I didn't exactly follow the case, because frankly I don't care much. But I did just read the article, and not a single mention of any of the things you just mentioned were in the article.
Regardless of the what you said being true or not, if the article is not lying, the police royally fucked up in refusing to investigate the allegation because a whole lot of stuff would have been uncovered in the first few days and then we probably would know. Also, as I'm sure you can understand, just because a girl like to freak dudes, athletes or otherwise, does not mean she is not capable of being raped.
Nobody but Winston his three buddies who got the girl in the cab and the girl (supposing she wasn't blackout drunk, which it sounds like she wasn't) knows what happened that night. But I will say Winston has taken his first step towards becoming the Next Ben Roethlisberger (at least in the public eye, if not in reality).
im not impying Winstons innocence. im asserting the NY Times piece is a slanted view on it in favor of the alleged victim. what does the state have to gain by smearing a college students reputation? i can assure you what i did say was all true and i knew it before the investigation even took place.
whats proven is that the Tallahassee Police Dept botched the whole thing and dragged their feet, leaving any further investigation questionable. Once the state got involved though, all bets were off. Its easier to point at documented evidence of the TPD shitting the bed and then assuming the worst, and its even better for the NY Times view count.
The States office has nothing to gain by going public with all the circumstantial evidence that pretty much only reinforces inaccuracies in the alleged victims testimonies. it would also sully the girls reputation publicly only drawing out more drama .
if the TPD didnt drop the ball, the truth woudve likely been found. but theres a lot more to the case than what is purported in the NY Times artice. all we know is the girl had sex with Winston, and other men within a small time frame. but i can assure you a the circumstantial evidence i presented that definitely muddy the waters and supply a motive to suggest something other than rape occurred, is true.
essentially, much like the ruling said, there's not enough evidence to prove rape, and the facts and evidence that could be used to discredit the possibility of rape were left un reported to save the alleged victim of any further affect on her personal life.
besides i compared him to Big Ben before the allegations, as stated earlier in the thread. but yeah "statewide conspiracy to save a football championship" plays better in the NY Times than "promiscuous college students testimony had various inaccuracies and she might have been raped?"