Multiple witnesses can’t identify Kellen Winslow as their attacker

AP

The preliminary hearing has commenced in the criminal case against former NFL tight end Kellen Winslow II. As explained by FOX 5 in San Diego, the prosecution may have a problem.

Three of the unnamed witnesses who allegedly had interactions with Winslow under suspicious and/or criminal circumstances could not identify him in court.

Jane Doe 3, a 58-year-old woman, said that a man named “David” entered her property and “dropped his shorts and exposed himself.” However, she could not identify Winslow as the man who committed those acts.

71-year-old Jane Doe 4 heard about Winslow’s arrest while watching the news on TV in early June, and she thought he was the same man who had entered her home a day earlier. She could not confirm in court, however, that Winslow was the man she saw in her home.

Jane Doe 1, a 54-year-old transient, was lured into a Hummer and raped in March. However, she too could not positively identify Winslow as the assailant while testifying in court.

(Coincidentally (or not), the Kellen Winslow who appeared in court on Wednesday doesn’t look much like the Kellen Winslow we’ve become accustomed to seeing over the years. Instead, he looks more like Steve Urkel.)

Another woman who allegedly was raped by Winslow is expected to testify in court on Thursday. If she can’t identify Winslow, it could be difficult for the prosecution to convince the presiding judge that enough evidence exists to justify taking the case to trial. If the victims are unable to identify the attacker at trial, it will be difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

67 responses to “Multiple witnesses can’t identify Kellen Winslow as their attacker

  1. Unless I am missing something here, not sure why the court room is where each victim is trying to identify Winslow. Shouldn’t that be done in a line up in a police station with other people in the line up. I have watched enough shows that such identifications, even if he was pointed out would be thrown out.

    This is just a weird case.

  2. I commend these witnesses for telling the truth. However, it is well known that I witness testimony regarding identifying the perpetrator can be unreliable. I seriously doubt that the DA based the whole of their case on it. We will have to wait to see what other evidence they have, such as DNA.

  3. Looks like this could be another case of ridiculous prosecutorial overreach to try to get an NFL player’s scalp. Reminds me of the way the district attorney embarrassed himself by charging Ray Lewis with murder when all the witnesses said he didn’t do it.

  4. This is weird case. Correct me if I’m mistaken, but don’t they have the victims identify the alleged assailant before they get this far in the process? How do you get this far with out a positive identification of the suspect. If none of the victims identify him. A)There is still some creep roaming free that is raping women B)His reputation could have been irreparably destroyed for no reason

  5. It’s true, It’s very true and very typical for a defendant to completely change their looks. I’ve testified in two preliminary court cases against a ‘girl’ who is a known party animal when she drinks and smokes, but came to court accusing two of my friends of party-rape, dressed in one of her grandma’s moo-moos, granny glasses, hair pulled back and tucked and I almost broke out laughing.
    Luckily we had video and pics of her in a more natural environment and both cases never got to trial.

  6. Well, Clark Kent simply put on a pair of glasses and nobody knew he was Superman. Apparently it works in real life too.

  7. People are identified either on the scene, just after the fact (show up). if known to the person only 1 photo required, or if not known the person picks the person out of group of photos, or the victim looks through 1000’s of mugshots. Then there is the line-up. In the lineup, they have sheets on so only their faces are seen (contrary to what one sees on TV).

    In all my years as a PO/detective, I’ve never even heard of someone being identified in Court EXCEPT during a trial when the defense attorney asks the witness to point out the defendant (the man right there, wearing blue) the person is about to testify (or testalie) about.

    So I’m baffled too.

    Yes, they ALL change their appearance in court. They come in looking as different as possible. As choirboy as possible.

    PS: Re: Hard to prove reasonable doubt without a witness: Ya think? That’s when bail is rescinded and it’s then an open case, waiting for a witness who has not stepped forward yet or DNA we don’t know about or they don’t have (yet).

