If, by your last sentence, you mean that Winston's lawyer's position at this stage was that she consented, of course that will be his first public position. It in no way means he rejects another defense. He'd be foolish to go any further than, "It was consensual," before his client has even been charged.

"If any of your first paragraph is true..."? You are distastefully comfortable with implying that others are dishonest.

Wait, wait. I'm not working from a viewpoint that no charge = no rape! I'm saying only ... what I'm saying. Which is that he deserves the trophy from a sports perspective, and it's hard to deny him the prize when a) he wasn't convicted, b) he wasn't even charged, and c) the facts are spotty enough that it's not at…

Yeah, Ray Lewis definitely comes to mind. But that kind of illustrates the distinction - that dude was charged and plea-bargained, right? Here, Winston's not even charged, and the facts that have come out are really quite iffy.

Um, I'm a lawyer, so feel free to try to explain. A graduate of a Top 20 law school, a law journal editor, a former judicial law clerk, former US Senate Legal Fellow, several years to the present in BigLaw litigation. I'm in my f*&king office right now (procrastinating), I regret to say.

I'm having trouble following you. I mean, "if he raped the accuser" is what your position seems to hinge on. Here, thanks in part to poor investigating, that "if" is a big one - he wasn't even charged. Hard to deny him an otherwise earned award.

That's a good idea. I'd appreciate it if you would. Thanks!

Three?! That is extra weird, because I only clicked 'Post' once for the original, and then clicked 'Post' once on the post at the top of this thread!

Yep, thanks. It's like a hidden rule of the universe that I'm encountering.

See, the cloud over Cam Newton's decision to go to Auburn: THAT could easily have warranted not awarding him the trophy! That's a good example of integrity relating to his performance: he may well have been paid to play.

You'd be hard pressed to import an off-the-field meaning to "performance" in that sentence.

That sentence refers to "performance", which suggests a focus on on-the-field conduct, i.e. sportsmanship, no cheating, etc.

Weird, I see just this one. Thanks for the response.

Wait, did the author dismiss my comment?
Here it is (if this one disappears too, I'll know for sure it wasn't a glitch); can't imagine it's dismiss-worthy:

Look, the guy is a tremendous, tremendous football player. His play is worthy of the Heisman Trophy.

How is it that the mistake of fact defense isn't relevant here? I ask because I do not know. In your earlier comments, you seemed to indicate it was because the defendant might allege being drugged or hit. As my last comment noted, that doesn't seem necessarily to eliminate the defense. At minimum, it doesn't seem…

You attacked her as a liar and called her a non-attorney, based on failures of analysis you cited - that's what I presume you're describing as "merely illustrated the obvious weaknesses in his/her analysis." But you argued the evidence and raised additional evidence in responding to him/her and another who disagreed…

You continue to fail to recognize the perspective from which have.at.it says s/he is writing. S/he is not arguing the merits, but you respond as if s/he is. S/he is summarizing issues to shed light on why the prosecutor decided not to charge Winston. You then respond (really dickishly, by the way) as though s/he is…

Actually, the facts of what happened to you sound very, very different from the alleged act. But you did get in a plug for your website!

It's kind of an assumption to think that this photo is not a posed set-up.