Ben Roethlisberger Accuser Declines Second Interview with Police
Another day, another blow to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation case against Ben Roethlisberger.
Tuesday night, it was reported that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has withdrawn its request for Roethlisberger's DNA. And that was only the start of their trouble.
It was reported on KDKA.com that the accuser has refused to be interviewed by the police again.
There are many reasons as to why the prosecutors would interview any accuser more than one time. It may be to see if there is any additional information that they remember and to make sure that their story is the same one from the initial interview.
For the accuser to refuse to be re-interviewed, the case against Roethlisberger could be over soon.
Sources say that the accuser failed to show up for an interview last Tuesday, and as of last Friday, still did not come in to be interviewed.
As Pittsburgh area defense attorney, Robert Del Greco stated, "Well they would have hit a brick wall."
Del Greco says if the victim does not cooperate, the case falls apart.
"Bottom line is no cooperative victim under these circumstances, probably no crime," he said.
On the story from profootballtalk.com, there is speculation that a settlement between Roethlisberger and his accuser could have already taken place. Even if the accuser was more concerned about her civil case, a conviction in a criminal case would all but guarantee the victory in the civil case.
Either way, it appears that the case against Ben Roethlisberger could be coming to a happy ending for Big Ben, the Steelers and Steelers Nation.
Information from this article is courtesy of KDKA.com and profootballtalk.com.
UPDATE: It was just reported on ESPN2, that weeks prior to this incident, the accuser had a fake ID confiscated by the night club. On the night in question, she was 10 times over the legal limit for someone that is under the age of 21.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?