T Nation

Soccer Star Accused of Rape - Wrongly?


#1

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


#2

[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?[/quote]

Yeah, soccer sucks.


#3

That’s a whole lot of text just to talk about some guy who was wrongly accused.

I call another “Does Soccer Suck?” thread.


#4

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DeterminedNate wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yeah, soccer sucks.[/quote]

not as bad as full house.


#5

[quote]DeterminedNate wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?[/quote]

Yeah, when is it news to anybody that our legal system has nothing to do with justice, truth, or the betterment of our society?


#6

[quote]nomorewar wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
DeterminedNate wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yeah, soccer sucks.

not as bad as full house.[/quote]

Watch your mouth.


#7

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
DeterminedNate wrote:

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Yeah, soccer sucks.[/quote]

lol! Gotta love Lanky for tellin’ it like it is!


#8

If that article reported all the facts without bias, then it’s a pretty fucked up situation. All the evidence positing rape is open to question, and evidence of his character is pretty strong. I couldn’t say outright that he didn’t do it, but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say he did.


#9

[quote]blithe wrote:
If that article reported all the facts without bias, then it’s a pretty fucked up situation. All the evidence positing rape is open to question, and evidence of his character is pretty strong. I couldn’t say outright that he didn’t do it, but I don’t think there’s enough evidence to say he did. [/quote]

This.

Reading that article made me angry. Granted, reporters can spin it anyway you want, but when DNA is found, and it doesnt belong to the accused, what is the explanation? That she was raped twice, but the accused used a condom? This is an outrage


#10

"Perhaps the most troubling ruling, as far as the defense was concerned, involved bite mark analysis. The prosecution’s forensic expert, Norman Sperber, testified that he couldn’t rule out Frimpong for causing the bite on Jane Doe’s face. But detectives failed to disclose that they had first approached another expert: Raymond Johansen would later testify, outside the jury’s presence, that after preliminary analysis, he told Kies that the bite mark was “vague.”

Law enforcement is required to turn over evidence that doesn’t point to the defendant as the suspect; suppressing such evidence is grounds for a mistrial. But Kies failed to file a report of his conversation with Johansen. When questioned by Sanger, the detective stated that while he had indeed approached Johansen first, the dentist had failed to provide any opinion.

Kies and senior DA Ronald Zonen both told the court that they had passed over Johansen because he wanted to charge for his services, and Sperber wasn’t charging. But Sperber testified that he always charges for his services, and he did so for this case, too. Judge Hill, who had served 19 years as a Santa Barbara DA prior to sitting on the bench, ruled that Johansen’s testimony was not exculpatory and denied that motion as well."

What a miscarriage.