Florida State easily dispatched of Duke 212-0 (final score may not be accurate) in the ACC Championship Game, so the biggest news from the game came afterward. Heather Cox interviewed FSU QB Jameis Winston and pressed the Heisman frontrunner about no charges being brought against him in a sexual assault investigation. After the fourth question about the investigation, Winston simply walked away as FSU officials appeared to have intervened.
The reaction to Cox's tough questioning has bordered on the ridiculous. Seminole fans were berating Cox on Twitter and Winston's lawyer even said her interview was "unprofessional." You would think Heather Cox was some kind of monster for merely asking questions.
Was the postgame interview tough? Absoultely. And it should have been. This has been arguably the biggest news story in the sport and the QB has largely been silent throughout the matter. Cox is a journalist first and foremost, and I respect her asking tough questions that might ruffle some feathers. It was a lot more professional than the state attorney's press conference yuk fest about the case.
UPDATE: Cox spoke at length about the interview with SI's Richard Deitsch.
a HIT JOB she is a BADGER -there IS NO CASE the investigation concluded with NO CHARGES the accusations were insufficent to warrent charges----there was NOTHING to address what could a guy say ...ummmm there are no charges so i have nothing to address----what did COX expect an admission of guilt a confession on national tv ...hmmm?
she was WAY OUT OF LINE are famous men supposed to address every UNFOUNDED previously investigated by police baseless insufficent accusation as being somehow RELEVENT years decades centurys after the fact ?
regular guys understand this, women run their mouths constantly about who you had sex with YEARS before you met them and you dont even have to HAVE sex,- a playboy or a dvd is enough to drive some women over the jealous edge of rage ...and they will run their mouth and badger you like this reporter did ....i would NOT WANT T BE HER BOYFRIED OR HUSBAND YIKES
Sideline reporters are not journalists. That's like saying play-by-play and color are journalists. They are there to cover the game and relate the game to the fans. She was focused on issues that will have no further effect on the season. It may warrant one or two questions, but if the whole interview is focused on the sexual assault non-case, then its her trying to make a statement.
Only a matter of time before this "upstanding citizen" is involved with another crime, seen this "Koko" act before
Sideline reporters can't win. Ask a softball: "She's a floozy; why is she allowed on a football field?" Ask a tough question: "Who does this broad think she is asking a hardball question like that? Even though it's a question that EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL FAN has been wondering themselves. The nerve of this girl."
I'm not sure who decided to screw this poor kid more than the legal system did, but he's getting crappy advice. They could have put this to rest on Thursday afternoon with a controlled interview with a friendly.
Not sure if it's the university screwing this up, since he's legally free from anything except potential civil liability (unlikely anything will be filed there, since there was a second DNA sample present), but someone should be fired for how they're advising him.
Until he talks about it, they're gonna ask. Having him ask when he's all hyped up on adrenaline makes him look like he doesn't take it seriously. Crap PR move. Having him give "non-answers" about "going higher and higher" as a team to specific questions related to the case, makes him look like he's avoiding it.
I feel for the kid. He needs better advisors.
@nels59 Winston wasn't involved with anything illegal this time. Your comment is classless and crass.
@davebiddle you truly believe that every college football fan is wondering why Winston did not hold a presser during the ongoing investigation? If so then I don't think you get out much. Most folks know that when faced with accusations such as these the wise thing to do is to let it run it's course. Addressing unsupported accusations just lends them much needed publicity.
Winston was not charged and if your curiosity is so driving that you would spoil the moment for an entire group of young men and their trainers who have labored all year for this outcome then I suggest rather that you get off your duff and read the TPD and Fl SAO documents made public.
Who told you that was the question that everyone wanted to hear the answer to. I could have answered the question for you last year. Tim Jansen advised his client(rightfully so) NOT TO talk to the media OR the police. This is standard procedure from ANY defense attorney. This information was available to anyone who was interested. How is it possible that "EVERY COLLEGE FOOTBALL FAN" wanted information they already had, rather than know about the game they JUST watched????
