Pope, Honorary NFL Commissioner, and run him for Governor of Georgia on the Men's Rights Ticket. Everybody that gives $10 or more to his campain gets a signed T-Shirt with the giant Devil Head he is famous for wearing.
Big Ben helps out local charities here in Pittsburgh and has done more good than probably 99.9999% of the scum in the media that are trashing him 24-7.
lying already happened with ignoring to follow the law by this woman who illegaly drinked and all friends supported it.So there was no innocence on one part of the law that wasn't followed.
again women prove that they are a pact when it comes to lying.All else go guess from here on why it failed.
because it seemed she was legally 21 because of the pact of the lie and not being responsible about it.
and this woman it doesn't seem like she lied when she said it wasn't rape.A few misunderstanding always happen by not knowing the right words to use there in her explanation.
Steven, the fact that she followed him to three separate bars should settle the matter. Sheesh, she sounds like such a sweet little innocent thing that was taken advantage of doesn't she?
If I followed a woman to three separate locations I would fully expect that I would be the one under suspicion for harassment. It would take some nerve for me to then claim I was a victim of anything.
Hell, it seems like he might have given in to harassment from her and just given her what she wanted.
I am just so over these cases of groupie women playing the victim
What's the bet that this Anonymous concern troll is probably some guy who is secretly pissed off that his nice guy/I feel your pain routine doesn't get him into women's pants. He probably resents the fact that guys like Roethlisberger get laid all the time, while he gets relegated to the 'best friends' category.
So naturally he is happy to sick the dogs onto guys like Roethlisberger. Hey, it's no skin off his dick. No-one ever suffered a false rape allegation while pleasuring themselves.
"I said that BR seems creepy and just seems a lot like those guys you tell your female friends to stay away from."
Bingo! The defense rests its case!
"I never claimed with certainty that anything did or didn't happen. My issue is that you people are so fanatically certain that you know that nothing happened without being there."
Weak.
It would be better if you did make a claim one way or the other. That way whatever it is you're trying to say could be challenged or supported. Instead you make insinuations of foul-play without actually saying as much. You say things like 'something could have happened'. You don't say what, you don't say if it's legal/illegal - you just leave this nasty kind of comment hanging over the character of someone you don't know, but who you refer to as 'creepy'.
That's weasel-wording. You're one foot in and one foot out, ready to run if you're caught, and stab in the back if you're not.
And I'm not fanatically certain of anything other than that you don't go around pointing fingers at people and saying 'they could be up to no good'. That's what miserable little curs do. If there's a crime to answer, victims complaining and evidence to support, that's when it's appropriate to show an interest. But this incident is closed. There's no crime, no evidence and no victim. At all other times we keep our suspicions to ourself and our slanderous mouth shut.
But that's a man thing. You probably don't understand it.
Off-topic response:
"Oh bologna; you saying that is like saying that we don't KNOW FOR SURE that a fat jolly man doesn't slide down chimneys on Christmas Eve. I guess you're right in a way, we don't know for sure that Santa doesn't exist, but there's no reason to think that he does; similarly there is no reason to think that Ben committed rape, unless you're ignorant enough to believe that media gossip alone is always rooted in truth."
No. Sorry. Engineers have proven that Santa Claus doesn't exist:
"No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.
There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.
Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.
Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 71.604 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding etc. This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.
The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.
353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy per second each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's been vaporized by now!"
In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's been vaporized by now!"
hahahaha
OMG,
"Big Ben helps out local charities here in Pittsburgh"
And your point is what? That maybe his morals rank him right up there with John Edwards >>>>
Anonymous - "There's something very creepy about someone who keeps maligning people who haven't committed any crime, and where both the purported 'victim' and D.A. state that no crime occurred.
You sound like you're itching for a lynching.
The fact is, young women prowling for sex with celebrities are sexual predators. They're seeking out trophies - notches on their belt - to show off to their friends."
I haven't had a chance to carefully read all the comments on this discussion thread, but the one quote above is SPOT-ON.
There seem to be a lot of both gender-feminists on one-hand and social conservative on the other who dance to the same tune with regard to men (falsely) accused of rape - they're ready to assume that a man is guilty, and that women are always above reproach.
I always strikes me the way those SoCons declare themselves to be "anti-feminist", yet seem to hold the same views as those feminists they claim to be opposed to. [it's easier to understand this seemly weird phenomenon when you realize that both feminists and those SoCons have views based on a gynocentric world view that elevates the value of women, and rejects or diminishes the value of males.]
