Justice System Proves to Be Even Dumber

[DesignFox]

Well, the evidence suggested that she could possibly have been raped...but by the ex, not the poor man that she accused.

I've never gotten to the point of being blind drunk, and I'm fortunate enough that the friends I chose to go drinking with were very good friends and I never ended up drugged. If you black out, or have a near lethal level of alcohol in your system, it is possible not to know what the hell is going on or who did what.

If the girl was raped, which the evidence suggests she very well may have been, we need to remember that she is a victim, too.

Which is what makes this case doubly horrible and sad. The officials should be ashamed of themselves for not investigating the one whose DNA was found on the girl.

And like I said before, if she was even remotely unsure of what had happened, she should have said so rather than blindly accusing. For that she should be ashamed of herself.

[Slytovhand]

I can't believe how angry that just made me. And I'm eating Malteasers.

Riiigggghhhtttttttttttttt..... and the malteasers are relevant, because...???? (you country folk...)

Anyway, here's what I reckon was the deal...

She wanted to make out with the hero, got rejected. Ran into ex-, (whom she's still hung up on - or is afraid of), they had naughties (which got a little rough), and somehow, she mentioned getting rejected. He's still got power and control over her (and has said control issues), and is a bit racist (or at least has no love for the guy) and convinces her to make the complaint. Cos he's still got power over her (in one form or another), she can't recant her complaint.

Still leaves me wondering why the prosecution still persued the case. It should be basically obvious from the physical evidence the girl is lying (or, at the very least, her testimony can't be trusted in any way shape or form), and that the case holds no water.. and should have ditched it from the beginning. Judge is seriously at fault for not directing the jury to return a non-guilty verdict based on the evidence alone, and that there is no physical evidence to support the case. Jury members need to be smacked in the head!

[Flyndaran]

California still counts as the south, right? I can still keep my assumption that racism is only in the south, right?
No? Ok, I guess I'll just have to change my assumptions, darn you rationality!

[kibbles]

Anyway, here's what I reckon was the deal...

She wanted to make out with the hero, got rejected. Ran into ex-, (whom she's still hung up on - or is afraid of), they had naughties (which got a little rough), and somehow, she mentioned getting rejected. He's still got power and control over her (and has said control issues), and is a bit racist (or at least has no love for the guy) and convinces her to make the complaint. Cos he's still got power over her (in one form or another), she can't recant her complaint.

I think you hit the nail on the head here with what happened. IMO the only victim in this story is the person currently in a jail cell.

[Kalli]

Riiigggghhhtttttttttttttt..... and the malteasers are relevant, because...???? (you country folk...)

lol, because it's not easy to make me angry when I'm eating chocolate!

[AFPheonix]

Option #2, Ex admittedly saw the girl walking with Frimpong, jumps her later when she's still in a drunken haze and assaults her, then threatens telling her parents and the cops about her drunkenness (she just got her license back after a juvenile DUI) or possibly more physical harm if she doesn't accuse Frimpong of assault.

In this case, there's still 2 victims, one of which is admittedly flawed, and one bonafide asshole.
Well, actually several bonafide assholes, if you consider the inept judge and defense lawyers.

[Flyndaran]

...
In this case, there's still 2 victims, one of which is admittedly flawed, and one bonafide asshole.
Well, actually several bonafide assholes, if you consider the inept judge and defense lawyers.

Jeesh, if I were the judge I would have found the proscutor in contempt of court for bringing it that far. Two weeks suspended sentence with the caveat that they never do something like that again.

[BroomJockey]

Jeesh, if I were the judge I would have found the proscutor in contempt of court for bringing it that far.

If I was the prosecutor, I'd have the judge brought up on charges of gross incompetence, since there's no way the prosecution managed its prima facie case. I still think the prosecutor didn't have much choice in actually trying the guy. Defence should be disbarred, too. How badly did they suck if they couldn't prove reasonable doubt?

[Flyndaran]

If I was the prosecutor, I'd have the judge brought up on charges of gross incompetence, since there's no way the prosecution managed its prima facie case. I still think the prosecutor didn't have much choice in actually trying the guy. Defence should be disbarred, too. How badly did they suck if they couldn't prove reasonable doubt?

Most prosecutors can't legally suborn purjury and when they know that the defendent couldn't have committed the crime that's what they would be doing by allowing the "victim" to make her claim.
You assume the jury was full of sensible people. The defense may just have been working against overwhelming racism; lost before they even started.

[BroomJockey]

Most prosecutors can't legally suborn purjury and when they know that the defendent couldn't have committed the crime that's what they would be doing by allowing the "victim" to make her claim.
You assume the jury was full of sensible people. The defense may just have been working against overwhelming racism; lost before they even started.

No, actually, I assume the jury was fully of raging cocks-for-brains. However, the defence should have just made a motion to dismiss, since there doesn't appear to be any evidence to actually like the guy to the crime.

And I don't think that any prosecutor can suborn perjury. However, it's still a matter of outside pressure. The prosecutor has to answer to his boss, the District Attorney, who is usually elected. If he didn't force the case to go to trial, he'd probably never get to keep his job. For all we know, the DA and prosecutor were saying to themselves, "Ugh. I can't believe I have to do this just to keep my job. This is the STUPIDEST case ever. At least it won't take long to be thrown out." You hear stories occasionally of DAs prosecuting a case just to have the "appearance" of fairness, and you hear more stories of women afraid to come forward about rape because they're afraid they won't be believed. Put the two together, and I'm leery of heading off to revoke his licence to practice law. At least the others clearly sucked at their jobs.

[Flyndaran]

No, actually, I assume the jury was fully of raging cocks-for-brains. However, the defence should have just made a motion to dismiss, since there doesn't appear to be any evidence to actually like the guy to the crime.

And I don't think that any prosecutor can suborn perjury. However, it's still a matter of outside pressure. The prosecutor has to answer to his boss, the District Attorney, who is usually elected. If he didn't force the case to go to trial, he'd probably never get to keep his job. For all we know, the DA and prosecutor were saying to themselves, "Ugh. I can't believe I have to do this just to keep my job. This is the STUPIDEST case ever. At least it won't take long to be thrown out." You hear stories occasionally of DAs prosecuting a case just to have the "appearance" of fairness, and you hear more stories of women afraid to come forward about rape because they're afraid they won't be believed. Put the two together, and I'm leery of heading off to revoke his licence to practice law. At least the others clearly sucked at their jobs.

Ultimately, I agree that it was the judge that failed the most as a judge and as a human being.