All white jury convict black soccer player of rape.

Why wouldn't anyone present the other side? There are plenty of investigative journalists / investigative blog types out there, representing all spectrums of views. With all the publicity of this case, you'd think one of them would lay out the case for guilt - they'd be widely cited by people like us discussing the case.

That's certainly true. I guess that would apply to virtually every topic discussed here. We're not inside any of the political meetings. We're not in Congress when we discuss a congressional decision. We're not in Iraq or Afghanistan, so we couldn't possibly have any opinions on those, right? Perhaps we should just shut the D&D down since there are no topics we have 100% of the information on.

Meanwhile, outside of lalaland, we do know the following:

* She was extremely drunk and admitted to not remembering the incident
* There were no witnesses that placed him there at the time
* At least one witness said her appearance didn't fit her claim of what happened
* There was no DNA evidence linking him to rape
* The prosecution lied about the reason for using a witness and withheld evidence from the defense
* The victim was interviewed with friends present helping her
* The prosecution didn't pursue any other leads

Unless you believe all the journalists are outright lying about the known facts of the case, at the very least, that suggests that there might reasonable doubt. That makes it more than simply a bunch of "conspiracy theorists".

Was this a closed trial? No one besides the judge, jury, and attorneys were allowed in the courtroom?

I didn't side with anyone - in fact, I asked for someone to present the other side. You hold on to whatever belief you want - just know that you're as guilty of making assumptions as the people you're griping about. You continue to believe that juries never make mistakes and that prosectors never try to do anything unethical. The rest of us who live in the real world know that's not true, and realize it doesn't require a conspiracy to have questions about the case.

 

And we know, with hard factual data, the legal system does convict people wrongly. Though here, you seem to be more than happy to give the legal system the benefit of the doubt, but assume the news industry messed up. Given that you weren't inside the news room, don't know who all they interviewed, or how much corroboration they have, it's interesting you are more than happy to presume them guilty of messing up, but presume the court got it right. And anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist.

 

certainly no more than you do about the infallibility of the news media


edit: the other thing about your comment is that I haven't made one comment on the criminial justice system, my comment is on how people find it convenient to accept the criminal justice system as perfect when they want to.

 

There was DNA evidence!!! They found her DNA on his genitals and as someone else pointed out, under his fingernail also. If he had no part in any of it, then how did it get there? I guess you could go with his story that she stuck her hand down his pants and he pushed her away, then got her DNA under his fingernail by scratching his junk. This is not a cut and dry, no way to link him to it case. She says he did it, and they found her DNA on his genitals. Regardless of his or the jurors color, most probably get convicted in this situation. Many get convicted on much less.

 

A jury of 8 white women jurors. The evidence seems flimsy.

 

Did they find any of his DNA inside of her. It was stated in the artical that the only semen found on the vicitm was a boyfriend.

(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.)

 

Other topics don't involve a debate over whether there was enough evidence presented without, in fact, knowing the entirety of the evidence presented. It's nonsensical.

There was DNA evidence, as T-man said. There were lots of witnesses. You're right, the article does suggest that there might be reasonable doubt. But without knowing what else was presented to the jury or knowing how credible the witnesses appeared, I couldn't be sure. I guess I keep coming back to that. You're ready to jump to conclusions, I'm just saying that there could be other explanations for the jury's verdict other than bias. Like maybe the evidence, in total, look worse than the snippets we've read.

No, of course not. But were these reporters in the courtroom for the entire trial? It's very rare that media are there for the whole thing. They often pick and choose.

I believe neither of those things. I know juries make mistakes. I know prosecutors do too. I'm saying that right now, I don't have enough information to go on. I do believe in the jury system in general, and believe they generally end up with the right result. I know there are times that is not true.

I also believe that you put words in my mouth that I never said in order to bolster your argument, and I think that's beneath you.

 

Wow, amazing how so many people lack simple reading comprehension. Not so amazing when you think about how a person's deep seeded bias and value system causes them to completely lose the ability to comprehend basic English and hence basic reasoning.

Everything SamCassell has said so far is pretty classic and telling, but I find this the scariest.

 

My non-educated opinion is that 90% of USCB girls are party sluts and most of them end up raped and don't even remember the night before.


And to quote the late great Johnny Cochran... "If it ain't his spunk... the case is junk!"

 

I agree we don't know all the facts about this case. I'm inclined to feel that this was a miscarriage of justice but without knowing more of the facts I'm not sure.

