Why would it influence them? I am sorry, but it is ridiculous how many of you think ESPN is out to get FSU, or that FSU is some type of threat to ESPN. FSU being good isn't going to hurt the SEC or ESPN in the slightest. And like someone just mentioned, FSU and Jameis in the playoff last year (on ESPN), was a much bigger draw than Miss St or Ole Miss would have been, so it would make no sense for ESPN to try and have a negative influence against a team that is ultimately going to drive their playoff ratings.
Here we go again with Winston / Kinsman sued Jameis today
- Thread starter Glitch18
- Start date
Anyone read the complaint?
She now says it was Winston who gave her the tainted potbellys drink (not the mysterious mexican).
And it also mentions a Darby facebook post from the following morning saying: "I feel the worst I almost felt in my entire life smh. #stupid."
I've never heard that before.
Complaint at link.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/4/17/exclusive-erica-kinsman-jameis-winston-sexual-assault.html
She now says it was Winston who gave her the tainted potbellys drink (not the mysterious mexican).
And it also mentions a Darby facebook post from the following morning saying: "I feel the worst I almost felt in my entire life smh. #stupid."
I've never heard that before.
Complaint at link.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/4/17/exclusive-erica-kinsman-jameis-winston-sexual-assault.html
Re: Here we go again with Winston
The few I have heard from are sympathetic. I have not heard anything bad about her.
Can we get a little cliffs on the complaint? I guess she's still working the drugged angle. Is she also going with the 'so intimidated I got into the cab' story? That Darby post looks like rock solid evidence.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Well, they might have stopped it before the points where various stories glaringly contradict one another.
But I think there are numerous made up items in that account I just read. Her account of her 'rape' reads like something out of the screenwriter for "Birth of a Nation"
.
In reference to Darby's Facebook post. The kid was hungover. I made a similar post last weekend. Lol.
I don't know if this was directed at me but just in case it was I was being sarcastic about that 'evidence.'
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That's just her saying that, I don't believe Darby has ever admitted to that. If he did then I believe he would have been in trouble in his CoC hearing but he was cleared of any wrongdoing or failing to protect her. Casher just got in trouble for admitting to invading her privacy with the video. If that CoC stuff can be used as evidence, I don't see how they can find guilt just based on that.
Originally posted by seminole817:
Can we get a little cliffs on the complaint? I guess she's still working the drugged angle. Is she also going with the 'so intimidated I got into the cab' story? That Darby post looks like rock solid evidence.
Posted from here, he usually breaks things down pretty well. That's where I follow & he broke it down last night with parts of the complaint contradicting earlier reports.
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
"leaked" but they just happened to not want to proceed until he became a celebrity.
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
To be so panicked to text a friend, her next texts were only about her ID & test answers.
Complaint:
She was drugged and led away by the arm to the apartment.
Contrary evidence:
She had a very good memory of the events and never mentioned being led by the arm before and nobody from her friends, officers or nurses have said she appeared drunk or drugged and lab reports show she wasn't.
Complaint:
He blocked her view of him, jammed her head down.
Contrary evidence:
Hiding his face & jamming hers down, he somehow got his DNA on her face.
Complaint:
Sobbing in the middle of the street making phone calls at 2:48am and traumatized at the hospital.
Contrary evidence:
Again, her text do not indicate she was so traumatized.
Keeps saying she was drugged, but in the CoC hearing she made it a point to say she never said she was drugged and lab reports prove she wasn't.
Incoherent claim:
CoC:
After:
Reports:
Thanks, Singleshot. I've read the reports, although it's been a while. I was just curious to see if she was still going with the drugged thing. I assumed she'd drop that since her or her team apparently realized that trying to sell that to a former florida supreme court justice in the CoC hearing would be dumb. I'm not sure how anyone could think any fact-finder would buy that.
This post was edited on 4/17 9:02 PM by seminole817
This post was edited on 4/17 9:02 PM by seminole817
or she says her memory was foggy because the rape was so terrible, but that it cleared up as she grew more prepared to deal with it. She can get past the prior inconsistent statements (many of which won't be admitted)... she'll take a hit, but it is what it is. She can't prove the case, IMO, but anything can happen if it goes to a jury even with a relatively small likelihood of success for her. Rape stories are emotional. The hunting ground is a great opportunity for her side to really study audience reactions & the demographics of different reactions... they'll carry that study into voir dire. Winston should settle before that happens, IMO.
