All white jury convict black soccer player of rape.

Awww boohoo. Poor black man gets convicted of rape. I'll do my part by coming on my fav. BBS and posting the story.

This is as bad as posting police brutality stories every other day. If you really cared, you would have researched out on who we all can contact to protest this atrocity. But its easier to cry foul and copy n paste the story from a sports site. Im sure you will sleep better tonight that you did your part.

 

So I guess the fact you neither showed interest in the story or went out and did anything must reflect *really* badly on you.

 

Yes, im a really bad person. I think i'll spend the rest of the night online finding the thousands upon thousands of atrocities around the world and post them. I'll be expecting you to show interest in everyone of them.

Really though, I do feel bad for anyone who has been a victim of injustice, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, ect.. I choose not to jump on a bandwagon of people screaming racist based on a single journalistic piece.

 

Why, exactly, would the prosecutor, after a verdict of guilt, need to present the other side to the media as well? You generally won't read articles praising the jury for getting it right; that doesn't sell papers or ad space, does it? The entire case was public and was presented through the testimony of 32 witnesses. It included, apparently, DNA evidence and physical injuries to the victim. The defendant lacked a credible alibi, according to the story, and had sand in his clothing. The victim had genital trauma. And the whole article mentions maybe 5 or 6 of the 32 witnesses presented by the State.

This guy was represented by a good attorney who had a chance to cross examine every witness. He chose not to testify, which is his right and cannot be held against him, but by the same token, the jury can only consider evidence from the witness stand. They can't consider what he might have said. Without having heard the testimony of the victim, I can't say how credible she came off, but she might have been very believable. I can't say how credible anyone else came off. I don't know which of the 32 witnesses swayed the jury.

But I know this -- you have no way of knowing that the evidence in the case was "flimsy" based on the reading of these 2 articles. You weren't there, you didn't hear the witnesses, you don't know the full story. You don't have ANY evidence to prove that this jury was racist, other than their skin tone. All I know is that 12 jurors found this guy guilty of the one rape, and they were the only ones to hear all the evidence besides the judge, who apparently concurred with the jurors. You go ahead and side with the conspiracy theorists, believe that all 12 jurors were racists and wanted to convict the guy just because he's black, and I'll hold onto the belief that these jurors took their duties seriously and returned a fair verdict unless I hear evidence to the contrary.

 

Personally, I'm just really annoyed that a guy can get convicted based on an accusation of a girl who was drunk at that level.

 

http://www.metafilter.com/83341/The-People-v-Eric-Frimpong

 

So our options are to drop everything and show up in person and protest or not talk about it all?

Does that apply to you as well? If we look at your history, do you post about things that you don't go all out on? For instance, are you currently suing the US Government because you think they have and continue to violate the 10th amendment or do you just bring it up on your favorite bbs?

 

Again, playing the race card for no real reason. You post a one-sided piece from a writer about it and claim racism. I saw this story some time back and both sides of the case were presented. He definately does not come off as clean as you or this writer paint him. I was not on the jury so can't say for sure one way or the other, but their was plenty of evidence against him. Just because your fans and friends say there is no way you could do something does not make it fact. Most fans are half looney and it is your friends job to protect you. I don't remember exactly the details since it has been a while, but it seems like he had some of her DNA on his underwear or genitals and the guys who say he didn't do it claim it was because she grabbed his junk and he turned her away. Then she was raped after she left him. Someone can research and prove me wrong if I am, but that is the way I remember it. If nobody can find I will look up myself. There was definately evidence against him.

 

repped.

 

They found 2 of her cells on him which could have come from her sweat and would be consistent with his claim that she put her hand down his pants. Plus a trace under a fingernail could have come from scratching himself after she had grabbed him. Is this the evidence?

 

I love the whole, "i do know 12 jurors found him guilty" argument.

Well shut the **** up about OJ then

 

Who said anything about OJ? But I agree. If you stand behind this verdict then you must stand behind the OJ verdict.

 

In OJ, we watched pretty much the entire case on television. We knew far more of the OJ facts from the extensive coverage at the time than we know from 2 post-conviction reports posted here. We knew each witness and what they testified about.

Still, I understand that verdict. The prosecution did a very poor job of presenting their case and the lead detective showed a considerable amount of bias impeaching his work and calling the whole investigation into question. I believe he was guilty, heck, a 2nd jury found him civilly liable, but I can see why a jury found enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

 

but given the evidence presented in this article which seems to be poor, you've decided that the article is slanted and that the jury is probably right?

 

I'll rep for that.....if I could.

 

When has that EVER happened?

Rocket River

 

This sets the standard for every future post you make here. Nicely done.

 

No, given the evidence presented in the article, I could not form an educated opinion about his guilt. I didn't hear a single witness testify and I don't know what about 25 of those 32 witnesses testified about. I read nothing indicated any inherent bias with respect to those jurors. It would be hard for me to judge those people racist or disagree with their verdict, based on their listening to days and maybe weeks of testimony versus my reading 2 articles. I'd say they knew a little more about the case than I do.

My educated opinion is that news reporters often get the facts and/or the law wrong when reporting about criminal cases, based on the reporting of cases that I myself have tried. They don't have the legal background or training and they don't have the time to sit through the whole trial and get all the facts.

But what do I know. You probably know more about the criminal justice system than I do, pgabs, based on your years of experience in the field.