That said if this is true from the article that Major cited
[rquoter]
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.
[/rquoter]

Wouldn't that be prosecutorial misconduct and grounds for overturning the conviction?

 

Isn't reasonable doubt the standard of determining guilt or innocence?

I agree with you that we don't know all of the facts of the case or how it was presented but at the sametime given what we do know don't you think there is a very good possibility that this was a mistaken if not wrongful conviction?

Also if I recall you are a DA or work for one. What is your take on the quote from Major's article that the DA hid exculpatory evidence?

 

12 Black men on a jury? Maybe never.

The one Jury selection I went to, the accused was a black man. One black woman ended up on the jury, one white man, and 10 white women, one of them I knew had her mind made up already that he was guilty. I was thinking I'd have to fire my lawyer for allowing the prosecution to include that lady.

 

This thread is called Debate and Discuss where we debate and discuss controversial topics.

 

There are people convicted on the testimony of a single witness, especially in rape cases. And in every case you'll hear some conflicting testimony. Again, I don't know enough about this victim to know how credible she came across. But certainly there's always a possibility of a wrongful conviction. I'm not prepared to say that took place here, but obviously a court of appeals will take a look at the evidence presented, in total, if it hasn't already.

Absolutely, as you said, if the prosecutor hid evidence, the defendant should be given a new trial and the prosecutor fired and disbarred. I think that's abhorrent.

 

Her ex said he had not been with her in a week. She said it was four days. Anyways, how was his DNA still in her underwear? Unless in the words of Cleveland Brown, "that's nasty."

 

Of course they do. When people say we should or shouldn't invade Iraq, we don't have all the evidence that's being used to weigh those decisions. And yet, we still have opinions on them. When people discuss whether the public plan is a good thing, we don't have the details of how it would be set up or how it would work. And yet, we make educated opinions based on what we do know.

There wasn't DNA evidence of sex, as far as I know. Who were the witnesses?

I'm not the one who came to a conclusion here - you did. You're the one who decided a thread to discuss this and ESPN reporting this was stupid.

And yet, you're making the assumption that there wasn't. I'd guess since it was a huge case locally, there were some local reporters following the story fairly closely.

I have no problem with this. But that's a very different opinion from your sarcastic first post in this thread, or others where you called anyone that believes otherwise a "conspiracy theorist".

 

SamCassell is a DA or works some role in our justice system. Leave him alone. He is just displaying typical 'upholder of the truth and justice' behavior.

 

SamCassell, don't feel obligated to respond to this I am just curious, but since you are someone who works in justice system is there a professional courtesy or even legal responsibility in regard to commenting on a case that you had nothing to do with?

Let me restate that to mean second guessing since you are obviously commenting.

 

You have her DNA on his penis, scrotum, and under his fingernail. You have bruises on her body and tearing of her external genitalia. You have her own testimony, which might have come across very credibly, despite her intoxication that night. There was sand in his clothing, consistent with her story. You have a witness who says that the victim looked to have suffered a traumatic experience. The man had what the story describes as "not a solid alibi".

So it seems likely she was raped. I'm not sure there's any dispute over that. So then the question is, did she identify her attacker as this guy? Clearly she did. Then you ask, why would she lie about who attacked her? She wouldn't - she'd want to punish whoever did it. So then you wonder if she was so impaired that she couldn't be accurate in that identification.

You came to plenty of conclusions. And I didn't say anything was stupid, I just believed (and continue to believe) that there's probably more to the case that we've heard, and that the story itself seems pretty biased. Referring to all his sports statistics and continually referencing his supporters and their views, without any quotes from the victim or the prosecutors or the police, and just the words chosen in the article itself, seem to indicate that the author isn't coming from a neutral position but is rather writing a piece designed to persuade his readers. You yourself, shanna, pointed out that this was a biased piece and wondered whether the other side was told somewhere else. You thus admit that yes, there is more to the story, that there's another side not being told here.

 

I know you said this snarkily, but since when was upholding truth or justice a bad thing?

I've been a member of this board longer than I've been a lawyer, and I feel free to express my views. Lawyers have opinions, too. I'm not running to the media and expressing my views on a pending (or even disposed) case, I'm talking somewhat anonymously with some fellow Rockets fans on a BBS about a case I had zero involvement in. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I realize I open myself up to snarky potshots (as seen above) in doing so.