All white jury convict black soccer player of rape.

People in Santa Barbara are too busy trying to act like they live in Malibu to usually care about these kind of things.

Pathetic Yuppies.



USCB is a party school to begin with. Nothing surprises me about behavior in Isla Vista.

Its a small college town. You have a small little town filled with drunk college kids, and you've got rapes, murders, etc going on all the time. Usually at parties.

 

Oh...I think it's more than just being black. He's black AND foreign.

 

Maybe he's a nice kid and some drunk college girl took him out to the beach and ****ed his brains out and then lied about if afterwards and said he raped her.

Wouldn't be the first time.


But then again, maybe the jury did its job and examined the evidence to the best of their ability.

 

lol. A guy rapes a girl, theres evidence, but because hes black and the jury is white, its racism, American society is amazing, if an all-black jury convicted a white guy, nobody would care.

 

What part of

"a woman with little memory of what happened that night because of a near-toxic blood alcohol level; that Frimpong's DNA wasn't found on the victim; that semen found on her underwear belonged to a jealous boyfriend, a white student who was never a suspect."

did you not understand?

 

I think that men of all colors are convicted of rape with that sort of questionable evidence all the time.

 

Since you're certain rape occurred, what, specifically, is the evidence in this case?

 

wake up......

 

The article is obviously biased. What did the prosecution present as evidence? The way this article reads, they basically said nothing except "Here is who we think did it, the state rests!"

There has to be more to this story.

 

Agreed. This story reeks of goofy one-sidedness.

 

Leave my basketball team alone and stay in your country... thanks

 

Doesn't justify overzealous prosecution, but HE did put himself in a pretty crappy situation being alone with a drunk chick he just met.

 

I'm just glad the media always get the facts straight about criminal cases. Otherwise, I'd think there was more to the evidence presented than the story lists. But thankfully they never try to sensationalize a story or leave out crucial facts. I'm just glad the guy was a high profile soccer star so that ESPN, that bastion of legal analysis that it is, could cover this for us.

Thank you, OP, for bringing this to our attention.

 

I live in the US brah.

 

I'm also glad that our system never convicts innocent people on flimsy evidence, and there is no history of racism within juries. Here's some additional info if anyone is interested. If anyone can find info presenting the other side, I'd definitely be interested:

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/24/story-eric-frimpong/


These safeguards failed to protect former UCSB soccer star Eric Frimpong from being convicted of rape, even though none of his DNA was found on the accuser; only semen from her boyfriend. The young woman, a 19-year-old freshman with a history of alcohol-induced blackouts, had a blood alcohol level between .29 and .34. At .35 you are at an anesthesia level where surgery can be performed.

...

One night in February 2007, Eric invited a fan of the team’s 2006 championship victory to his house to play “beer pong” and hang out with his friends. Though Eric and the woman separated, she later accused him of raping her on the beach below Del Playa. However, the evidence does not support her claim. She alleged a violent attack on the beach that left her covered in sand, yet the first person she saw testified he saw no sand on her. Eric had no scratches or abrasions on his body nor any sand on his black skin and hair. It was hours before she reported the alleged rape. When examined, she claimed to have been hit on the cheek. Given her extreme intoxication, she had little memory of what had happened. Sheriff’s Detective Daniel Kies repeatedly suggested facts to her, including that she was bitten. He allowed two of her friends who were also drunk to coach her during the interview. A swab taken much later of her cheek was negative for any DNA.

Detectives Kies and Michael Scherbarth did nothing to investigate what other males the accuser had contact with that night or when she last had sex with her boyfriend. The detectives found Eric the next morning, playing ping pong with friends. They requested he go with them without explaining the allegations or his rights. Eric’s friends asked if he needed representation, explaining he was from a foreign country and would not understand what was going on. Detective Kies lied, stating he would explain everything, then took Eric away and grilled him without explaining why. He didn’t explain his rights until Eric, obviously confused, asked what was going on.

Unlike his accuser, none of Eric’s friends were allowed into his interview. Eric politely answered all questions, allowed a search of his home and clothes. When they finally told him he was a rape suspect, he denied having sex with the accuser and volunteered a DNA sample. There was no presumption of innocence. They accepted the impaired accuser’s word. Eric was the only suspect, even after only the boyfriend’s DNA was found on the accuser that night.

After the publicity of Eric’s arrest, another girl surfaced who alleged a past sexual assault. On a mere accusation, the District Attorney charged “sexual assault” and portrayed Eric as a serial sexual predator. While acquitted of this false second claim, his case was severely prejudiced by it. At trial the prosecutor systematically excluded minorities and foreign-born citizens from the jury, depriving Eric of a jury of his peers. The prosecution hid exculpatory evidence by not revealing a dental expert previously consulted. They falsely told the court the second expert was used because he wasn’t charging a fee when he did in fact charge a fee.

The prosecutor disregarded the presumption of innocence and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt by saying that Eric had no alibi. During the course of the trial, a juror was arrested for DUI, an alcohol-related criminal offense; yet, in a case where alcohol intoxication was a major issue, the juror was not replaced. The jury asked to review the accuser’s and Eric’s statements. Only the accuser’s was read. Judge Brian Hill then told the jury it would take too long to review everything so they should just review what they had already heard. Eric was convicted two hours later.

 

Here's the much, much, much, much longer detailed version:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4300383

 

Oh whoops - that's the link from the first post. I just read the part that was posted and didn't realize it linked to the full story.