ADVERTISEMENT

Here we go again with Winston / Kinsman sued Jameis today

IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS KINSMAN SUING FOR "JUST" $15,000.

She claims damages which are in excess of $15,000, a recital necessary to give the Civil Court jurisdiction. The way she's framed her pleadings, she could theoretically recover millions if she can prove damages that high.

NO $15,000 CAP.
 
An immediate countersuit isn't really immediate. Winston has likely not even been served yet. Then he has 20 days to respond. His response may be simply to challenge venue.

I don't know if he will countersue or not, but you have got to chill. This isn't a punch counterpunch in a day situation. This is a slow, grinding process.


Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
1) She told her roommate that she was hit over the head. That's why her roommate called the police and said EK was groggy from a hit in the back of the head.

2) She told the police that some Mexican guy she never met before gave her a drink, and after drinking it became groggy and dizzy.

3) She obviously told aunt Pat that story, because after the blood work came back negative she demanded it be re-tested, it was (in Gainesville) and still came back negative.

4) She told the medical staff and the police she hadn't had sex in 2 weeks, they found multiple samples in her underwear.

5) She would NEVER date or be with a black guy (Aunt Pat).


In my own opinion, I think she was mining, going with Winston KNOWING who he was and getting a rape test done to use at a later date in case her mine found gold. Look at the evidence for that. She OBVIOUSLY knew who he was, but she pretended not to know who "assaulted" her, she give a bad description, she refuses follow up talks with the police and refuses to be moved out of the classroom she shared with him. So she has the test done and she waits for the egg to hatch. Winston goes on to have a fantastic season and in fact goes to the top of the Heisman board. NOW, with him in the cross hairs of NFL millions, NOW she discovers who it was and the slander for bucks starts..
 
DMM5157, I don't agree with you that if they dig into her social media activity and attack her character that they could lose a sympathetic jury. I recall the Willie Smith (Ted Kennedy's nephew in Palm Beach) rape case in which they thoroughly investigated the accuser and came up with a lot of dirt and based on those findings, Willie got off scot free. However, all juries are different for instance the OJ Simpson vs. Aaron Hernandez so guess it would probably be a crap shoot.
 
They can only bring up her past if it directly relates to this case. That's an issue I have with false rape accusers, you can't bring up to the jury that she filed 10 rape claims against other men, ONLY if she admitted to lying or is convicted of it.
Now, if she mentioned Winston at all, if she mentioned anything that would lead them to believe that she was fully aware of who he was that will attack her creditability because she said she never saw him before and didn't know who he was..
 
It should work both ways then. If Winston can't bring up cleat chasers, she can't bring up fhrip, crab legs or anything non related thing he has done.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I think his lawyers will get some of her past entered in to evidence as I would like it leans to credibility. I would think that some of her roommates answer similar questions pertaining to her credibility. Of course, I am not a lawyer, so we will have to wait and see what can and can not be entered.
 
One interesting thing about the social media is how her tone never changes until Uncle Pat comes into the picture in Fall 2013. She continued posting about baseball and football related comments even up to the Clemson game, which Jameis obviously starred in for both.

If nothing else, that would seem to hinder her idea that going to FSU was a hostile environment and she was forced to leave and change her lifestyle. In reality, nothing changed until the media caught wind of the investigation, brought on by Matt Baker, a high school sports writer that claims no relation to EK.

It'd be up to a lawyer to prove any connection, but it seems like her lawyer created the media circus that made the situation volatile.

Still dying to know how Baker got into the mix. He's still breaking news about EK even as of last week. Very peculiar.
 
I don't think it's as easy as all in or all out.

One one hand, the stuff that be offered simply to show promiscuity would seem out - on the other hand, she can't just lie her ass off and come up with completely new stories when Cornwell takes her deposition. He can ask her about cleatchasers stuff, social media, inconsistent stories, and so on in her depo and If she lies (and she sort of has to) then her lawyers might have a tough time keeping it out.
 
Originally posted by DB1Nole:
It should work both ways then. If Winston can't bring up cleat chasers, she can't bring up fhrip, crab legs or anything non related thing he has done.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
Umm, okay. She can't bring those things up most likely. They can't even bring up the other woman and her "claim."
 
