Both are true though.
He was alleged to have raped someone (again). He was neither acquitted or indicted, so alleged is still accurate. Poor police work (like failing to secure the crime scene, and the video recording of the evening from the bar) generated to much reasonable doubt for the DA to be successful prosecuting. That is not that different than stupid policemen in the OJ case creating the reasonable doubt that set OJ free.
Total supposition on your part. You are also playing fast and loose with some facts and terminology, which surprises me because you're usually pretty knowledgeable with legal stuff.
You can only be acquitted when a case goes to trial and you are found not guilty. Since Roethlisberger was never indicted, there is no trial, so he cannot be acquitted...he was never charged with anything in the first place. Therefore saying 'he was neither acquitted or indicted', is nonsense.
If you want to assume Roethlisberger is guilty as sin but the DA blew it, you go right ahead. That's your opinion. Things like this tend to fall along party lines (in this case, what team you root for), and this thread is no exception.
The facts state Roethlisberger was never charged with anything, so assuming he's a rapist is just as ridiculous as assuming nothing happened. Which is what I said.
Nobody knows what happened, but if you want to make up your own scenario based on a lot of hearsay, you go right ahead.
Sandra
Last edited: