At Kappa Alpha Theta, the scene of the alleged rape, again no evidence supports that Venice was there. The victim originally told the responding police that she woke up to find two men in the room with her. She did not get a good look at their faces but recalled that the man farther away from her wore a white shirt while the man closer to her wore a hat, a maroon shirt, and khaki cargo shorts. According to other witnesses Schott was wearing a white shirt while Venice was wearing a light grey to blue shirt and jeans that night. DNA evidence proves that Schott was there but not so for Venice. However part of the DNA that was found did not belong to either Schott, Venice, or the victim.

After the trial both the defense and prosecution stated that they beleive that it was the victim’s testimony alone that led to his conviction; however, her testimony is not credible. Like I said, she first told police she could not recall any details of the men she saw. Days after the incident and after Schott admitts that he was one of the men she then claims Schott was the man next to her and suddenly the man farther away has spiky blond hair. Then a year later she points to Venice saying that he’s the other man and that she could never forget his face. She now claims that it was Venice who was next to her with his pants down and that she could clearly see his legs. Even though she said she could see his legs clearly she testified that she saw nothing remarkable about them and that nothing stood out. Venice has a bullet-bandolier tattoo around his thigh, it can’t be missed and is the first thing one notices about his legs. The growing details from each of her new claims is a disturbing red flag that her testimonies lack credibility. Even weeks before the trial when under questioning from both the defense and prosecution she admitted she was uncertain that Venice was the 2nd man. Never before the trial did she make the claim that she saw either of the two men with their pants down. Much of the details she tesified at court were never part of her previous statements to police. One police officer who responded to the scene of the alleged rape commented that the there was little to go by the victim’s report. She told police she was uncertain if she was touched and that she felt fine, only going to the hospital after police insisted that she go for a rape exam just in case, the results of which were negative. Although evidence supports she was inappropriately touched and that it was Schott who did so, there is no evidence that she was raped.

From what I have read about this case I have come to the conclusion that the charges held against Venice have no foundation and are largly built on speculation. Evidence to support the accusations of these crimes is absent and testimony for these crimes is questionable because of weak credibility.

I know she was arrested for “distributing obscene material” but as far as I know she never sold or had anything to do with shit that was illegal (beastiality, kiddie porn, violent rape videos, etc…). Some of them Florida counties are still living in the 1920s…

The outpouring of support this guy g ot in the industry was disgusting. I’ve seen unfortunate things happen to the women in this industry and people in the biz come on these boards and say how stupid they are and they are getting exactly what they deserve. But this guy pulls this shit and they want to drum up support for his legal fund, now we are supposed to petition too!?? Are you kidding me??!

Were were all the empowered feminists pornstars in the industry while this was happening. You would think at least one of them would say something.

Second of all, he didn’t go to WSU just to “check out the scene”, we all know he is an arrogant douchebag constantly bragging about his pornstar status and thinking any girl will fuck him.

Third of all, Jack and his new “friends” were breaking into sororities thinking they could have sex with them. Why? Because Jack put them up to it and they went along! Naturally Jack is the most guilty, the other guys were younger adults that were more naive than Jack..not less stupid as NOBODY is more stupid than D-Bag Jack.

Fourth of all, Jack was identified by the victim. Jack was also identified as the rapist by his new friend Kyle. Why? Because that’s what actually happened! The truth came out. Kyle handed a condom to Jack and Jack assaulted the girl.

Fifth of all. Jack got a stiff sentence. Why? You can’t go breaking into houses and assaulting college girls. They will fuck you up man! The girls, the cops, the local legal system will fucking lock you up and throw away the key!

Finally, Jack got what he deserved. He was out of control. He was your typical uneducated oversexed egotistical douche-bag. The kind you find in ex-marines who think their the King of the World. Even his girlfriend got back at him for being a douche-bag, that’s how much of a douche he really is.

Thankfully, the justice system has taken the rest of Jack’s 20′s and at least half of his 30′s away from him. Jack will get out in a few years, maybe on some technicality or maybe a parole. This is designed to do one thing: To keep this douche-bag from breaking into houses and assaulting young girls.

I think Pullman, Washington has a beautiful justice system and I think it works.

So my questions would be:

1. Why was Jack there? What production company was he shooting a movie for in Washington St? It makes a bit of difference to this story if he went to do a specific movie and he was being shot by someone or was he the shooter? What female talent was he working with up there? If he was up there to shoot his own material it changes the ” ohhh I was just up there to shoot a couple movies and decided to take a road trip” story substantially. I’d like to know the style of the content or if the 2 movies in question were ever released. Not that there’s anything illegal about going around shooting your own content (or if thats what he was even doing), it just changes the context of the story a bit from the perspective of why he might have been in Pullman. Again, this point only speaks to his stated purpose for being in town and if it was truthful. If he wasn’t truthful about that its hard to believe the rest.

2. Why can’t anyone step forward and say he was somewhere else at the time this all took place? After admitting to breaking into “other” homes with his new friends where did Jack go before he alleges ” they” broke into the final house without him? Did anyone see him in a different location?

3. Why would the victim want to see the one guy that didn’t do anything still in jail, but the people that actually committed the crime out free?

Im not saying that Jack is guilty or that I wouldn’t support a new trial if thats warranted in his case. But I do know from personal experience, ( I had an uncle that got out of jail last year for a drug conviction in the 80′s) that guilt or innocence has little to do with a prisoner working every possible angle to get out as soon as possible. The uncle I mentioned above was still trying to prove his innocence only months before walking out of federal prison.

He was guilty.