http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4300383
This isn't a rape issue.
This isn't a race issue.
This is a legal issue.
Short version of very long article: soccer star hangs out with some random chick at a party and hangs out with her most of the night. She tries to make out with him but he denies her. She then reaches down his pants and grabs his dick, but he denies her. He then ditches her. The next day the police arrest him for rape. The girl went to the hospital and reported being raped. They found semen on her clothes and inside her vagina. There was also toothmarks on the girl. DNA test is run and it's NOT the soccer star's, it's her crazy ex-boyfriend's. A forensic dentist testified and said the teeth markings were not the soccer star's, but it could be the ex-boyfriend's. Just makes the statement, "I've not seen a rape case with so much incriminating, credible and powerful evidence". Soccer star is found guilty (this is in the Superior Court, so it's not a rookie judge) and is sent to jail for six years.
How the HELL does he get found guilty when there is NO non-circumstantial evidence to prove him guilty? NOTHING. They didn't even investigate the ex-boyfriend. Rape testimony is some of the most unreliable testimony out there too. The judge should know this. Now, I'm not saying he was found guilty because he is black and the town they are from is 98% white and the jury was all white. But since he obviously couldn't be found guilty due to evidence since there was none, why did he get found guilty?
This isn't a rape issue.
This isn't a race issue.
This is a legal issue.
Short version of very long article: soccer star hangs out with some random chick at a party and hangs out with her most of the night. She tries to make out with him but he denies her. She then reaches down his pants and grabs his dick, but he denies her. He then ditches her. The next day the police arrest him for rape. The girl went to the hospital and reported being raped. They found semen on her clothes and inside her vagina. There was also toothmarks on the girl. DNA test is run and it's NOT the soccer star's, it's her crazy ex-boyfriend's. A forensic dentist testified and said the teeth markings were not the soccer star's, but it could be the ex-boyfriend's. Just makes the statement, "I've not seen a rape case with so much incriminating, credible and powerful evidence". Soccer star is found guilty (this is in the Superior Court, so it's not a rookie judge) and is sent to jail for six years.
How the HELL does he get found guilty when there is NO non-circumstantial evidence to prove him guilty? NOTHING. They didn't even investigate the ex-boyfriend. Rape testimony is some of the most unreliable testimony out there too. The judge should know this. Now, I'm not saying he was found guilty because he is black and the town they are from is 98% white and the jury was all white. But since he obviously couldn't be found guilty due to evidence since there was none, why did he get found guilty?
Comment