You can't be in trouble for failing to protect. Such a requirement would probably violate Title IX. A failure to take reasonable steps to intervene would be sufficient to get him in trouble... verbal intervention is sufficient, whether or not it results in stopping what's happening.
that she was hit on the head or drugged. They've implied both, but I don't think she's specifically said it to anyone. Of course, a counterclaim for defamation could bring those in anyway.
and she can explain some of them away too. She's not a credible witness, but I still wouldn't want it in the hands of a jury.
Originally posted by Singleshot:
Well done.Originally posted by seminole817:
Can we get a little cliffs on the complaint? I guess she's still working the drugged angle. Is she also going with the 'so intimidated I got into the cab' story? That Darby post looks like rock solid evidence.
Posted from here, he usually breaks things down pretty well. That's where I follow & he broke it down last night with parts of the complaint contradicting earlier reports.
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
"leaked" but they just happened to not want to proceed until he became a celebrity.
Complaint:
Contrary evidence:
To be so panicked to text a friend, her next texts were only about her ID & test answers.
Complaint:
She was drugged and led away by the arm to the apartment.
Contrary evidence:
She had a very good memory of the events and never mentioned being led by the arm before and nobody from her friends, officers or nurses have said she appeared drunk or drugged and lab reports show she wasn't.
Complaint:
He blocked her view of him, jammed her head down.
Contrary evidence:
Hiding his face & jamming hers down, he somehow got his DNA on her face.
Complaint:
Sobbing in the middle of the street making phone calls at 2:48am and traumatized at the hospital.
Contrary evidence:
Again, her text do not indicate she was so traumatized.
Keeps saying she was drugged, but in the CoC hearing she made it a point to say she never said she was drugged and lab reports prove she wasn't.
Incoherent claim:
CoC:
After:
Reports:
This will go against current PC narrative and and PC reality.
Seriously, what female goes home with three guys from a nightclub and thinks that there is no sex involved?
Back in the days when we were more conservative, this would have been a given. Today, when kids are a lot more loose, how can anyone not know what the next step is?
I'm old, and these kids are almost old enough to be my grandchildren.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Hanging out in a bar, dancing with football players, going home with them............
One of my great nieces, a former chief and FSU grad, knows the score on this. Granted, she is smart, (unlike EK), but she parties, she just parties smart.
The absurdity of all of this is amazing, yet it will play out in a sick society.
Seriously, what female goes home with three guys from a nightclub and thinks that there is no sex involved?
Back in the days when we were more conservative, this would have been a given. Today, when kids are a lot more loose, how can anyone not know what the next step is?
I'm old, and these kids are almost old enough to be my grandchildren.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Hanging out in a bar, dancing with football players, going home with them............
One of my great nieces, a former chief and FSU grad, knows the score on this. Granted, she is smart, (unlike EK), but she parties, she just parties smart.
The absurdity of all of this is amazing, yet it will play out in a sick society.
Only if he wants them to be... part of the settlement will likely be a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement by both parties... probably a gag order as well.
This post was edited on 4/18 12:22 AM by oldscalphunter
Oh, I would not, either. I have long said a civil trial would be MUCH scarier than people here think, and I have been drilled for it repeatedly. I think he would win a trial, but anyone who thinks it's guaranteed has no clue about trials.
I have also explained that inconsistent or stupid statements relied on here may never see the light of a courtroom because things her lawyer or news articles say is not admissible unless the lawyer or reporter admit she told them the things they said. However, IIRC the hit on the head thing and the drugged thing are both things her friends told police Erika told them. Those girls will be called to testify what Erika told them and that will be admissible.
None of the cleat chaser crap will be admitted. Posts about sports may very well not be. Things she wrote or said about Winston specifically will be admitted if they tend to show she is lying about not knowing who he was.
Honestly, what the heck are you talking about?
Your narrative has nothing to do with winston's situation at all.
Read her allegations. She says she was drugged, brought to the apt against her will and raped. Lying or not, that's the story winston is dealing with. It has nothing to do with her voluntarily leaving with him and knowing what to expect, as you put it.
Furthermore, even if a girl goes home with a guy on her own free will, she also can change her mind when she gets there for any reason whatsoever.
Maybe your beloved niece goes home with a guy from a club, voluntarily, but then he takes his pants off and she doesn't like what she sees. Did she lose her right to say "wait, stop"?
Oe can the guy can do whatever he wants at that point because your niece "went home with a guy from a nightclub" and deserves whatever comes next?
Geez, think before you type, man. smh
Re: Here we go again with Winston
Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner, While I'd love to see her lies exposed it really doesn't help or hurt Jameis. The only reason I'd like to see her lies exposed is to make those "writers" who jumped to their standard preconclusions , paging Chrisine Brennan et al, be forced to have a tasty meal of crow.