Archivist said...
Sorry, Anon, nice try. This is how trials are won. I learned as a young lawyer, "liars lose."
Beg to differ, Archivist. Liars win all the time.
Our prisons are full of those who told the truth - and they were put there by...liars.
This blog seems to have only readers who were falsely accused, but were exonerated or dismissed.
We don't hear so much from those who are in prison, or have been convicted.
It does not mean they don't count.
They weren't the liars - yet they lost. The liars who falsely accused them "won".
To say that "Liars lose" is to say those wrongly convicted were the liars, since they lost.
I couldn't disagree with you more about this statement. I'm not 'twisting' anything.
Beg to differ, Archivist. Liars win all the time.
Most of the time, they lose. This blog deals with the exception.
slwerner, to me, chivalry is more destructive even than radical feminism.
I've never heard a slutty woman throwing herself at a man referred to as a 'tease' before.
A 'tease' is generally a woman who purposefully piques a man's interest - but has no intention of delivering on the goods.
How do YOU guys define 'tease' otherwise?
This was a pretty small town was it not? How likely is it bar hoppers would run into each other multiple times?
It seems to me, if she and her sisters were throwing themselves at Ben, the bathroom scene would have happened at the first bar.
"And I'm not fanatically certain of anything other than that you don't go around pointing fingers at people and saying 'they could be up to no good'. That's what miserable little curs do. If there's a crime to answer, victims complaining and evidence to support, that's when it's appropriate to show an interest. But this incident is closed. There's no crime, no evidence and no victim. At all other times we keep our suspicions to ourself and our slanderous mouth shut.
But that's a man thing. You probably don't understand it."
I suppose you're right. I should man up and do masculine things like whine about how unfair it is that girls throw themselves at famous people. Jay-Z once said, "Males shouldn't be jealous--that's a female trait."
And since when does passing judgment on a professional athlete as creepy constitute a violation of the bro code? If this was a friend or a community member we were dealing with, then maybe I see what you're saying; although given the murky details, I probably wouldn't be setting him up with any female friends of mine anytime soon. It's like you really think that BR is sitting at home in Pitt thinking, "Man, I'm so glad that those nerds at the TFRS blog are out there defending me. They can be my wingmen any day!" For one thing, apparently he has bodyguards for that. But more importantly, even if I flat-out called him a rapist, sure, that's a shitty thing, but do you really think that I committed grand treason against an NFL QB who has no idea--or cares--who I am? And do really think that defending him is that noble an act of upholding male camaraderie?
Stay classy.
Bad news for you, white knight: the accuser really is a lying whore. Check out the latest post: she changed her story multiple times, and the officer taking her complaint described her as a lying, drunken bitch. Now he has resigned from the police force in disgust.
Fuck off and go stand in the corner with Mike Nifong.
You know, we preach here all the time to young men, women who feel used or regret what they've done are prime candidates to make a false rape claim. That's not victim blaming, it's reality -- Roethlisberger should have understood this was a recipe for disaster.
Anonymous - "And do really think that defending him is that noble an act of upholding male camaraderie?"
You are seriously mischaracterizing what's happening here.
It isn't BR's behaviors which are being defended, but rather the principle that if no rape has occurred, then man involved (whomever he may be) should not be disparaged as a rapist.
Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant, and Rick Patino are the rare exceptions to the rule of celebrities having abundant sex with numerous willing women, and then being accused of rape.
You may be one of those who follows a chivalrous white-knighting code of pedestalizing women (deserving, or not) who cannot bring himself to acknowledge that women ARE sexually aggressive these days, especially when it come to "Stars" they want to f*ck. But, the reality is still against you. That men will take advantage of the proclivities of such women may be a matter of poor behavior - but it is not illegal. And, since for every alpha-male Star there are numerous (perhaps dozens) of women more than willing to "put out" for their chance to brag about banging a star, perhaps it would be more intellectually honest if you (and your ilk) would put the primary blame for this reality of our modern sexually-liberated wymen directly on those who fail to act like true ladies.
But, that's really beside the main point. The vast majority of men who have and will be falsely accused are not celebrities, nor even wealthy. They do not have access to high-powered legal counsel if ever they need it. And yet, given his relative advantage in life, BR still could be brought down by an off-hand lie by a young women who first denied that she'd been raped (and who it appears did not even have vaginal sex with him).