  8. 3 out of 4 so far🤔
    The DA IS 0 FOR 3🤔
    WITH WINSLOW BEING THE INLY ONEVTO CHOOSE FROM? 🤣
    TRAGICALLY COMICAL to say the least 😨

  9. I’m not saying it’s good for society as I think there is the possibility of a case of mental illness, but this was a good move by his lawyer to use against a bunch of old women who probably aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. Pretty sick if the allegations are true though.

  10. If this guy gets away with rape because he pulls a Clark Kent and put on some glasses, my already cynical view of the judicial system will be unrepairable

  11. There should be perhaps some DNA or video evidence….not to mention cell phone tracking that can put him at those scenes. Why aren’t they providing that type of evidence? And if they cannot identify him, how did we get all the way to court? Lastly, I couldn’t identify him with his “nerd” makeover. Good advice by the defense attorney to clean him up.

  12. john baxter says:

    Unless I am missing something here, not sure why the court room is where each victim is trying to identify Winslow. Shouldn’t that be done in a line up in a police station with other people in the line up. I have watched enough shows that such identifications, even if he was pointed out would be thrown out.
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Well during trial when someone is accused of rape or pretty much any other crime where a witness is providing direct testimony about something they saw someone do/commit the witness is asked to identify the person they saw. It’s not a good thing if they can’t identify him when they are accusing him of rape. That won’t be the deciding factor if there is other direct evidence but it definately weakens the case. If all they have is eye-witness testimony they could be in trouble.

  13. john baxter says:
    July 11, 2018 at 11:55 pm

    Unless I am missing something here, not sure why the court room is where each victim is trying to identify Winslow. Shouldn’t that be done in a line up in a police station with other people in the line up. I have watched enough shows that such identifications, even if he was pointed out would be thrown out.

    This is just a weird case.

    *****************************************************************************
    As someone (read: poor student) who once volunteered in the UK to be in a line-up (for the princely sum of about $20) and was subsequently picked out by the 3 witnesses to a house break-in, I can confirm that was enough to get the arrested guy off the charge.
    We were all given woolen hats to wear to match the description from the witnesses to resemble what they claimed to have seen, so it seems strange that prosecutors are not able to present evidence of the accused looking significantly different to his manicured appearance of today.
    Then again, if the gloves don’t fit…

  14. tylawspick6 says:
    July 11, 2018 at 11:57 pm
    lol
    +++++++++++++++++

    Thanks for that insightful view. It really made me see things clearer. You, my friend, have a way with words.

    🙂

  15. Didn’t they identify him in a police line-up? I can’t believe that he could possibly get away with this by throwing on a pair of glasses in court. Unbelievable.

  16. It was a Preliminary Hearing and only one aspect of the case. If indeed the only evidence to be presented is Victim/Eyewitness Identification, then this won’t take long. It seems possible , but highly unlikely that the only/strongest evidence Prosecution has is eyewitness Identification. AS some have remarked, Cell Phone Records and physical evidence would seem likely. If the Prosecution’s case is undone by a pair of glasses and a clean shave, there was no case.

  17. If he is innocent, then good for him to not have to go through a trial. If he did these things we will hear from him again as he obviously has a serious problem

  18. Holy crap, that’s him in the picture! I thought it was his lawyer. Of course nobody could identify that guy as Winslow. To even ask the question of a witness is laughable.

  19. He looks like a young fake me out Ben stein. WTH? What a creep! Have your ever seen this dude with hair? He’s been bald his whole life, did he steal bennsteins toupe’ Too? He’s also lost weight, this is crazy the transformation he’s gone through to confuse the women. But there is no denying he is still one creepy looking dude. Gives me the willies.

  20. firerogergoodellnow says:
    July 12, 2018 at 12:09 am
    They can’t identify the soldier?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    No kidding. I’ll never forget this clown saying that, when actual soldiers were losing their lives. Pathetic.

  21. zacmonte says:
    July 12, 2018 at 3:44 am
    I’m not saying it’s good for society as I think there is the possibility of a case of mental illness, but this was a good move by his lawyer to use against a bunch of old women who probably aren’t nearly as sharp as they used to be. Pretty sick if the allegations are true though.
    ———
    Two of the women were 58 and 54 years old. I understand that to a millennial that may sound like 158 and 154, but as someone closer to their age then you obviously are I can tell you that most people that age are still pretty “sharp”.