@SpearFish The second DNA sample doesn't mean anything. They weren't found in the same place and in no way do they mean that she had sexual activity with two people on the same night.
how is it NEWS when there were NEVER any charges ? the case was DROPPED for lack of sufficent evidence to move forward with charges? ...there was NEVER a case ...the questions were NOT about the game or the next game ..it was garbage ...are famous men supposed to address EVERY wild accusation that is thrown at them by women that even AFTER A HUGE investigation BY POLICE are found to be BASELESS?
WHAT COULD A GUY SAY? ummmm there is no case so i have nothing to say as there is nothing to address...
just what was COX reaching for ? an admission of guilt ? an confession of some sort on national television ...OH YEAH ..
she is a nut job and a bad reporter
Its impossible for sideline reporters or play by play to be journalists. They are either recieving their checks from the teams theyre covering, or their bosses are paying the teams to cover theirgames. Its a conflict of interest and removes any right to call the job a journalism position.
@axhfan Ok. Give us an example of her other hard hitting interviews. Please tell us what is so "hard news" about something we all know the answer to?
@haemaker So you already knew the answer but did not know the answer?You just wanted to hear him say it?If she really needed to know the answer to that question, she should have asked before the game while they were chumming it up.
@Dez E. @axhfan We all know the answer? We don't know anything. Sure, he was told not to talk about it, but unless someone asks, he can't choose to not address it. Other hard-hitting interviews have nothing to do with it. If this is the first time she stood up and became a journalist, I applaud her.
I'm sure you want the last word but as far as I'm concerned this conversation is over. If defending a rape victim is wrong then I don't want to be right.
@youngexec@BenWinoker I'm not sure it has been established that they were still dating at this time. Regardless, Jameis had a girlfriend too, and his roommates regularly joined in on his sexual escapades. What does that make him?
More importantly, how does going home with someone while you have a boyfriend make it less likely to be raped?
That's not true at all. I'd say they're more likely to be. In the same sense that drug dealers are more likely to be murdered. It's still a crime, no matter what risky behavior was involved on the part of the victim.
If one of them was a boyfriend, and the other raped her, that doesn't sound like a slut to me.
@youngexec Sluts are less likely to be raped then?
Having sex with 2 different people makes you a slut?
@youngexec Wow. That's hilarious. So sluts can't be raped? And having sex with 2 different people makes you a slut? I refuse to believe someone that stupid can hold down a job.
The consensus here at work is that you argue like a girl. The prosecution believes Winston is not guilty AND the prosecution believes that the case was not winnable. The crucial piece of evidence in this case was the girl's sluttiness....this was confirmed several ways, not just by Winston's teammates
@youngexec You honestly believe that the prosecutor's personal belief is what made him make the decision on whether or not to charge? In a profession where your success rate is everything, prosecutors only try cases they think they can win. He said so himself: he didn't think he could get a conviction.
I believe that Winston's teammate's statements were the crucial piece of evidence in this case, but do I think they would be as powerful in a civil case, when the burden of proof is lower? No.
False. It's obvious. No duh - diligence is required even though this prosecutor believes in Winston's innocent.
Sorry you are so stupid.
It's politically correct to refer to a victim of a crime as a victim, yes, but not if no crime takes place. How is it PC to not pursue charges vs her?
Plain and simple: the decision on whether or not to charge only had to do with what they could prove, not with what they believe.
No. I get it. You don't!
Using "victim" and not pursuing charges against a probable liar is politically correct. The prosecutor was laughing during the press conference....enough said.
@youngexec You really don't get it, do you? If the prosecutor thought Winston was beyond a doubt innocent, he wouldn't still be referring to the young lady as "the victim," and he would have filed wrongful accusation charges on her. Prosecutors file cases they think they can win, not when they think the accused is guilty. Civil cases are separate from criminal ones. They often have different outcomes, due to the lower standard of evidence required.
Real simple dude.
Because of the facts of this case the chances of the accuser having actually been forced to have sex is low.
Because of the facts of this case the prosecutor did not think Winston was guilty.
Because of the facts of this case the chances of the accuser winning a civil suit is low.
