Here's What the New York Times Isn't Telling You

I’m not going to sit here and write some column seething with venom and overt rage towards the New York Times. That looked ugly enough on their end when they did it last night.

What I will say is that name — the New York Times — used to mean something.

I spent three years covering FSU for the Miami Herald before I got to ChopChat. I was writing for them when this whole story broke– I’ve covered this since day one. I say that to establish my own credibility. I also say it because I know more about the newspaper industry than your average joe. I’m not an expert– three years on a low-priority beat (no love for FSU at the Herald) hardly qualifies me as one. But I do know some things.

Which is why it’s so sad when a once-great media outlet starts to rest on its laurels and eschews actual journalism for a more sensational approach.

There are literally hundreds of available pages of evidence from this case. There are multiple reports from multiple investigations. There have been attorney statements, rebuttals and all range of other materials to consider. The average person doesn’t have the time, nor the inclination, to rifle through it all themselves. That’s why people subscribe to newspapers– so a reporter will do it instead and inform them.

Only, nowadays, people don’t subscribe to newspapers anymore. So newspapers are forced to adopt new business models to try and survive. Many have bid farewell to traditional reporting in favor of a more modern, click-driven approach.

That’s how you get to one of the biggest papers in the country willfully omitting relevant portions of a news story to instead sell a better narrative.

Now I understand that’s a bold claim, so I’m going to provide actual evidence rather than just ask you take me at my word. I don’t have a masthead like ‘New York Times’ over my name to ensure people buy into my credibility– I’ll do this the old-fashioned way.

The First Omission

On the morning of December 7th, 2012, Jameis Winston’s accuser reached out to two friends, Bria Henry and Jenna Weisberg, and alleged that she had been raped following a night at the local bar Pot Belly’s.

This is the call to police that was made from Weisberg, who was with the accuser at her dorm, to the FSUPD on the morning of December 7, 2012. In it, Weisberg tells the dispatcher her friend’s story has been in pieces, but “she said she thinks she was hit on like the back of the head and then she ended up in somebody’s room.”

The reason this is a relevant detail is it provides context for the TPD’s response and contradicts the accuser’s version of events. One of the biggest — and most unchallenged — parts of this narrative is that the TPD botched the investigation. And while that’s not a point I’m going to argue, the extent to which it was botched has been exaggerated greatly.

So much so, in fact, that many around the country believe there was no rape kit, no blood work, almost no evidence taken at all. That’s glaringly false. Yes, someone at the TPD tipped off FSU administrator Monk Bonasorte and he allowed Winston and Florida State to get out in front of the allegations. But that, in itself, does not make the allegations against Winston true.

What the New York Times conveniently omits is that the TPD was responding to a report of a girl who had been hit over the head and raped by an unknown assailant. Upon arriving at the hospital — where the accuser was transported just hours after the alleged attack — the physical examination made it obvious that what had been initially reported was false. There was zero head trauma.

There was vaginal tenderness, that could be due to sexual intercourse or rape, but the other markings on her body actually tend to corroborate the accounts of Winston, Ronald Darby and Chris Casher — that all three witnessed her on her knees giving Winston oral sex — more than her own account.

"“The Sexual Assault Nurse notes some redness on [redacted] knees and the top of her left foot. She also noted brown bruises on [redacted] left knee and on her right elbow.”"

Redness on both knees and the top of one foot could corroborate the three players’ accounts. But the accuser claims she had her arms pinned down by a 235-pound man as she attempted to resist. Hours after the attack there was nothing to corroborate this beyond the mark seen to the right on her elbow– that bruise is listed as being brown. Bruises typically begin to brown weeks — not hours — after they occur. But even if it were fresh, that tiny brown mark on the back of the accuser’s arm is the only physical evidence that the she and her representation have ever provided to prove a 235-pound man forcibly held her down and assaulted her.

There is no follow-up exam, no photographs, nothing to corroborate the account further.

Here are the results of the physical examination in full (p. 35-39)

The Fix is In

Despite the fact that physical evidence supports Winston’s account far more than it does his accuser’s, the Times has pushed its “cover-up” narrative by undermining the investigation at all points.