    *eyes rolling*

  22. Believe me, there’s nothing like sitting in the Prosecutor’s chair, even on relatively minor charges, and asking the victim to point out the perpetrator and hear your witness say “no, I don’t him in the courtroom.” It’s happened to me on misdemeanors and there’s not much you can do but roll your eyes and hope that witness no. 2 is going to save your case.

  23. mackcarrington says:
    July 12, 2018 at 1:26 am
    Well, Clark Kent simply put on a pair of glasses and nobody knew he was Superman. Apparently it works in real life too.
    —————————————-
    You win the lottery today

  24. Gees, this is pretty pathetic police work as usual if this is the case. The guy is facing life in prison and has a million dollar bond with this kind of evidence? Yikes.

  25. Casca’s friend says:
    July 12, 2018 at 6:03 am
    tylawspick6 says:
    July 11, 2018 at 11:57 pm
    lol
    +++++++++++++++++

    Thanks for that insightful view. It really made me see things clearer. You, my friend, have a way with words.
    ____________
    True….but it’s much better than his meltdown rants he usually has.

  26. “Jane Doe 3, a 58-year-old woman, said that a man named “David” entered her property and “dropped his shorts and exposed himself.” However, she could not identify Winslow as the man who committed those acts.”

    Why not have him drop his shorts in court….maybe she could identify him that way.

  27. How did they charge him with a crime if the witness says that a man with a different name committed it and she cannot identify Winslow as the suspect? It looks like the prosecutor thinks that Winslow is the only black person in that city to break into people’s houses.

  28. I thought it was a picture of his attorney. If that’s the way he showed up in court shouldn’t that be considered some form of fraud?

  29. Looks like Weird Al Yankovic’s White and Nerdy characters.

    He’s as innocent as OJ Simpson!

  30. My dad used that dodge when he was in the Navy as a volunteer defense advocate. Can’t they just show them the booking photo?

  31. Defense lawyers! Oh, never mind. How do they sleep at night when they”know” their client is guilty?

  32. The prosecuting attorneys involved in this case should all be fired if they walked into that court room knowing that every single one of the alleged victims could not testify to identify him. It’s the first question you would ask before anything. Visual identification can be difficult but ALL THREE? Really?

  33. He was identified early on in the process when he looked like his normal self and there is other evidence. This is the standard part where they put you under oath and ask you if the guy who committed the crime is sitting there in the courtroom. He can make himself look like Ben Stein and win this round but when they get to stuff like DNA and “why does your phone place you at the scene?” he’s going to have problems.

  34. Rob Brzezinski is a Magician says:
    July 11, 2018 at 11:56 pm
    That’s ridiculous that Winslow can completely change his look in the courtroom and these witnesses are supposed to point him out? Maybe the prosecution could show them a picture of what he really looks like?
    _____________________________________

    Reading comprehension must not be your thing. The article says he looks different than what we’ve become accustomed to, meaning he looks different than when he used to look like when in the public eye, such as when he was playing football. It does not say that he changed his appearance from the time he was arrested to the time he was in court. Big difference.

    Eye Witness testimony is scientifically proven to be incredibly inaccurate.

  35. thefiesty1 says:
    July 12, 2018 at 12:18 pm
    Defense lawyers! Oh, never mind. How do they sleep at night when they”know” their client is guilty?
    ______________________________________

    HOw do you sleep at night when you convict everyone before they’ve had their constitutional right to due process and a competent attorney? Under your system and thinking there would be tons of innocent people in jail.

  36. “Unless I am missing something here, not sure why the court room is where each victim is trying to identify Winslow”

    ———–

    A lot of times the prosecution will do it to show the audience (or judge), really. Helps them demonstrate or emphasize their point that the defendant is guilty. The women already likely did it at the station, because Winslow would not have been brought to court unless the police had recommended charges in the first place.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!