Friday, May 2, 2008 - New servers are in! Click-in for more info!
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 16:51:31 04/01/07 Sun
Author: Karen
Subject: Okay here's aonother question. I'm just playing devils advocate here for a minute.
In reply to: highplainswoman 's message, "Latest episode--for discussion's sake (inside)" on 06:37:45 03/31/07 Sat

There seems to be a universal agreement that the second rapist was a slimy jerk who thought he was just too special to go down for this crime and he had a good laywer that made sure he didnt. However unless I missed something there was really nothing to connect him to the crime except the first man's testimony. The reason the law doesnt allow unsubstantiated evidence from someone making a deal is they will say anything for a lighter sentence. The husband testified that when the guy offered him date rape drugs it was at a different time and place. Was he saying this to help his wifes case in reaction to having said nothing about knowing a rape had taken place before? The other man only said he heard part of a conversation that didnt make sense he seemed eager to say what people wanted to hear. We feel because of his attitude that the smirky man was guilty, but was he? There wasn't any real evidence against him and the jury didnt think so. My question is, if it weren't for the self important smirk on his face if he had been more sympathetic and worried and begging for the fact he hadn't had anything to do with it, would we then think he had been falsly accused to serve someone elses purpose? Is it only his attitude that's convicting him here?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> That's a good question, but there were things that convicted him, not in a court of law, but in my mind. It was almost as though all three of the men who testified to the 'jerky guy's' involvement(I'm sorry, I cant remember his name) were still a little afraid of him, they all had trouble making eye contact and holding it. I still think there could be alot more to this. I know its not hard evidence, its just the reactions of the people around him and the accused self assurance that he would get off, he NEVER appeared afraid at all...why? -- mkim, 22:40:08 04/01/07 Sun [1]


[Edit]
[> [> I think the jury did the right thing based on the evidence they were given. I couldn't have convicted him on that, and it seemed to be a shaky case from the start. INSIDE -- manette, 23:00:54 04/01/07 Sun [1]

My opinion of him is based on the fact that it seemed to be an accepted fact among all the men who knew him in college that he offered them drugs, broadcast his plans to use them and had no qualms about carrying them out. The fact that the woman had no recollection of him at all was to me to big of a burden for the prosecution to overcome without more than just the testimony of the other guy that raped her to tie him to the actual incident. So justice actually was served if it means that sometimes guilty people go free so that the rights of the innocent are protected from being convicted on to little evidence.

[Edit]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.