What proof does she have of any of her claims? There is no physical evidence of anything beyond that she had sex with Jameis Winston, something neither contest. This will come down to he said she said. She has no other witnesses of the event but Winston's room mates. The alleged cab driver will be a difficult witness to prove credible as too much time has passed where this individual could have come forward to assist in the legal investigation. It would seem to be easy for a defense to poke holes in the convenience of this person coming forward now, particularly on the side of EK.
This will all be a matter of arguing that EK never consented and it will not be played out with evidence from her side, but with tear filled testimony.
Winston's side could go digging into her social media activity and attacking her character, and if they do they could lose a sympathetic jury.
There is so much at stake. I would love nothing more than for EK to end up with egg on her face, but I don't really think that's where this is going.
Settling now is so late. Had they settled earlier, could have avoided the Hunting Grounds fiasco. But, at the same thing, how much of a "relief" would it be to be able to put this behind him.
Whoever represents Winston for the civil suit, they will be much smarter than all of us and will make the right decisions. Too much is at stake for Jameis and those who come after him.
Anyone else find it interesting that these threads get dumped in the locker room with the "Winston is no longer a student at FSU" excuse, but the numerous other Winston and other future draft picks threads are left alone?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No social media before the incident will ever be admitted, with the one exception of things that tend to prove she did, in fact, know who Winston was before that night.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Not likely. It's surely not admissible to suggest she wanted to have sex. It might be relevant to show she likely knew who Winston was. But that will be weighed against potential unfair prejudice to her (403 analysis). Absent more direct proof loving baseball means knowing Winston (by sight) I suspect a judge would exclude that stuff.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Here we go again with Winston
Based on this ludicrous theory, an alleged tortfeasor from Alabama could be sued in any Florida county ranging from Pensacola to the Keys.
Beyond outrageous. That said, the state court judge in Orlando assigned to this case will not sanction anyone over a pleading failure. She will be thrilled to simply dismiss it or transfer it elsewhere.
Not surprisingly, the Complaint lacks any legally sufficient allegations of venue. The plaintiff alleges only this: "Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida inasmuch as Defendant is a non-resident of the State of Florida and has substantial contacts with the State of Florida." Plaintiff never cites any Florida statute or other authority that would authorize this (i.e., because none exists).
Based on this ludicrous theory, an alleged tortfeasor from Alabama could be sued in any Florida county ranging from Pensacola to the Keys.
Beyond outrageous. That said, the state court judge in Orlando assigned to this case will not sanction anyone over a pleading failure. She will be thrilled to simply dismiss it or transfer it elsewhere.
I should have followed through some more with my post. I agree 100%, because if there was an ounce of credibility to that statement, JW would have been arrested and indicted.
For Christ sakes, her complaint is listed with lies that are going to burn her in open court.
Re: Here we go again with Winston
If he wants to say he is not a non-resident, he will deny that allegation and likely challenge venue. But if he can't establish that he is a resident right now, the case won't be dismissed or moved.
From a pleading perspective, they don't need to allege any more. The law IS that if he's a non-resident she can sue in any county. I cited the caselaw above.
If he wants to say he is not a non-resident, he will deny that allegation and likely challenge venue. But if he can't establish that he is a resident right now, the case won't be dismissed or moved.
It's not like Orlando is the worst place in Florida for Justice. I would say it would be a neutral place. Neutral ppl have already looked at the facts and came to the conclusions that they have.
If she filed in Gainesville, Jacksonville or Miami I would be worried.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
If she filed in Gainesville, Jacksonville or Miami I would be worried.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Didn't Cornwell say that a civil suit would be met with an immediate counter-suit? So what's up with that?
Articles and opinion pieces continue to attack Winston, either glossing over or (like today's ESPN The Magazine) simply misrepresenting the facts, so wouldn't a counter-suit give Winston some leverage he doesn't have now?
Maybe the threat of a counter-suit is better than a real one, and maybe Winston's lawyers are working that angle as we speak, but if I'm Winston I'd be getting really tired of being the punching bag for people like Christine Brennan and Jane McManus.
Articles and opinion pieces continue to attack Winston, either glossing over or (like today's ESPN The Magazine) simply misrepresenting the facts, so wouldn't a counter-suit give Winston some leverage he doesn't have now?
Maybe the threat of a counter-suit is better than a real one, and maybe Winston's lawyers are working that angle as we speak, but if I'm Winston I'd be getting really tired of being the punching bag for people like Christine Brennan and Jane McManus.