Originally posted by Formerly Rockymtnole:
I don't think it's as easy as all in or all out.

One one hand, the stuff that be offered simply to show promiscuity would seem out - on the other hand, she can't just lie her ass off and come up with completely new stories when Cornwell takes her deposition. He can ask her about cleatchasers stuff, social media, inconsistent stories, and so on in her depo and If she lies (and she sort of has to) then her lawyers might have a tough time keeping it out.
Click to expand...
No, that's not how it works. You can't use the fact that she lies about immaterial things to make those immaterial things material. It simply does not work that way.
 
Not what im saying.
He can ask her just about anything in the depo, and get her on the record. That way she can't lie on the stand and if she does, you simply call her on it.

Where's the problem there?
 
Originally posted by Singleshot:

Originally posted by noleville:


5) She would NEVER date or be with a black guy (Aunt Pat).
Click to expand...
Where exactly did her aunt say that?
Click to expand...
In Cornwell's letter to FSU, he said Aunt Pat stated it had to be rape because her client would never sleep with a black boy.
 
Originally posted by kellylexy:

Originally posted by montconole:
So Clune was able to find the cabbie according to the story.
Click to expand...
If so, he will be one of the several dozen that saw her leaving willingly with Jameis and company. He will corroborate the story of her not being intoxicated and that se was all about having a good time. I just finished my first bag of popcorn. I think I will get a coke to wash it down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, what's the cabbie gonna say. She was coerced against her will into the can and I accepted the fate, dropped them off and went in my way. Essentially bring an accomplice to an abfuction? Ridiculous, no way they found cabbie.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by CoralG...Nole!!:

Originally posted by bcherod:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...


At COC hearing she said she never told police she was drugged.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
For the attorneys on the board. Knowing what you know about the facts of the case, the unknown randomness of a 12 member Jury, the length of a civil case, the risk vs reward involved. Would your recommend to Jameis to fight it or to settle?
 
Originally posted by Formerly Rockymtnole:
I don't think it's as easy as all in or all out.

One one hand, the stuff that be offered simply to show promiscuity would seem out - on the other hand, she can't just lie her ass off and come up with completely new stories when Cornwell takes her deposition. He can ask her about cleatchasers stuff, social media, inconsistent stories, and so on in her depo and If she lies (and she sort of has to) then her lawyers might have a tough time keeping it out.
Click to expand...
he can also ask her questions that will lead to other evidence - who were members of her sorority/cleat chasers. then ask these women if she was targeting FSU athletes.
 
Unless she told someone that she was planning to hook up with an athlete and then lie about being raped to make money off the encounter, none of the stuff before that night will come in.

For those suggesting she can be asked and if she lies it will then be fair game, no. That's not how it works. Collateral evidence cannot be used to challenge credibility.
 
Originally posted by nolaholic:
Originally posted by kellylexy:

Originally posted by montconole:
So Clune was able to find the cabbie according to the story.
Click to expand...
If so, he will be one of the several dozen that saw her leaving willingly with Jameis and company. He will corroborate the story of her not being intoxicated and that se was all about having a good time. I just finished my first bag of popcorn. I think I will get a coke to wash it down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, what's the cabbie gonna say. She was coerced against her will into the can and I accepted the fate, dropped them off and went in my way. Essentially bring an accomplice to an abfuction? Ridiculous, no way they found cabbie.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
I think the claiming they found the cab driver goes along with the idea they're trying to scare Jameis into settling. Chances are, if he even has a decent recollection of the night and can be proven to be the actual cab driver, he will simply testify that she got into the cab with JW and Co, and possibly seemed drunk (which would then be disputed by her friends, who actually know her and how she acts when she's drunk).

But to me the 'revelation' they found this cab driver is even further proof this is all about money; if you truly wanted justice, and this cab driver had any valuable information, why not take it to the TPD, or FDLE? If "justice" is what you're truly after, and you believe JW did this, wouldn't seeing him be charged and convicted of the crime be "justice?"
 
I don't believe for one second that they found the cab driver. I think it's all one big ploy and just another attempt at a money grab. If they truly found the cab driver, Willie Meggs and company would be all over that I would think, and we would have heard something more substantial by now.
 
Originally posted by tommynole3476:

Originally posted by nolaholic:
Originally posted by kellylexy:

Originally posted by montconole:
So Clune was able to find the cabbie according to the story.
Click to expand...
If so, he will be one of the several dozen that saw her leaving willingly with Jameis and company. He will corroborate the story of her not being intoxicated and that se was all about having a good time. I just finished my first bag of popcorn. I think I will get a coke to wash it down.
Click to expand...


Yeah, what's the cabbie gonna say. She was coerced against her will into the can and I accepted the fate, dropped them off and went in my way. Essentially bring an accomplice to an abfuction? Ridiculous, no way they found cabbie.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
I think the claiming they found the cab driver goes along with the idea they're trying to scare Jameis into settling. Chances are, if he even has a decent recollection of the night and can be proven to be the actual cab driver, he will simply testify that she got into the cab with JW and Co, and possibly seemed drunk (which would then be disputed by her friends, who actually know her and how she acts when she's drunk).

But to me the 'revelation' they found this cab driver is even further proof this is all about money; if you truly wanted justice, and this cab driver had any valuable information, why not take it to the TPD, or FDLE? If "justice" is what you're truly after, and you believe JW did this, wouldn't seeing him be charged and convicted of the crime be "justice?"
Click to expand...
Exactly. The blood tests and friend's testimony would far outweigh a cab driver's testimony. Unless he testifies, she was screaming no no no inside his cab and Jameis threw her over his shoulder and took her inside his place, at which point he would have to be asked why he didn't intervene or call the police. And even then still the blood tests and medical exam would override anything he has to say.

Them saying it is trying to say look we got new evidence this time that wasn't presented when cleared before so you better settle with us.
 
There are enough inconsistencies that, added to eye witnesses seeing her performing oral and then on top of him, he should prevail. Despite that, I'm sure it will be a stressful process for everyone.

I'm really surprised her camp is not just willing to let this go at this point so she can get on with her life. 3 possible conclusions occur to me:

1) She really was sexually assaulted and they are bent on justice (despite their initial delay in pursuing it)
2) They have gone so far and are trying to salvage her reputation (I don't really think this is their motivation, but it could be)
3) They Really, Really, Really want some of that yummy MONEY and are willing to put the girl through the ringer for it.

Obviously a combination of these is possible. #3 seems to be the motivating factor according to most people I talk to (even those who dislike JW and FSU).
 
#3 for sure. Does the outcome of this civil trial, regardless of the result, have any impact on their upcoming litigation against FSU re whether or not FSU violated Title IX?
 
If they've truly known who the cabbie is all along and he was witness to coercion or forced entry into the cab all along, then I would imagine that Willie Meggs and the TPD would like to know why Ms. Kinsman and her investors concealed evidence.
 
More Kirk, I believe the answer is a combination of #2 and #3. She has to live with this for the rest of her life, and any recovery allows her to claim victory, save face, and show the general public she was right. Compensation is intended to assist with disrupted life. Just my two cents.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
The 2nd victim, wasn't there a girl who told the NYT that she had consensual sex with JW but felt "weird" about the way he treated her?

Now if there is stuff that JW's lawyers can't bring up, like cleatchasers, then EK's lawyers can't call this girl who didn't get a good-bye kiss from JW, correct? Wouldn't this girl's testimony be considered irrelevant and predijucial?
 
The other girls testimony wouldn't even be admissible if she claimed he raped her. It's fodder for news stories but it's not trial evidence.


Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by goldmom:

If they've truly known who the cabbie is all along and he was witness to coercion or forced entry into the cab all along,
Click to expand...
that is just not believable.

if they had that information previously, they would have shared it. they had no reason to hold it back.
 
