Juliet Macur on Jameis Winston

I don't recall taking that hard line in the UVA case. I was initially hoodwinked like most people, though I did have some reservations about the storytelling technique.

Regarding the fix ... it isn't the judge that's the fix. It's the "investigation" by a wholly owned subsidiary of the FSU athletic department that's the fix. Where is that video? Why did the guy delete it? And why is Winston refusing to answer every question, only to be allowed to say her "moaning" constituted consent? But since you brought it up, yes, allowing Winston to pick and choose what to answer is quite improper.

It's fucking ridiculous. And as the NYT articles have made clear, the team is basically a group of unpunished criminals at this point.

The accuser's story has not changed in substantive ways from the beginning. The hiding of evidence, and the totally improper inclusion of Winston's defense team and the university in police discussions, would lead any reasonable person to believe very much is wrong here.

But this is college football and FSU in particular, so I know we are not dealing with reasonable people.

 

But he did steal the crab legs, right? So we can still call him a thief.

 

He's a fine shoplifter and an even better pescetarian.

 

Macur has been wrong before:
http://www.sportsjournalists.com/fo...-on-nfl-hgh-testing-story.85381/#post-3117440

 

The eyewitnesses' refusal to speak at the hearing troubles me as well. If nothing improper happened, why not speak up on behalf of your wrongly accused friend and teammate?

 

We do know, don't we, that Winston's words were vetted down to the "a"s by his highly paid and totally connected attorney? Doesn't Masur know? Doesn't she know the rules of evidence? Of course she does, but the Times applies different standards to college football than it does to say, torture by the CIA<

 

She writes "Some would say this is obstructing justice." Who are the some? If this is a column and she wants to say they're obstructing justice then just say it.

The ESPN story I read a few days ago about the transcripts coming out didn't make it seem like they were obstructing anything, and didn't make it seem as if Winston was "cornered" when he offered the answer about the moaning. The impression I got from that story was Winston's high priced lawyer was mostly in control and the high priced lawyer on the other side was getting ready to go on the offensive.

 

http://chopchat.com/2014/12/24/heres-new-york-times-isnt-telling/

 

Shorter ChopChat: Sure, the police did lots of shit wrong, but who cares?

Embarrassing for that writer, but I guess he has moved out of journalism and into crotch-nuzzling. I'm sure David Cornwell called to tell him how great the article was.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...ee4948-8adc-11e4-9e8d-0c687bc18da4_story.html

Sally is not unbiased, but less so than the TPD, the Florida Bar Association and FSU.

 

Ignoring the outlet, for a moment ...what are you embarrassed by?

Is it the questioning of NYT motives?

Is it the tone?

What facts does the author have wrong?

Maybe this a situation in which you can never be swayed, like the other 98% of the viewing public? Their minds are made up based on the narrative that most sounds right as opposed to the preponderance of evidence?

 

First off, someone establishing his credentials as to wading into a story like this, based on the fact that he has been in the press box for three years, is just silly on its face. We aren't talking about illegal procedure penalties here -- OK we are, but not the kind that this fanboy dope would know anything about.

Now then ...

Just for a second — and I know this isn’t popular right now — consider this from the vantage of the TPD. That’s going to be a high profile investigation (as it eventually was). The fact that Detective Scott Angulo told the accuser’s attorney as much — and as crass as it may have been, it was true — might not be as bad as it’s been made to sound in its retelling.

Oh it might not be? The lead detective in the case telling the accuser to make sure she wants to go through with this because it's a "football town"? That might not be bad?

But the biggie ...

The third myth, and one of the dumbest, is that Jameis Winston was able to pre-emptively lawyer up and start getting stories straight because somebody tipped off FSU. For starters, getting an attorney is not an admission of guilt. And we’re starting to get into dangerous territory when we portray it as such.

But the idea that he beat this because he got wind of it ahead of time really only means that investigators couldn’t try to ambush him. And even if they’d gotten that chance, there’s no guarantee Winston would’ve talked. Nor was he obligated to. And as soon as he was approached, him or someone at the school would have called a lawyer so as damning as this all sounds– it’s not, really. It was an impropriety, yes. But not of the grievous magnitude it’s being made out to be.

The element of surprise is a huge part of what a detective does. And letting the school in on it? WTF? That's nothing? This is so utterly clueless as to how police do their work that this writer should really consider giving up writing for good.

This guy should really listen to licking the nuts of assistant coaches so they will give him recruiting scoop.