This is exactly where the confusion is, no, just because there aren’t any marks does not prove r*** or sexual assault did not occur. However, regarding ‘down’ below’, there was vaginal tearing. So intercourse did occur. The issue is whether it was consensual or not. She was drunk, she said she didn’t want to do it, she didn’t have the capacity to fight it. This means she may have just gone limp and ‘let it’ happen, out of fear. That’s usually the way it happens. Most females get to the point that they get scared about the fact that the man may start beating the crap out of them, they just freeze or let their bodies go limp, thinking to themselves, ‘just let it happen, so he won’t hurt me, it’ll be over soon.’ It happens, but it doesn’t mean the girl wasn’t forced into sex. The problem is with the way the laws are written. In some states, he would have been arrested, just for the fact that she was drunk and he had sex with her. It wouldn’t have mattered if she said yes or not. It’s because those states know that there are predators out there, that purposely get women drunk so they can have their way with them in that capacity. These states recognize the fact that a woman is not in the correct mindset under the influence of alcohol to decide yes or no to sex. So, yeah, in a few other states, he truly would have been guilty. One of them, at one point, was his home state.

Also, the DA did not say there wasn’t any evidence, there wasn’t enough evidence. There is a difference! Also, what people don’t get is that the biggest reason was due to the fact that the victim didn’t want to pursue it. THAT is not proof nothing happened, this IS proof she wasn’t trying to go after his money, like everyone keeps saying. The reason she didn’t want to pursue is because she and her family realized she’d end up being further victimized by the system (the defense).
I believe he did it. The reactions of the victims are classic cases of how victims of sexual assault (can’t use the r word for some reason). I’ve stated this time and again, it isn’t the action of the perpetrator that tells the truth in these cases, it’s the reactions of the victims that are so telling. Ask any psychologist whom has dealt with these cases, or actually take the time to look it up yourself, or talk to a survivor, and you’ll see that these women are just that, survivors.

Intelligent people listen to all sides of an issue and adjust their opinions accordingly. The greatest sign of ignorance is refusing to change your beliefs despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary.”

I couldn’t have said that better myself. Thank you.

You make some “interesting” comments such as “This happened in a bar with a bunch of this young lady’s friends blah blah…” – If you recall, the incident occurred in a private area of the club (it’s interesting that the video tape was not confiscated by the police), the victim’s friends wanted to go back to where the victim was, and Ben’s “body guards” prevented this. So, with just Ben and the victim present for the assault – how in the world would you expect there to be witnesses – as I doubt Ben would provide evidence against himself? Seriously…

Here’s another comment “You position it as though a crime took place, no bones about it, evidence was lacking, so unfortunately they could not press charges… Sounds a lot like our American legal process”. If by tainting a crime scene, performing an improper investigation, and an ignorant officer – then yes, you’re legal system is truly working as it should be.

The whole point I was making above – and for gods sake’s at least read what I am writing and then absorb it before making any additional comments – was that the investigating officer did not do the proper investigation. This is clear by Blash resigning – did you read that part of my original post – or did you read it and choose to ignore that fact? How in the world do you expect a proper investigation to take place when the responding officer taints the crime scene?

My point, that apparently is not very clear – read and question what was reported. If an officer resigns due to their conduct on a crime scene – there must be something fishy going on. If the crime scene is cleaned up 12 hours after the crime occurs – question why that is happening, and finally if the officer is intimidating the victim during their original statement – question that as well.

Just because he’s a sports star – doesn’t mean he’s innocent but it also does not mean he is guilty. For instance, I believe Ben did not rape that woman in Nevada – based on the details that were reported. But I do believe he did assault this woman based on the details reported.