Big Ben accused of sexual assault

So he can just refuse to submit to testing and that's that?

this is a total mess for big ben. to me this sounds like some fooling around went a little too far. whether he is guily or innocent he really needs to try and settle this out of court as soon as possible. but what ever happens his reputation is down the toilet.

So he can just refuse to submit to testing and that's that?

No, he can be compelled if there is sufficient evidence, but it requires a warrant.

In your experience, do you think that they will get one?

Because Ben's lawyer Ed Garland pretty much said that they were not going to consent to a sample....

Didnt Rothlesberger provide DNA the last time he was accused of sexual assault? If so, having his DNA on file with the government shouldnt be a concern. Hasn't he already admitted to having contact of some sort with his accuser? So how would any additional prejudice be created by providing a DNA sample here.

I can only think of a few possibilities:

1) His lawyer simply doesnt want to be overly cooperative. If they really want his DNA and the feel they have evidence, then the prosecutors SHOULD get a warrant. (However, I personally feel if you have nothing to hide, then why not be as cooperative as possible in an effort to clear your name?)

2) Rothlesberger admitted to having contact that did not constitute intercourse with the woman. If the woman shows evidence of being raped, then Rothlesbergers argument could be that someone else did it. However, if he provides his DNA and it matches, it would prove Rothlesberger is either lying about the nature of his encounter or he actually committed the crime he's being accused of.

3) Rothlesberger's DNA has never been taken by the government before. He doesn't want it on file because it could end up being a match to some other, as yet unprosecuted crime.

In your experience, do you think that they will get one?

Because Ben's lawyer Ed Garland pretty much said that they were not going to consent to a sample....

Ya know, I haven't got a clue. I would say, if they have enough to file a charge, then they would probably have enough to get the warrant. Other than that I don't know. Seems like if he admits to consensual happenings and isn't denying the act but only the consent, then why would DNA even matter?

And for the record, I am just going off of what's on the news, and basic knowledge, I'm not a lawyer or have any such experience to give substantial backing to my thoughts.

Didnt Rothlesberger provide DNA the last time he was accused of sexual assault? If so, having his DNA on file with the government shouldnt be a concern. Hasn't he already admitted to having contact of some sort with his accuser? So how would any additional prejudice be created by providing a DNA sample here.

I can only think of a few possibilities:

1) His lawyer simply doesnt want to be overly cooperative. If they really want his DNA and the feel they have evidence, then the prosecutors SHOULD get a warrant. (However, I personally feel if you have nothing to hide, then why not be as cooperative as possible in an effort to clear your name?)

2) Rothlesberger admitted to having contact that did not constitute intercourse with the woman. If the woman shows evidence of being raped, then Rothlesbergers argument could be that someone else did it. However, if he provides his DNA and it matches, it would prove Rothlesberger is either lying about the nature of his encounter or he actually committed the crime he's being accused of.

3) Rothlesberger's DNA has never been taken by the government before. He doesn't want it on file because it could end up being a match to some other, as yet unprosecuted crime.

well said, those seem like the 3 most likely options, only #1 would be possibly favorable for BR.

I doubt he had to give DNA in the last one since no criminal charges were filed, only civil if they even were.

but what ever happens his reputation is down the toilet.

Along with his DNA presumably. :)

Well it's questionable if Roeth has common sense

It was a misake IMO for him to admit to the police his involvement to any extent. This is not his first time dealing with law enforcement, he should know what not to say. They're trying to decipher what happened between the time of any advancement on his part, and the time she fell and hit her head.

Ya know, I haven't got a clue. I would say, if they have enough to file a charge, then they would probably have enough to get the warrant. Other than that I don't know. Seems like if he admits to consensual happenings and isn't denying the act but only the consent, then why would DNA even matter?

And for the record, I am just going off of what's on the news, and basic knowledge, I'm not a lawyer or have any such experience to give substantial backing to my thoughts.

credskins, your on point. they would need a warrant to take a DNA sample from ben unless he consents. of course, logic dictates that if they want a sample from ben they must have some dna fluid on the alleged victim to compare it to.

im guessin he was gettin head, (something happens), she hits her head.