The problem is, if we join with your ilk in rounding up a lynch mob to get "justice", it would have the net effect of further imperiling falsely accused men who do not have the benefit of status. If Ben can be declared guilty in the court of public opinion, what can other men ever hope would happen to them should they be accused?
Even a noble cause will have less than ideal examples. Athletes facing FRA's are a good example. We may well abhor some of their behaviors, but we still need to be correct on the law (or, rather, how the law should be applied).
I'm going to take a stab-in-the-dark here and guess that you are a chivalrous Social Conservative who would not mind if all men who have sex outside of marriage where deemed to be rapists. It would fit with the goal of forcing men to marry (often unworthy) women in order to gain sexual access - thus further elevating already over-valued female sexuality. Am I wrong?
"Fuck off and go stand in the corner with Mike Nifong."
Ah, the old "If you're not with us, you're against us" play. Always the best way to show that your mind isn't made up one way or another.
Revisionist much? The officer didn't resign out of disgust; he was caught referring to the girl as a "fucking bitch." His employer gave him two choices: resign, or be fired. Tell me genius, why would he resign out of disgust when BR wasn't charged with anything? So he could get away from this cruel world and embark on a vision quest?
And do really think that defending him is that noble an act of upholding male camaraderie?
Stay classy.
****
Yes I do. This about about upholding not only "male camaraderie" but also basic human rights.
I know; crickets chirping. But I thought I'd at least try talking to this idiot.
But, see, here's the problem: she is a fucking lying bitch, and she should be charged for her crimes but she won't be. Hence the disgust.
I really think you're wasting both your time and ours by being here; you aren't going to convince us that false rape accusations are okay.
slwerner put it exactly right. It's easy to defend the Duke boys, but this arrogant athlete is a bigger challenge. We aren't defending a person, but a principle.
I find him easier to defend all the time. Having the facts on your side is like having an extra player on the football field.
If anything he's being too humble about this. He's falsely accused of rape but he apologizes? That certainly was unnecessary.
Accusers should be named.
Enough of this rape shield BS.
To whoever qupped this:
"It's like you really think that BR is sitting at home in Pitt thinking, "Man, I'm so glad that those nerds at the TFRS blog are out there defending me."
lol, I self destructed!
I definitely want to know her name, and whether or not she's done this sort of thing before.
To whoever qupped this:
"It's like you really think that BR is sitting at home in Pitt thinking, "Man, I'm so glad that those nerds at the TFRS blog are out there defending me."
lol, I self destructed!
***
Yeah, because advocacy is only cool when it's Marxist/feminists doing it.
"Yeah, because advocacy is only cool when it's Marxist/feminists doing it."
So now I'm a socialist who is on the hook of women he puts on a pedestal? I can be a sexually inadequate Democrat or a womanizing Republican and still say the same exact things I've been saying. I haven't said one thing that has to do with politics, feminism, or gender roles.
What's going on here is that you idiots--and I cannot use that term more strongly--clearly have no idea what the hell I am talking about because you are so goddamn thickheaded that you only see the world in black and white. You all have the same simple "with us or against us" mob mentality since none of you is capable of independent thought, to the point that one of you actually suggested that accusers of rape should not be identified. Why? So you all can get together and actually lynch her?
This investigation was bungled, but all in the favor of Ben.
As is correct, she was taken to the hospital for a rape kit and complete check for evidence that could help confirm his or her story. She was then interviewed by a professional law enforcement team to get a complete statement for the record. There was evidence of sexual activity, just not enough DNA to stick Ben beyond reasonable doubt to back her statement that it was him.
On the other side, only one, I repeat ONE officer spoke to Ben, who openly refered to the woman as a fucking lying bitch. By the way He had his PICTURE TAKEN WITH HIM just like any other fan. He was not taken to the police station to take a statement for the record. Also magically (almost as good as Santa's)the cops have to leave early for another call, and the fucking Surveillance Tapes disappear!
So Ben didn't get such a bad deal. He had the luck that the cops and bar management created a cover up to eliminate any evidence against him. This police officer was forced to resign due to unprofessional behavior in the investigation of a felony.
