Where there's smoke, there's fire? Grrr

I'm getting very tired of hearing people say that phrase "Where there's smoke, there's fire" in regards to the Roethlisberger case. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing about the non-case period...

Let's be clear. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is a very valid phrase, at least in a couple contexts. The first is a natural - where you literally see smoke (or what you presume to be smoke - could be steam, too). If you investigate it you should know in short order whether there was actual fire or not. The second is when it comes to multiple allegations against a normal everyday Joe that has nothing extraordinary to offer his accusers.

It is not and can not be applicable in the case of multi-million dollar athletes / movie stars / politicians. These people have so much to offer an accuser just so the story goes away that it's worth making a false allegation against them.

And what better time to make an allegation against said multi-millionaire than shortly after someone else accuses them of the same thing??? Firstly, it makes your average everyday retard say "Where there's smoke, there's fire". Secondly, it softens a jury populated with the aforementioned retards and makes it easy for them to think "Where there's smoke, there's fire".

Hell, at this point, and since there are so many "Where there's smoke, there's fire" phrase loving folks out there, I'm thinking about driving to Pittsburgh, dressing up in drag, finding Ben, and then filing an accusation about him myself... You'll never even know I did thanks to rape shield laws - until you see my driving around in my pimped out Caddy...

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" right? I mean, three people who have all filed the same allegation - it has to be true now, right? Shit, I should be able to walk away with a cool million in hush money...

Uggh

To trade or not to trade?

Everyone in SteelerNation has to answer this question regarding Ben Roethlisberger: Do you want to see him traded or not?

If you've answered yes to that question, then hear this: Pittsburgh has had a bevy of very good teams since the end of the 80's and not a single one ended in a championship until Ben.

The excellent teams of 1992, 1994, and 1995 with O'Donnell under center excelled during the regular season and into the playoffs. But without a franchise caliber quarterback they failed to win the Lombardi. Those teams had some of the best defenses you'll ever see. Great running games. A host of versatile receivers. Still, it comes down to the QB not being able to make the big plays when called upon.

The great teams of the late 90's and early 2000's, including 1997 and 2001 with Kordell Stewart, also failed to win "One for the Thumb". Why? Stellar defenses, crushing ground games, and threats at wide receiver. What happened? The quarterback couldn't stand up to the pressure when needed.

The best record in Steeler history was recorded in 2004 at 15-1 with a young Ben on the field. However, that was mainly because of a dominant defense and unstoppable running game. When it came time for the then young quarterback to pull out a big win, he floundered.

Starting with 2005, and a now fairly seasoned Roethlisberger slinging the ball, Pittsburgh began to achieve greatness not seen since the 1970's. Same high-caliber defense and great ground game - but the difference was Ben.

Each year since the team has relied more and more on the throwing arm of Roethlisberger and less on the ground game. The defense is still dominant, but when it flounders Pittsburgh has a QB in Roethlisberger that can win the game on offense.

Pittsburgh searched every nook and cranny for an above average quarterback since 1983, throwing on the field the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, David Woodley, Bubby Brister, Neil O'Donnell, Mike Tomczak, Kordell Stewart, and Kent Graham. Most made it to the playoffs (thanks to their supporting cast members) - none got over the hump.

So ask yourself this - do you truly, truly want to go back to being "a game away" for the next 20 years or are you willing to put up with the unproven allegations and give the man a chance to make up for his bad judgment?

The 2010 season could very easily bring Pittsburgh a 7th Lombardi with Ben, or it could be another "one game away"

Can't prove wrongdoing? Burn 'em anyway!

I've read nothing today about the Roethlisberger case except how his despicable actions should lead to sanctions by at least the Steelers if not the league. Going as far as comparing him to Michael Vick and his inhumane acts and Pacman Jones littany of issues - and I'm growing tired of it.

This isn't about Ben - it's about being the accused, acquitted by the legal system, but being found guilty by the public.

Look, the detectives, lawyers, and DA involved in the case know very little for certain outside of the fact that she was in the bar at the same time as Ben. We, the public, know even less.

How can you possibly pass judgement on someone that a) you don't know personally and b) don't have any of the facts of the case.

To date, this is what we know:

1. A 20 year old girl was bar hopping with her college sorority sisters and drinking illegally.
2. Said girl was in the same bar as Roethlisberger approaching closing time.
3. Said girl had public interaction with Ben at some point throughout the night.
4. Said girl, highly and illegally intoxicated is escorted to a policemen by her sorority sisters and commences to tell him that she was not raped.
5. Said girl goes to the hospital for a rape kit
6. The evidence shows genital bruising and a surface laceration - but did not suggest rape.

That's it. Period. Nothing else is fact. Nothing else can be proven. So what is everybody basing the assertion of despicable acts?

Because Ben was in a college bar with girls and buying them drinks? Firstly, last time I checked there isn't a whole lot to do around that place, but I could be wrong. Still doesn't seem that terrible to me. Secondly, like I've said before, it's not his job to ID. Furthermore, you know how easy it is for girls to look much older than they actually are. I can give him a pass on this because she probably looked closer to 25 (at least 21 because she was allowed in to drink, right?).

Because Ben went into the bathroom with her? Firstly, no video evidence. It wasn't even exposed as to how many eye witnesses there were that saw them in there together.

Because it looked like she had sex? A) Ben said there was no intercourse (he could be lying, so could she). More importantly there was no evidence that Ben had any sort of sexual relations with her. She was out with her sorority sisters all night drinking illegally (and likely not spending much of their own money - ok, that was a cheap shot). She could have very easily had sex with anyone before meeting up with Ben. Hell, she could've tripped and fallen in her inebriation and hurt herself (not far fetched, I've seen it).

