Three investigations did not find Jameis Winston culpable. At some point, the media at large will be left with that. Sports Illustrated's may be a start.
The media coverage of Jameis Winston has been so speculative and ignorant of the thousands of pages of publicly available documents and evidence, that this straight-forward summation of the history of the allegation by Sports Illustrated's Peter King was jarring to me this morning:
The one other point I feel strongly about is this: Winston never has been found to have sexually assaulted Erica Kinsman. Not by two legal investigations, and not in a Florida State probe of whether Winston violated the student code of conduct in his contact with Kinsman. The university retained retired state Supreme Court Justice Major Harding to find whether Winston was culpable in the case. Twice before Harding took the case, the legal system in Florida considered whether Winston should be brought to trial. Twice there was not sufficient evidence. When the case was put in front of Harding, the burden of proof at the university level was not as stringent as in the court cases. Harding did not find enough proof to support the sexual-assault charge against Winston. "This was a complex case, and I worked hard to make sure both parties had a full and fair opportunity to present information. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence has not shown that you are responsible for any of the charged violations of the Code," Harding said in his ruling. "In light of all the circumstances, I do not find the credibility of one story substantially stronger than that of the other. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses."
This is a she-said, he-said case. We don't know what happened between Winston and Kinsman. But I must say this: If three times a neutral party was asked to adjudicate this case, and if three times the neutral party came back without enough evidence to charge Winston to bring the case to trial, at some point Winston has to be allowed to live his life and pursue his livelihood.
Could it be that the media is going to begin treating Winston like it does white NFL QB Ben Roethlisberger, who also faced a sexual assault allegation which he denied (like Winston) for which he wasn't even charged (like Winston), because the prosecutor could not prove the charges or that a crime had been committed due to unreliable evidence and accuser accounts (like Winston)?
Winston, of course, still faces a civil suit, like Roethlisberger (who settled for undisclosed terms), but an unsupported allegation from an unreliable accuser is not mentioned every time Roethlisberger is discussed in the media like it has been with Winston for the last 18 months.
Perhaps Winston will be afforded the same freedom in the near future.
An influential columnist like Sports Illustrated's Peter King showing deference to the American justice system is a start.