In terms of timeliness, what police officers did fail to do was collect DNA from Winston for far longer than they should have. It was an egregious mistake. Again, that alone, doesn’t make Winston guilty.

It also doesn’t mean they lost anything irreplaceable.

That’s a myth that has nearly become conventional wisdom. The accuser was examined by medical professionals within hours of the incident. She met with detectives twice in the first day. They took evidence. They took samples. By 7:25 AM the morning of the 7th — just hours after receiving the call — the TPD had a rape kit, a toxicology kit and a pair of pink pants with DNA on them. And keep in mind at this point Winston’s name had not come up so there was no cover-up occurring. These aren’t tainted samples. This isn’t botched evidence. All of this was done by the TPD and the staff at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in a timely manner and in good faith.

Then the accuser broke off contact. This isn’t opinion, it’s fact. It’s in all of the reports.

And keep in mind at this point Winston’s name had not come up so there was no cover-up occurring. These aren’t tainted samples. This isn’t botched evidence. All of this was done by the TPD and the staff at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital in a timely manner and in good faith.

Over a month later she contacts the TPD and alleges it was Jameis Winston who raped her. This is when the TPD starts to drag its feet. It’s also when the second myth begins: that’s that the TPD didn’t take her seriously.

A more reasoned interpretation would be that they were skeptical. And they had reason to be. Beyond the fact police thought they were responding to a girl who had been bludgeoned over the head, at this point police were also aware that the accuser had deleted information from her phone and social media accounts before turning them over. Then she breaks off contact for a month before coming back and accusing a high-profile football player.

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.

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.

And as for getting stories straight, the State Attorney’s Office — which also investigated this case — turned up more evidence of the accuser’s attorney coaching witnesses than Winston’s.

So yes, the TPD did botch parts of this investigation. But the way it was botched and the way it is portrayed are miles apart. And the other side is not without its own indiscretions over the past two years.

Two Legitimate Clearances

The State Attorney’s Office — run by Willie Meggs — was portrayed as just another part of the corrupt good old boys club that runs Tallahassee by the Times. One needs only look at the way Meggs attempted to prosecute former FSU DL Travis Johnson to know that’s a strange way to characterize him. Johnson was charged with rape and was acquitted by an all-female jury in just 30 minutes. At the time many around the state faulted Meggs for charging him despite a lack of evidence.

Here, a decade later, we are led to believe he’s done a complete 180? And maybe he has. Or maybe the 15-page report put together by Investigator Jason Newlin — one that is hardly ever cited — convinced him that there actually just wasn’t enough evidence to support taking the accuser’s claims on their face.

Newlin covers everything, from the physical evidence to the messages on the accuser’s cell phone to the conflicting accounts of her friends. It isn’t widely reported that the accuser danced with Winston that night and gave him her number. It’s not widely reported that the text sent to the accuser by Winston was deleted before the accuser’s phone was turned over to police. Nor is it reported that she wasn’t drunk or drugged. Or that she asked a friend if she should go with Winston and then vanished when told “you can go.”

At what point does anyone just pause and ask the accuser what she thought was being implied by Winston’s invitation home? At their FSU Code of Conduct hearing the accuser said she failed to resist or voice opposition to leaving with Winston and his friends because she was just too scared. Winston’s attorney, David Cornwell, called this is the ‘seventh version’ of her story. Justice Major Harding — the second of the legitimate investigators to clear Winston — dismissed that account completely, stating there were ample opportunities to not enter the cab in the first place and that her behavior leading up to the decision gave every other indication.

"Further, [accuser] did not identify any evidence that you acted in a manner that would reasonably justify her developing such beliefs. The evidence is undisputed that people were present, but [accuser] did not seek help. This lack of evidence, among other things, is relevant to the charged violations of physical violence and endangerment."

So where does that leave us?

Well, two legitimate investigators — ones who have no conflict of interest here — have essentially cleared Winston. Jason Newlin is an investigator for the State Attorneys Office– he’s not even the one making the decision to file charges. His job is simply to investigate, which he did. His findings led Meggs to not pursue the case and — on their own — cast ample doubt on the accuser’s account.

