He's backed into a corner here if he lied. If there's no proof of intercourse it will be hard to prove sexual assault IMO. His lawyer refused to give his DNA sample, but if the cops want it they'll get it eventually.

 

Admitting to having some type of sex and then refusing a DNA sample doesn't pass the smell test. I wonder if Big Ben is worried about any other matches for unsolved sex crimes...

 

Does anyone have a link on the DNA refusal?

Refusing the DNA request is a dumb move from a PR standpoint on his attorney's part. It won't be all that hard for investigators to get a warrant to require him to provide a sample. So they get what they wanted in the first place and Ben looks increasing stupid and guilty in the public's eye.

He's backed into a corner here if he lied. If there's no proof of intercourse it will be hard to prove sexual assault IMO. His lawyer refused to give his DNA sample, but if the cops want it they'll get it eventually.

Where did you read that?

Where did you read that?

 

I've checked a good number of sites and none have mentioned a refusal. They all seem to imply that the authorities simply haven't taken a sample yet. In fact, most of them state specifically that the police "expect" to obtain one.

 

As I understand the law, authorities cannot demand a DNA sample until the individual has formally been charged with an offense wherein a sample can prove pertinent as evidence.

 

That being said, I personally think anyone would have guilty written all over their face if they refused to submit a sample previous to being formally charged with a crime. All the same...innocent until proven guilty.

Admitting to having some type of sex and then refusing a DNA sample doesn't pass the smell test. I wonder if Big Ben is worried about any other matches for unsolved sex crimes...

 

Does anyone have a link on the DNA refusal?

 

I've checked a good number of sites and none have mentioned a refusal. They all seem to imply that the authorities simply haven't taken a sample yet. In fact, most of them state specifically that the police "expect" to obtain one.

 

As I understand the law, authorities cannot demand a DNA sample until the individual has formally been charged with an offense wherein a sample can prove pertinent as evidence.

 

That being said, I personally think anyone would have guilty written all over their face if they refused to submit a sample previous to being formally charged with a crime. All the same...innocent until proven guilty.

 

I just heard on 1530 on the news report that one has been requested but Ben and his attorney have yet to agree to provide one. That was about a half an hour ago.

Heard on ESPN radio yesterday that the authorities have now dropped their request for a DNA sample. The comments from the attorney on ESPN were that you shouldn't read too much into this that if there was no sexual contact, a DNA sample wouldn't have any bearing. Roger Cossack, attorney that often comments on ESPN said that either this is really good for Ben OR it could be really bad, but without more information on the investigation, it was hard to tell.

 

Also heard from local radio sports talkshow host that the Pittsburg community was supportive of Ben with the first charge, especially being just a civil suit thinking it was just a golddigger looking for a big payday. But now, they are turning on him. Feeling that he has embarassed the city and the team even IF he is innocent. They feel that he is showing poor judgement by putting himself in these situations. The host was on ESPN and said he had never seen the Pittsburg community engulfed in something like this to this extent. Said that everyone had an opinion, and so far, none in support of Big Ben.

Another forensic guy says that it is more than likely a good thing for Ben that they didn't ask. Shows lack of evidence.

 

Forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht said the fact that police have declined to take a DNA sample from Mr. Roethlisberger means that it's likely there is no forensic evidence to back up the woman's claims.

"When you don't have any biological evidence, you have to decide whether you want to proceed with what the purported victim has stated," he said.

 

 

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10083/1045168-66.stm#ixzz0j7JBniJL

Who knows how this will go!! IMO it will all hinge on what the medical exam shows. In other words if there was any forced sexual activity. I would imagine that ESPN would like to skew it any way possible to boost ratings. Not saying that the analysis is wrong, just that those bunch of clowns aren't too accurate from time to time, by default I believe.

Heard on ESPN radio yesterday that the authorities have now dropped their request for a DNA sample. The comments from the attorney on ESPN were that you shouldn't read too much into this that if there was no sexual contact, a DNA sample wouldn't have any bearing. Roger Cossack, attorney that often comments on ESPN said that either this is really good for Ben OR it could be really bad, but without more information on the investigation, it was hard to tell.

