Including Jameis was a money grab

the cops/college didn't process the kit for a year..when they did, they found his DNA

Did Jameis deny he had sex with her? Or the DNA result managed to show their sex was not consensual? Both of them agreed sex did happen, at the place both also agreed where it did happen. So tell me, what extra info does that rape kit provide?

they never looked at any of the 30 cameras that were in the bar...never questioned the cab driver that picked them up and took them to his dorm

Did Jameis denied taking her home? Yeah, Jameis meet her at the bar and they went to his place in a cab with both the accuser and the accused agreed did happen. What's your point? Did the accuser claim she was brought to his place at gunpoint or by force?

The lack of common sense with you people is astonishing. You people made it seem like Jameis claimed, "I don't know that woman, never met her." So, here's DNA evidence and lack of investigation. Investigating on info which both the accuser and the accused agreed on, is idiotic waste of time. What was at dispute, was one said their sex was consensual, the other said it was not.

Tell me, how would any of those info show if their sex was or was not consensual? Which was the key to convict him or not.

Erin Pizzey
https://youtu.be/Ix5-jqQYU1M

reply share

add reply

formatting help

they took a rape kit...the cops/college didn't process the kit for a year

So, the rape kit result proved sex was/was not consensual? Or Jameis denied having sex with her and the result proved him lying? The kit proved they had sex which is a fact Jameis already willingly provided by saying he did have sex with her. Please, explain to me what extra useful info is added to this case from the result of the rape kit? The test result showed the accuser said "No" during sex?

Jameis said they had sex. His accuser said it was rape. Test result indicated they did have sex. And? Explain to me what's the point of doing a DNA test on her rape kit? It's redundant and useless because result says what Jameis already said.

they never looked at any of the 30 cameras that were in the bar...never questioned the cab driver that picked them up and took them to his dorm

All that happened before sex. Jameis admitted he took her to his place, the accuser did not claim Jameis forced her to go with him at knifepoint, so all those "evidence" is just going to show what both of them already agreed did happen. There is one witness during sex, Jamies's roommate. The accuser claimed Jameis's roommate was concerned and kept on urging Jameis to stop, as she was saying, "No." His roommate ended up testifying against her, saying the sex he witnessed was consensual, that she was the one all over Jameis.

The dispute was whether their sex was consensual. It's a he-said she-said which we will never know, but finding Jameis' DNA means jack shiet because Jameis did admit that sex did happen. DNA matched what Jameis already said is true, but gives zero information on whether sex is consensual.

----

While we are at it, how about you focus on the DNA test of that Harvard woman in this film, which turned out to be false? She produced a condom she herself used with another man as evidence of the accused having sex with her intoxicated friend. Basically, both DNA on the condom did not match the people she claimed use it, but matched her and some unknown male. That's fabrication of evidence, obstruction of justice, perjury, among many other crimes. But fortunately for her, campus kangaroo courts are not criminal courts. There's a good reason women like her don't go to the police.

reply share

add reply

formatting help