Less likely than if the facts were different? That's not what I'm arguing. Yes, there are things that could be changed that would make rape more likely. That doesn't mean that it is unlikely that rape happened. Winston wasn't charged because the prosecutor didn't think he could get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, not because he didn't think Winston was guilty. In a civil case (which is how this thread started) the proof only needs to be beyond the balance of probabilities. Do you understand? Not being roofied does not significantly shift that balance, because many rapes occur without roofies. Ditto for previous sex, drink sharing, and accompanying people to their apartment.
Nothing vague at all. You keep screeching "Anything is possible" and I keep telling you that the facts of this case means a rape is less likely to have occurred than if the facts were different. My point is real...so real that Jameis Winston was not charged.
@youngexec Good. Keep being vague and don't make any real points.
I love that you are sooo dense. You are now the subject of an email thread at my place of employment. We are laughing at you not with you.
@youngexec Likelihood. Are you saying that the majority of rapes happen from roofies or being too drunk to consent? Because I would love to see that data. And I would love to know the relevance because that is not what is being alleged.
@youngexec Rape can occur without being roofied or being too drunk to give consent, so I'm not sure what your point is.
@youngexec Having sex with another person: not related. Each sexual event is an independent event. Having a low BAC: rules out inability to consent, that's it. Sharing drinks: makes it less likely that she was roofied? That's it. Followed a man back to his apartment: if she said stop at any point in the process, and he didn't, it's rape so irrelevant.
@youngexec Please explain how any of those things make rape any less likely.
You are missing a valid point. It's possible... it's possible... it's possible. The rest of the world is interest in the highly likely.
@Dez E. I didn't say that Winston's DNA proved he raped her, nor did I say that the other DNA shouldn't be investigated. However, now that it has been investigated, and there is a logical reason for it being there, I don't see how it would impact a civil case.
Maybe I was being unclear, it is important to investigate, but the results of that investigation don't point towards or away from a rape.
@BenWinoker @Dez E. And the presence of Jameis Winston's DNA does not prove that she WAS raped. I was just pointing out the fact that the DNA of multiple people in a woman's clothes is IMPORTANT in a case like this. Especially when she claims to be blacking out and has inconsistent versions of the events that happened. It was thought to be important to people with much more information than you or I. I am not sure what else you can bring to the discussion after that.
The criminal standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The civil standard is a balance of probabilities. Let me spell it out for you: it's possible to be raped after having sex with another person at another time, it's possible to be raped with a low BAC, it's possible to be raped after sharing drinks, and it's possible to be raped after accompanying a man to his apartment at night. Please tell me what I'm missing.
None of that explains why the presence of her ex-boyfriend's semen means she wasn't raped.
"Couldn't possibly"?.. what kind of magina feminist indoctrination are you spewing. The LEGAL standard is reasonable doubt. Got it??
The presence of another's semen, the low BAC, the admission that the accuser was sharing drinks, and the decision to accompany a man to his apartment in the dark ALL contribute to the conclusion that she WAS NOT raped. Each one of those facts has ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING to do with the fact that the accused was not charged.
Now run off and lynch someone else weirdo.
The reason it does matter, is that it puts another individual there. There are 2 sources DNA in her clothes when they are examined. The person was not there while she was having sex with Winston, but would you say that blood stains from multiple people at a crime scene don't matter. Here is a good test. The investigators, and police both thought this information was very important. So important that they found him in Ohio without knowing his name. They then got information from him despite his refusal to speak to the police without a subpoena. She can screw as many people as she wants. That's her business, but if you accuse someone of rape, everything you do is under a microscope. Everything you do DOES MATTER.
@youngexec The male who contributed the other DNA sample was not there. What else needs to be explained? How does that have anything to do with what happened that night? Since she had sex with more than one person she's a slut so she couldn't possibly have been raped?
No. You need to explain how it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what happened that night. Because it does.
@youngexec Please explain. How does sexual activity with someone else at a different time mean she wasn't raped?
@SpearFish He can be guilty without there being sufficient evidence, he just can't be proven so. If there isn't evidence to prove either guilty or not guilty we can't say either way.
Nobody said anything about the SAO declaring him not guilty. He is innocent until proven guilty. If there is insufficient evidence to prove him so then what is he? He can only be guilty or not.
If we are just playing with thought experiments let me know.