Do I know that any of those things happened? Nope, and I'm happy to admit it. So what's my view on the whole thing? Status quo, like before the allegation. I know nothing more now about the situation than I did before it occurred. I have no choice but to with the facts as we know them and those facts point to no wrongdoing and absolutely no need for this witch hunt...

Don't see it that way? Well, if you have a son, put him in Roethlisberger's predicament and see if you change your mind. Maybe if we all hopped of our high horses sometimes and let go of our unfounded outrage we could be more sound in our judgement.

UPDATE: Quote from DA Bright regarding Ben's buying of alcohol for an underage person:

He said of Roethlisberger: "The only way that we could prove the case (providing alcohol to a person under 21) against him, and I've looked at this myself, quite candidly is just through her testimony."

Apparently we now know even less...

One more thing

The 20 year old girl was described as "highly-intoxicated" and that Ben could have been charged with a misdemeanor for supplying alcohol to someone under the age of 21. Couple things:

1. It's not the job of a patron of an establishment to ID - that's the job of the owner. The bar should be cited.
2. Why isn't this girl being cited for underage drinking? My underage drinking citation that I've talked about occurred when I was over 20, but not quite 21 - and yes, I'm still paying for it.

Maybe when the cop gave me my ticket in 1993 I should have said that I was sexually assaulted by Phil Collins in a port-o-john at Three Rivers Stadium, later drop the charges because I couldn't prove any of it, and could have gotten out of it.

If only I had a vagina and the will to work the system. But alas, I have neither...

He said, she said - no charges filed

As it turns out - and probably as it should be - Roethlisberger will not be charged with any misconduct in regards to the allegations made by the 20 year old in Georgia. This article from the Post Gazette goes into a little more detail about the findings.

Oddly enough - we still don't know what the girl truly alleged, outside of "they had sex" and not that she was "raped". Shouldn't that be made public domain in the same way that Ben got dragged through the mud? She later changed her mind that she was in fact raped and it wasn't consensual? I'm sorry, you can't say no after the fact - at least not yet...

Another oddity is that the did find "male" DNA but not enough to make a DNA profile. Ok, so if they did have sex - which Ben says they didn't - where did the rest of the "male" DNA go? A typical male ejaculates around a tablespoon of semen of which just a fraction would have been enough for a DNA profile (considering sperm carries millions of copies of the owner's DNA). It would've been trivial to match the DNA to Roethlisberger.

Add to that that the woman later sent a letter to the DA asking them not to file charges and it tells me this: The girl had sex, but it wasn't with Ben. And when it came time for the defense to really start probing into the accuser's actions that night she didn't want the truth to come to light. Remember, Garland (of Ben's defense) did his own investigation and provided that to the DA as well. What was in it we may never know, but I would imagine it had something to do with the accuser not wanting charges filed.

Rape is a despicable act. One that is so terrible that it affects the life of the victim forever. Rape, at least in regards to an adult, should be clear cut. Either you were raped or you weren't. Was it consensual or was it not. Yes, she was inebriated the night in question, but she was lucid enough to speak with the police and to go to the hospital - during which time she said that she had not been raped. Not until she had time to think it over did she determine that she had been raped. I don't really see how it can work that way, but that's just me.

In the end it appears to be another case of hindsight money-grubbing... We'll see if she tries the civil suit route next...

Regardless - Ben, get your head on straight and pay a prostitute. We get it. You're rich. You're a jock. You're popular. You're horny. No biggie. Give your money to the oldest profession and stay out of trouble. This may be your last chance.

Have you had yours today?

Lol - sorry, one of my favorite photos... When I worked at Nationwide years ago I thought this was so comical that I brought this into work one day... It turned into a trophy for whoever screwed up the most that day. As immature as it is, it gave us all a good chuckle. It's still floating around Nationwide - too funny

Civil suits = get rich quick schemes

What the hell is it with all of the civil suits lately?

It's ridiculous to me that a person can't bear the burden of proof in a criminal court but still wants monetary damages awarded from a civil court.

Take, for instance, Santonio Holmes current situation. Supposedly he throws a glass at a woman that wouldn't get out of his seat at a nightclub. Sounds like a pretty cut and dry criminal case to me - physical damage is present, tons of witnesses, cops on the scene. But the woman alleging this declined to press charges. Instead she chose to file a civil suit the very next day.

This article on ESPN goes into detail on the ordeal. The most telling piece of this is in these paragraphs:

Holmes denied touching Mills and said another woman threw the glass that hit Mills in the face. After both Mills and Holmes were escorted out of the nightclub, Mills asked the police officer if she could speak to Holmes alone, the police report said.
Holmes agreed to speak with her and they walked several feet away. The police officer saw Mills smiling and rubbing Holmes' face, according to the police report.

What does this say to me? It shows that this woman more than likely wasn't hit by Holmes - at least she didn't feel comfortable in possibly making a false criminal allegation and possibly being in legal trouble herself if it came to light. Then, after a night to think it over and untold messages and calls to her girlfriends, she decides to file a civil suit.

Why? Because you can allege whatever you want in civil court with almost no ramifications. It's a win-win situation for her. You don't need nearly as much supporting evidence for a judgement, and more importantly if it is found out that she's making false allegations she will not be criminally liable. In essence, either she wins a boatload of money or comes out of it with what she had going into it.

What does Holmes get out of it? Either way it goes he's in trouble with the Rooney's, the media and public are tearing down his image, and he's been publicly embarrassed.

It's a messed up world in which we live when the allegation alone is enough to irreparably tarnish a person even when proven to be false...