Originally posted by AllNoles:

Unless she told someone that she was planning to hook up with an athlete and then lie about being raped to make money off the encounter, none of the stuff before that night will come in.
Click to expand...
assuming she was in a clique that called themselves FSUcleatchasers, i would think that information would be allowed in under the Constitution, regardless of what the rape shield law says. Being in a group whose sole purpose is sleeping with FSU athletes is strong evidence of consent; i wouldn't call this collateral.
 
Allnoles, I don't disagree about using this stuff affirmatively, but bottom line is she has to prove her case. As an example, she has to say "I had no idea who he was", otherwise why the wild goose chase for the cops? Cornwell can explore this at length in a deposition, ask all he wants about what she knows about cleatchasers, has she ever been a member, what do they do, tell me about your texts and social media posts, etc., etc. I'd try to box her in so that she can't spin another tale at trial, and if she does, I don't see why all that can't come in to impeach her.

And the cleatchasers stuff is minor compared to the events that took place after she got home. What did you tell your roommate, what test were you working on, who were you texting for answers, why did you delete all your FB, tweets and texts and so on and so on. There is no way they can prepare her well enough as many version of events as she's claimed.
 
Originally posted by Former...mtnole:
Allnoles, I don't disagree about using this stuff affirmatively, but bottom line is she has to prove her case. As an example, she has to say "I had no idea who he was", otherwise why the wild goose chase for the cops? Cornwell can explore this at length in a deposition, ask all he wants about what she knows about cleatchasers, has she ever been a member, what do they do, tell me about your texts and social media posts, etc., etc. I'd try to box her in so that she can't spin another tale at trial, and if she does, I don't see why all that can't come in to impeach her.

And the cleatchasers stuff is minor compared to the events that took place after she got home. What did you tell your roommate, what test were you working on, who were you texting for answers, why did you delete all your FB, tweets and texts and so on and so on. There is no way they can prepare her well enough as many version of events as she's claimed.




Click to expand...

Even if she didn't know him, why the initial false description?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by SWFNole:
Originally posted by Former...mtnole:
Allnoles, I don't disagree about using this stuff affirmatively, but bottom line is she has to prove her case. As an example, she has to say "I had no idea who he was", otherwise why the wild goose chase for the cops? Cornwell can explore this at length in a deposition, ask all he wants about what she knows about cleatchasers, has she ever been a member, what do they do, tell me about your texts and social media posts, etc., etc. I'd try to box her in so that she can't spin another tale at trial, and if she does, I don't see why all that can't come in to impeach her.

And the cleatchasers stuff is minor compared to the events that took place after she got home. What did you tell your roommate, what test were you working on, who were you texting for answers, why did you delete all your FB, tweets and texts and so on and so on. There is no way they can prepare her well enough as many version of events as she's claimed.




Click to expand...

Even if she didn't know him, why the initial false description?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Click to expand...
Another good point.

The challenge JW's attorneys will have is deciding what areas to cover in her deposition. 7 hours isn't nearly enough time.
 
Originally posted by Lemon Thrower:
Originally posted by goldmom:

If they've truly known who the cabbie is all along and he was witness to coercion or forced entry into the cab all along,
Click to expand...
that is just not believable.

if they had that information previously, they would have shared it. they had no reason to hold it back.
Click to expand...
The only ting the cab driver could be a witness to is whether she was actually in the cab with them or not. I doubt a judge is going to allow him to testify about what he thought she was feeling at the time she got into the car.

To me, this is akin to the scene in a few good men when the two airman walk in and sit down, they didn't really have any information, but they scared Jessup into acting.
 
Dot...Have you guys checked to see if she ever had a Warchant account prior to the alleged incident?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

FSU 82 Winthrop 64 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Replies
0
Views
851
FSU and General Sports Forum
Bill From Tampa
B
B

FSU 79 Hofstra 61 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Replies
0
Views
291
FSU and General Sports Forum
Bill From Tampa
B
B

FSU 74 NCS 84 The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Replies
0
Views
281
FSU and General Sports Forum
Bill From Tampa
B
A

Mike Norvell HS Recruiting Transfers

Replies
3
Views
1K
Osceola Village
ACE NOLE
A
F

Sunday Morning QB - Changes coming....

Replies
117
Views
6K
Osceola Village
goldmom
goldmom
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back