If he was found not guilty of fondling her, can't we at least blame her for making a false accusation of sexual assault? Sure, he was still a total a**hole for the other things he did, but seems like she maybe took it one step further by accusing him of something he didn't do. And yes, I understand there is a very big difference between being not guilty and innocent, but still....
Not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it or that she made a false accusation. It means a jury couldn't convict without some doubt. It came down to a "he said / she said". Not enough evidence.
No, we pretty much know all of that. She made an accusation, which none of us have the right to judge her for. The jury determined that she did not provide enough evidence to support a conviction, though.
As another person said. Dixon was probably told he would be have random drug tests conducted and he then proceeded to fail one of these, therefore he got the boot. Which in my opinion is the right thing to do.
They interviewed one of the jurers on the news and basically he said something to the effect that given the conditions in the bar at the time the jury did not feel that there was any way she or anyone else could be sure who did what to whom. Pont being that if they felt she could not be sure and we've not been told there was any other evidence he walks.
One average lineman, who has trouble keeping healthy, will not make much of an overall impact on how the line plays as a whole.
I guess you didn't read my post. I clearly stated that there is a difference between not guilty and false accusation, but as far as we know, false accusation is just as likely an explanation as not enough evidence. Why are you assuming it was a "not enough evidence" explanation instead of a "false accusation?" Is it because it is a Nebraska football player?
What's even worse is eating your lunch while scrolling huskerboard and coming across that picture. :ahhhhhhhh