Police protecting Jamies Winston?

Police protecting Jamies Winston? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 1:26:47 PM)
I don't know if Winston is guilty but, to me, this sure looks bad for the cops. The Jameis Winston sexual assault case has taken a couple of ugly turns this week. The biggest news is that DNA taken from the underwear of the woman claiming a sexual assault occurred matches the DNA of Winston according to Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com. "According to the DNA analysis report, a copy of which was viewed by ESPN.com on Wednesday, the Florida state crime lab determined the chance of the DNA in the woman's underwear being a match for someone other than Winston was one in 2.2 trillion." This report comes a day after the Tampa Bay Times reported that a detective warned the accuser's attorney that "Tallahassee was a big football town and the victim needs to think long and hard before proceeding against him because she will be raked over the coals and her life will be made miserable." While that looks bad for the police department, the biggest piece of evidence so far against Winston is the DNA test. But there is more to that than just a positive result. What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. Does a DNA match prove a sexual assault took place? All a DNA match tells us is that the person was likely in contact with that item of clothing at some point. The presence of DNA does not tell us how the DNA got there. Something not included in the report by ESPN.com is whether or not the underwear tested positive for semen. This is actually a much simpler test than the DNA test. It is also important as it would suggest that there was sexual contact. But again, that doesn't prove a sexual assault occurred. Among the many questions that still need to be answered are: Does the suspect deny, or did he ever deny, that there was any sexual contact? If he does deny there was any sexual contact, he can be painted as a liar since there is strong evidence he was in contact with her underwear and there may be proof of sexual contact. [Update] Winston's attorney confirmed today that there was sexual contact but that it was consensual (via Tallahassee.com). Was there any previous sexual history between the two? If so, especially in the days prior to the alleged assault, that could be used to explain the presence of DNA and possibly semen on the underwear. Ultimately, the presence of DNA on the underwear is an important revelation and can be used to show a sexual assault occurred. But there is still much more that needs to be answered before the case can move forward.

muhly22222 -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 2:16:33 PM)
So much about this case stinks. The fact that it took so long for the report to make it to the prosecutor's desk, the detective apparently trying to deter the victim from continuing on, and of course the protective halo that gets placed around major college football programs, such as Florida State. Add to it that Winston might win the Heisman this year, and you've got all kinds of reasons why people want this case to disappear. I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest...but I know that there's more going on here than we know about, and I'm positive that somebody is covering something up. And I'm also sure that the FSU program has their fingers in it. I hope the prosecutor handling this case sticks to his/her guns, and doesn't allow the suspect's position and football talent to persuade him/her to make this go away (if the evidence indicates innocence, that's another story, obviously). And I'm not saying this as an Ohio State fan.

BamaD -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 2:27:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 So much about this case stinks. The fact that it took so long for the report to make it to the prosecutor's desk, the detective apparently trying to deter the victim from continuing on, and of course the protective halo that gets placed around major college football programs, such as Florida State. Add to it that Winston might win the Heisman this year, and you've got all kinds of reasons why people want this case to disappear. I'm normally not a conspiracy theorist in the slightest...but I know that there's more going on here than we know about, and I'm positive that somebody is covering something up. And I'm also sure that the FSU program has their fingers in it. I hope the prosecutor handling this case sticks to his/her guns, and doesn't allow the suspect's position and football talent to persuade him/her to make this go away (if the evidence indicates innocence, that's another story, obviously). And I'm not saying this as an Ohio State fan. Guilty or not it sure looks like the cops were acting like he was above the law. Sure seems they need to investigate the police.

DomKen -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 3:45:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. This is wrong top to bottom. Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing. These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands.

BamaD -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 4:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. This is wrong top to bottom. Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing. These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands. Fortunately we have an expert to advise us. You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case.

DomKen -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 5:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. This is wrong top to bottom. Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing. These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands. Fortunately we have an expert to advise us. You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case. I do realize that but when the press puts out these completely wrong claims people listen and it gets innocent people convicted.

BamaD -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 5:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. This is wrong top to bottom. Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing. These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands. Fortunately we have an expert to advise us. You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case. I do realize that but when the press puts out these completely wrong claims people listen and it gets innocent people convicted. Right the Florida State GB is going to get railroaded in Tallahassee.

DomKen -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 5:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD What does the DNA test mean? First of all, it is impossible to prove that DNA came from a specific person unless we were able to obtain the DNA sample of every person on the planet. Instead, what happens is that a number of DNA markers are tested (~20). The more markers that match, the less likely it is that the DNA sample came from somebody else. In this case, there were enough matches between Winston's sample and the underwear that there is a "one in 2.2 trillion" chance that somebody else has an identical DNA profile. In other words, it is highly unlikely. This is wrong top to bottom. Even if we had a DNA profile from every person in the world we still could not say a particular piece of DNA evidence came from a specific person. The problem is that DNA is collected after the fact, usually at least hours after it left the body of the criminal. In that time decay has been going on and that DNA includes the break down of the chromosomes and the DNA. So the test produces a profile which always is missing some marker loci. The more loci that are missing the more likely a loci that would exclude the suspect is missing. These claims about the chances of someone else having a matching profile reaching into the billions or trillions is based on a completely erroneous calculation which assumes these markers are randomly distributed in the population. Since DNA is inherited mostly unchanged from both parents it can be expected that siblings will share many markers and other close relatives will share many as well. Furthermore ethnic groups naturally also share markers. When accurate calculations are done based on these factors PCR tests, the most common forensic DNA test, the odds drop from trillions or billions to millions or hundreds of thousands. Fortunately we have an expert to advise us. You do realize that the main point here is not about Winston's guilt but about the police discouraging the filing of charges and declining to inform the D A about the case. I do realize that but when the press puts out these completely wrong claims people listen and it gets innocent people convicted. Right the Florida State GB is going to get railroaded in Tallahassee. Not him but some actually innocent guy.

BamaD -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 5:45:32 PM)
Not him but some actually innocent guy. So does this mean you are referring to some theoretical case unrelated to this situation? It also sounds like you assume Winston is guilty.

DomKen -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 5:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Not him but some actually innocent guy. So does this mean you are referring to some theoretical case unrelated to this situation? It also sounds like you assume Winston is guilty. I referring to all cases where the DNA evidence is misrepresented as it was in the news article you quoted. It is very common.

EdBowie -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/21/2013 8:28:13 PM)
It wouldn't hurt to remember that the capital city of Florida is in actuality a very small, very southern town.

BamaD -> RE: Police protecting Jamies Winston? (11/23/2013 3:14:58 PM)
FR The state's attorney says they will decide on Winston in the next two weeks. Hopefully they are investigating the pd too, but I can see why they wouldn't announce it.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02