1.) We don't know what happened for real, b/c the fact the cop was his friend and the we have 2 narratives.

The cop was involved on the domestic abuse charge that occurred at the birthday party. The sexual assault charge was a different incident months latter. The police officer was not present at the second party.

2.) Were the tapes released? I was under the assumption they weren't and they had sex.

So, if you look at page three of the warrant, it specifically details the home security system because McDonald told them to search it to see that the sex was consensual. "Police executed a search warrant on McDonald’s home the day before the 49ers released him. McDonald told authorities that the entire incident was captured 'on his internal video system and was on his DVR in his room.'" Source Would you prefer more careful language like "So far, prosecutors have declined to press any criminal charges after reviewing video evidence in the case."

3.) "She was out cold for 8-10 minute"

That was based on her own civil lawsuit. "That she suffered a traumatic brain injury, including a loss of consciousness for more than eight minutes." You are absolutely right that more than 8 minutes could also mean anything more than 8 minutes. That isn't the plain meaning of the statement, however.

If you're going to argue this, don't make definitive claims that he's the one who's abused and she's the abuser, or he wasn't the rapist. We don't know.

They had sex several times the next day. They went to the store together to buy vodka and cranberry juice the day following the day. Source No criminal charges have been brought after reviewing the security tapes. At what point, do you believe it is acceptable to make assumptions? You were right that I am drawing an inference about his innocence based on her behavior, the prosecutors behavior, and the Bears behavior.

But all these cases adding up isn't making me believe him.

All these cases adding up? That is just code for "I already know what happened."