You can read the whole thing (it’s just 15 pages) right here

Justice Harding was once the chief justice of the state supreme court. His reputation is apparently upstanding enough that the president of the Florida Bar Association, Gregory Coleman, came to his defense when the accuser’s attorney, Baine Kerr, said that “the fix was in.”

"“Major Harding, a former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court who presided over the FSU code of conduct hearing, is one of the most highly respected lawyers in Florida and in the United States. To say that he is anything but thoroughly unbiased and of the highest integrity is unacceptable.”"

The Times, meanwhile, refer to the former chief justice as “judge” in their most recent piece– a move that is at best a mistake and at worst a deliberate attempt to undermine his credibility.

In fact, the New York Times — nor the accuser’s team — have not provided one shred of evidence that either of these two have done anything to merit labeling them “corrupt.” There is zero evidence of impropriety on their end. But we’re supposed to just believe they’re in on this too?

Yes, according to the New York Times. Not because the evidence says so, but because it makes for a better story.

Rabble-Rousing Masquerading as News

What the New York Times released last night was not news– it was straight opinion. It was aimed at getting a visceral reaction from those who had already decided Winston was guilty. It’s scathing and is sure to drive in plenty of traffic. But Juliet Macur doesn’t make any sort of case for the accuser based on evidence. She simply refers to part of the transcript from the CoC hearing — not all of it, which would have provided a greater deal of context — and continues to take the constantly evolving account of the accuser on its face. Even despite glaring contradictions.

In two years Winston’s accuser has claimed she was hit on the head, black out drunk, drugged and then just too terrified to avoid getting in a cab with Winston and company. When that didn’t work the accuser’s attorney even accused the FDLE of testing the wrong blood.

But Macur doesn’t bother to go into any of that (and risk undermining the accuser’s credibility), she’s hung up on the fact Winston said that his accuser ‘moaned’ when asked by Harding how she showed consent. What she fails to mention is the physical evidence that goes along with that. Ignoring it certainly makes Winston’s remark sound more vulgar — vile even — but it’s only half of the story.

No, you can’t prove that the redness and swelling on the accuser’s knees and foot during her examination were indicative that she was engaged in giving Winston oral sex– as he, Casher and Darby allege. That’s not a smoking gun. But that’s still far more evidence — physical and otherwise — in favor of Winston’s account than the accuser can produce for hers.

And it is on her and her representation to prove their claim. This is still the US, it is still innocent until proven guilty. Or at least it’s supposed to be.

But the New York Times doesn’t want to spend much time discussing how the accuser and her attorneys waited for nearly two years to file a title IX complaint, then tried to fast-track the hearing. Or how they actually got to help determine who would preside over it.

No, at this point, with the implication that Justice Harding is corrupt, it’s best not to remind readers that the accuser’s team helped select Harding in the first place.

More from Chop Chat

Make no mistake about it, the deck WAS stacked. But it was stacked against Winston. The accuser pressured FSU by threatening a massive lawsuit and then got to trot into a hearing with no penalty for perjury and a lower preponderance of evidence required than a criminal proceeding.

If Jameis Winston’s accuser was really raped she had ample opportunity to prove it to an unbiased third party at this most recent hearing.

She and her attorneys didn’t.

The New York Times can spin that any way they want. It was a botched investigation. It was a corrupt judge. The school steamrolled her. Winston got off because he had a great attorney.

The last one is true.

But it isn’t why Winston won. He won because the evidence — the stuff that was collected hours after the events of that night, before Winston’s name had ever come up — was stronger for him than it is for her. There’s more physical evidence, Winston’s witnesses corroborate his version while his accuser’s contradict hers and Winston’s account has never changed.

It’s all plain to see if you actually take a look at the evidence. It’s all right here. Click it. Read it. Decide for yourself.

Just don’t take the New York Times’ word for it. Because there’s a lot they aren’t telling you.

TPD Report
State Attorney’s Report
Investigative Materials (pt. 1)
Investigative Materials (pt. 2)

Home/FSU Football

Here’s What the New York Times Isn’t Telling You

By Patrik Nohe | Dec 24, 2014

More from Chop Chat