They were drinking at the bar. At one point, she was given a drink that, she says, made her feel funny. Let’s say that was at 12:45 am, if they left the bar at 1 am.
She hadn’t left for the hospital yet at 4:41 am. She left the hospital at 7:25 am. I don’t know about you, but when I’ve gone to a hospital emergency room I’ve had to wait before I was seen, not after I was seen. So say she had the urine sample taken at 6:45 am. That’s six hours after the drink that made her feel funny.
It seems to me if she had been drugged with GHB at the bar, the drug might have had time to exit her system by the time she had the urine sample taken.
I agree with @momofthreeboys that if the only drug she had had was alcohol, she does not seem to have drunk enough to become incapacitated. That’s consistent both with her statement-- she says shared five drinks, and then was given the one she says made her feel funny-- and with the BAC level at the time she was in the hospital.
She would have been drunk, but I don’t see that the level of intoxication she would have had would rise to the level of incapacitation, even if one accepts that some people who are drunk but not unconscious are incapable of consent.
In any case, she alleges that she never did consent.
This kind of discussion shows how important it is to be able to trust the process. People outside the process will never be able to judge the evidence as those actually tasked with the duty of judging must do. We don’t see the evidence first-hand, we don’t hear the testimony, and we have the benefit of hindsight. This is why I am always uncomfortable when people are sure that a jury, or a grand jury, or a judge, or a prosecutor, got some decision wrong–we don’t see what they see. But we have to trust that they are following the rules–and we need to have good rules.
The timeline for the victim’s story about being drugged is basically ridiculous.
Arrive at the bar at 11:30 pm and start drinking vodka. Leave in a cab ride for the apartment. Incident happens. Complainant is back at home at the dorm at 2:36 am and texting friends on the phone at that time. 2:36 am at home is AFTER getting dressed, getting a ride on the back of a scooter, after being aware enough to give Winston a false address (walk of shame concern maybe?), getting dropped off on a street corner (Winston is such a gentleman!!) and walking back to the dorm. Talks with friends and father until 3:22 am when 911 is called. Shows up in person at the police station at 3:45 am. Seems like a whole lot of stuff for a roofied person to be doing in a very short amount of time…
Negative tox test later at the hospital. A BAC test at the hospital (0.48) that is perfectly consistent with someone downing a bunch of high proof drinks in a short time period, getting happy but not falling down drunk, and then having it wear off over a few hours time. She says five drinks/shots, which almost certainly means six or seven. [Having worked my way through college as a bartender, I never heard a drunk person under-estimate how many drinks they had.] All the testimony (including that of her own friends) is that she wasn’t crazy drunk or out of control. The complainant also made a claim about being knocked out by a blow to the head, although there was no physical evidence of a blow.
A. One possibility is that this was a frosh gal who drank too much too fast and had a regretful humilitating experience as Winston’s booty call. Who was highly embarassed since she had a boyfriend at the time (who she’d had sex with earlier that same day). She blurts out a cover story while still drunk (rape!, drugged!, knocked out cold by a blow to the head!) and then was stuck with the tale once the friends, father and police got invovled.
B. Alternatively, some unknown person in the bar drugs the gal. No claim that Winston was the alleged drugger. The drug is some super fast onset date rape drug. A drug that also wears off quickly enough to allow the gal shortly thereafter to ride a scooter, walk home, communicate coherently in multiple ways with multiple people and also to avoid being detected by the tox screen a few hours later. I guess Winston really knows how to take advantage of a small window of opportunity. Which window some other guy created.
CF, I’ve always believed that GHB effects start about 15 minutes after ingestion and the effects wear off quickly 3-4 hours. I’ve always thought that it was detectable up to 12 hours in a urine test. For Rohypnol I’ve heard effects start about 1/2 hour after ingestion, the effects also last for 3-4 hours and is detectable in a urine test up to 72 hours.
I’m sure there’s tons of reference on this and I have access to a medical library but no time today to research - but here’s an easy read one. Table 2 is urine times for GHB (which is the most fast acting so the shorter detection time). But conventional medicine would still indicate a high probability that it would have been detected in her urine.
Somewhere it was stated that the police back figured from the BAC in the blood test to the time of the incident to determine she may have been at 0.08 or somewhat higher, but not incapacitated drunk. I did not see the time when the blood was taken on the lab reports.
However, her attorney argued that this could not have been her blood, since the tests were negative. It was re-tested and was her blood. I have not seen the attorney or any reports argue that too much time had passed for the levels to be detectable.
The drinks were shared among three people at the bar. The guy with the wrist band who was able to be served, the victim, and her friend. She did not have 5-6 drinks on her own. That is what she said in her statement. She said she was then given a shot by someone which was when she thought she was drugged and that was close to the time she left the bar.
Again, none of this means she did not say no and that he is not guilty. But unless this was a completely falsified test, seems to suggest she was not incapacitated. Remember, she did not know who Winston was at the time so the police would not have been covering up a crime by a football star.
If I had sex with a guy and had a different boyfriend, I would lie and say I was raped. I would have the police contacted. I would go to the hospital.
Have my dad drive to the hospital and freak him out.
Have a rape kit done on me and have strangers put things in my orifices. Get interrogated by the police. Report to the police when I figured out who the alleged rapist was. Watch the investigation crash. Watch how people who don’t know me on the internet trash me.
Well, if you were in the South a few decades ago, you really might do this if you were a white woman, and people found out you’d just had sex with a random black guy. I hope things have changed enough that this isn’t part of the issue, but I’m not so sure. The possibility that race plays a role in some of these cases makes me very nervous.
Sometimes things spin out of control. If it’s true that her friend called the cops and not her this could easily happen. We can’t know what actually happened.
Her friend not only called the police, but called her parents so her parents arrived the next morning. Like I said pages ago, I think she had her back up against the wall big time. I have every reason to believe she was traumatized by things that night - could be any number of things, including what the guys friends saw and what she did or by the wham bam thank you ma’am. I have every reason to believe that she felt used and abused. She had a right to file an accusation. I will not begrudge her that. If she lied, she lied to her friend who repeated what she said to the police…and then it was part of a record and maybe she began to believe her own story alittle or was simply too afraid to admit she’d hooked up with someone whose name she didn’t even know - boy oh boy I could have never, ever explained THAT one to my father…
We can only speculate about her motives. We can only speculate about what would have been on the videos.
But we do know that her claims to have been drugged, incapacitated and bonked on the head are not credible at all. The evidence indicates she was voluntarily intoxicated on alcohol but not incapacitated.
She might be lying. She also may not have any solid memory of the events due to her intoxication.
The judge decided the case before it started. 
This is not just me talking.