First of all I said in an earlier post that I over-reacted, here is the quote "You are right, I just over-reacted. I hate people who aren't brought to trail or go before a grand jury for rape" and secondly what does the word accused mean in this post? "And wasn't accused of rape and shooting out dorm windows..." So WTF are you talking about?
I edited my post. You can write "accused" but your tone is that of someone who believes he is guilty. In your own words you hate him. Why? Because he wasn't brought to trial or forced to testify to a grand jury? I didn't realize he was responsible for bringing himself to trial, and creating his own grand jury to testify to.
http://espn.go.com/college-football...minoles-questioned-bb-gun-battle-records-show
"The timeline states that police informed the state attorney's office of the investigation on Dec. 7, 2012, the day the incident was reported, but that no suspect had been identified. On Jan. 10, 2013, the alleged victim provided the name of a suspect -- presumably Winston -- and police attempted to follow up with both the accuser and the suspect, according to the statement. Both parties declined to be interviewed through their attorneys. On Feb. 11, the case was deemed open but inactive."
The timeline doesn't even state when the alleged rape took place, just when it was reported. A month later a suspect is provided. Then the accuser refuses to be interviewed.
Why would they convene a grand jury for a case where the accuser didn't identify the suspect for a month, and then after doing so, declined to be interviewed by police. What evidence exactly should the grand jury hear to determine if a trial is warranted?