The woman has not said there was no crime. Between the way the case was handled at the scene, prejudement against her by police, disappearance of evidence, and the fear of the ordeal of going forward with this disadvantage and the resulting media circus, her family and lawyers advised her to not put herself and family through it. Plus she doesn't have $100,000,000 fianancial cushion to get her through the rest of her life.
So Ben didn't get such a bad deal, get your crew to cover up, lawyer up, and miss a few games next fall. His only penalty is Sports Center talks about it every 5 minutes for the next few weeks, and the NFL is pissed he made the sport look bad.
Yeah but I guess it's ok with you that a possibly innocent guy gets named so everyone can get together and lynch him.
Take a little lesson from history.
It was people that were ACCUSED of rape that were lynched...not the false accuser.
There was no cover-up, except in your fantasies. Shut the fuck up.
So now I'm a socialist who is on the hook of women he puts on a pedestal? I can be a sexually inadequate Democrat or a womanizing Republican and still say the same exact things I've been saying. I haven't said one thing that has to do with politics, feminism, or gender roles.
***
Hehehe, good Gawd are you funny! Sensitive people who cry on the internet often are.
But, uhhh, I was referring to the dude who called us nerds for supporting Ben, and who suggested that he doesn't give a crap (and I can assure you that he does!).
As for what you said about us lynching the false rape accuser, no, absolutely not, we do not support violent retaliation against FRA in any way shape or form. Nice try, though.
Detectives watched the surveillance tapes before they were erased over -- not helpful, they thought, but erasing over them wasn't intentional, apparently.
I think that this case would have gone away much more quickly except for the fact that it was so high profile. We see a ton of cases like this, but nowhere near that number of interviews are conducted, except when it starts attracting national attention. I can only imagine the hours expended.
The police/D.A. could have made it go away on the basis of her initial comment to the cops (no rape) and her inconclusive initial statement (which does not evince nonconsensual sex). They were not consistent with the later statement, no matter how someone might want to twist and pound them. Moreover, in mid-March she announced she doesn't want to pursue it. When you take dozens of interviews for a case like this, it's really overkill.
Archivist said...
Beg to differ, Archivist. Liars win all the time.
Most of the time, they lose. This blog deals with the exception."
If that were true, Archivist, then being falsely accused would not be the life destroying diaster it is.
If 'most liars lose' WAS the norm, being falsely accused would simply be a "ho-hum, the truth will come out" proposition, as the LIAR pays dearly and the falsely accused enjoy their righteous indignation.
To be falsely accused of even the SMALLEST thing is devastating because the chance the liar WON'T lose is so HUGE.
Like I said - the voices of the wrongly convicted are glaringly absent here. There's a MUCH bigger picture beyond this blog.
"Nerds"? Is that like a "pansy"?
"To be falsely accused of even the SMALLEST thing is devastating because the chance the liar WON'T lose is so HUGE."
Not in my experience, but what do I know?
The liar wins by inflicting suffering on an innocent victim and then more or less getting away with it.
And that's even if there isn't a false conviction. Obviously the liar creams her jeans if there is one.
"Nerds"? Is that like a "pansy"?
You can't let it go can you.
50 years from now, I won't let it go.
What I find so off-putting about all the folks who want to incessantly whine about how Roethlisberger is a creep or doesn't know hot to treat women properly or some such, is that they may well be right. However, there is a need for perspective and balance in all this.
Not behaving like a gentleman around women is an act of incivility. Making a false rape allegation is a serious criminal offense. If it is a choice between worrying about minor rudeness or a serious criminal matter, I tend to lose all interest in the uncivil behavior.
It is like chastising someone for not wiping their feet on the doormat after a murder has been committed in the other room. There is a lack of perspective and priorities which, yes Anon, I find rather odd and creepy.
Those who devote all their time to whining about how Roethlisberger is no saint, while barely showing any concern for the way centuries-old protections for the presumed innocent and due process are being eroded, display a disturbing lack of priorities and perspective. And this is where it gets creepy.
Nick S, as usual, a great comment, sir. Thank you. This thread was starting to become incomprehensible and wanting in civility until your comment.
shure you are scared like shit when you falsely accused someone and it was found out he was innocent.That is all you need to know why maybe women fear men soo much when they falsely accuse someone
This is a great conversation we should be having.
Ben R. is an asshole, no doubt. But this young woman didn't fight and said things like "we shouldn't be doing this."
That doesn't sound like rape to me.
And it is very clear why no charges were brought against the QB.
Post a Comment