 

Also heard from local radio sports talkshow host that the Pittsburg community was supportive of Ben with the first charge, especially being just a civil suit thinking it was just a golddigger looking for a big payday. But now, they are turning on him. Feeling that he has embarassed the city and the team even IF he is innocent. They feel that he is showing poor judgement by putting himself in these situations. The host was on ESPN and said he had never seen the Pittsburg community engulfed in something like this to this extent. Said that everyone had an opinion, and so far, none in support of Big Ben.

 

Nothing another Super Bowl can't take care off...

Heard on ESPN radio yesterday that the authorities have now dropped their request for a DNA sample. The comments from the attorney on ESPN were that you shouldn't read too much into this that if there was no sexual contact, a DNA sample wouldn't have any bearing. Roger Cossack, attorney that often comments on ESPN said that either this is really good for Ben OR it could be really bad, but without more information on the investigation, it was hard to tell.

 

Also heard from local radio sports talkshow host that the Pittsburg community was supportive of Ben with the first charge, especially being just a civil suit thinking it was just a golddigger looking for a big payday. But now, they are turning on him. Feeling that he has embarassed the city and the team even IF he is innocent. They feel that he is showing poor judgement by putting himself in these situations. The host was on ESPN and said he had never seen the Pittsburg community engulfed in something like this to this extent. Said that everyone had an opinion, and so far, none in support of Big Ben.

 

 

I am not apart of the Pittsburgh community, but I agree with your statement as a Pittsburgh fan. I still think the first one is just a golddigger, they have e-mails from the girl saying she is dating Ben months after the occurrence, along with a few other things, but I have not made up my mind on this accusation. I do blame Ben for putting himself in a bad situation...

Another forensic guy says that it is more than likely a good thing for Ben that they didn't ask. Shows lack of evidence.

 

Forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht said the fact that police have declined to take a DNA sample from Mr. Roethlisberger means that it's likely there is no forensic evidence to back up the woman's claims.

"When you don't have any biological evidence, you have to decide whether you want to proceed with what the purported victim has stated," he said.

 

 

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10083/1045168-66.stm#ixzz0j7JBniJL

Cossak was saying he would not read much in to it for the simple fact you request DNA for two reasons:

 

1) Trying to identify the perp. In this case, the accuser knows it is Big Ben.

2) Physical evidence most often used for rape cases.

 

On the second, remember, she is alleging sexual assault, not necessarily rape which many people believe is the only thing sexual assault means. While rape falls under assault, so does fondling, voyeurism, threat of rape, etc.

Cossak was saying he would not read much in to it for the simple fact you request DNA for two reasons:

 

1) Trying to identify the perp. In this case, the accuser knows it is Big Ben.

2) Physical evidence most often used for rape cases.

 

On the second, remember, she is alleging sexual assault, not necessarily rape which many people believe is the only thing sexual assault means. While rape falls under assault, so does fondling, voyeurism, threat of rape, etc.

 

I am sure there are many BGP people guilty of this... :isurrender:

Who knows how this will go!! IMO it will all hinge on what the medical exam shows. In other words if there was any forced sexual activity. I would imagine that ESPN would like to skew it any way possible to boost ratings. Not saying that the analysis is wrong, just that those bunch of clowns aren't too accurate from time to time, by default I believe.

 

I'm not sure there will be enough medical evidence to prove anything. From what I've read he admitted to sexual contact, but not intercourse. His claim was she fell after the sexual contact. I still think this girl really thinks she was wronged. I just don't know that what happened was illegal. If it was illegal I doubt it can be proven. Either way it's sad for the girl, but if nothing inappropriate happened it is really bad for Ben. He's labeled now and after the first one he wasn't really.

I am sure there are many BGP people guilty of this... :isurrender:

 

I for one am not guilty of sexual assault by fondling. Never have been and never will be.

How many games will the Commish suspend Big Ben even if the case is dropped?