The story of prisoner F95488

[Kobe]

To give an idea what this case is about:

On Feb. 17, 2007 a woman only identified as Jane Doe claimed to be raped. Eric Frimpong was charged and found guilty of rape in a jury trial on December 17, 2007 at the Santa Barbara Superior Court. The conviction has raised concerns and controversy. There were no physical marks on Frimpong, Frimpong's DNA wasn't found on the victim and semen found on her underwear belonged to a boyfriend. In addition Doe admitted to drinking heavily and had a blood alcohol level between .29 and .34 throughout the evening and not remembering the actual rape.


I read the ESPN article on this case today. My Aunty shared the link below with me on facebook a few days ago.

The Story of Prisoner F95488 - ESPN The Magazine's feature on Eric Frimpong, former UCSB soccer star - ESPN

I just wanted to know your thoughts on the case. Personally, I was tore up after reading this. :sad2: I figured this section of the forums would provide more constructive analysis.

 

[Ristol]

If I ran things, and this is only if I ran things, I would really try to make sure there was physical evidence before convicting anybody of rape. Or publicly accusing them.

All the fake rape cases out there speak to the hole in the hearts of many women.

I'm not indicting a gender, just its capacity to be heartless. Some women regard a rape charge as a card to be played.

 

[randomthug]

Sadly this is something that can happen to any guy out there. Even if you never saw the chick before, if she ID's you and the cops want to take it seriously, they spit your name all over the news and never hers. You're a rapist, now and forever cause no one cares to hear the "suspected" or "accused" part. I wanna know how the hell this is legal to find someone guilty and there be no evidence or even a person who remembers it.

 

[Kobe]

It sure does no good when rape is played as a card. Its a sensitive case but, I also believe that rape convictions should be given when the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. This case has so many loopholes in it and its ruined this guys future in so many ways.

I also agree that it could happen to any guy. I just wish Frimpong used his head. I'm sure while he sits in his cell, he knows so many things could have been done differently on the night the incident happened.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

Sounds like there should definately be a re-trial, reading an article doesn't give us all the evidence but from what it said it sounds like his trial was unbalanced.

I had a friend who was accused of rape with another of our friends, she had a massive crush on him.. I believe he is/was innocent. It completely fucks up someones life, I think there should be a certain amount of evidence PROVEN before you can take someone to court.

I hope the truth and justice comes to this case also.

 

[kastro]

man i realli hope there is a re-trail feel kinda sorry for him

 

[Kobe]

Apparently there is no re-trial for this case. Its going to be left as it is and the guy will do his time in court. I'm no legal expert but the case has been reviewed and it was deemed that there was no viable reason to give him a re-trial.

Depending on who you ask, some will say the media has a way of twisting the facts and putting out what they want the audience to see, hear and read. With rape, no one notices words like 'allegedly', 'accused of' 'suspected of' or anything else that is put before the word rape. Everyone looks at you as a rapist straight away. I've read some comments on this case such as 'immigrants are rapists and they should be deported'. Makes you wonder the kind of society we live in these days. Some people say that the media are not making all the facts of the case known to the public.

Who followed up on the lacrosse team rape allegations? I did hear about it but, I didn't pay much attention to it. People say the media influence on that case changed the outcome of the ruling. People are drawing comparisons with it to this case.

What does 'a jury of your peers' mean anyway?

 

[kastro]

^ A jury of your peers means anyone in your peer group. Back when this was created it meant that if you were a farmer your jury would be filled with farmers. If you were a peasant, your jury would be full of peasants.

Today, however, it is a jury of your fellow citizens. Anyone filling a certain profile such as: If you are charged with robbery your lawyer would like your peers to be people who have not been robbed.

Your peers can also mean people of your skin color, such as: An African- American defendant means his peers are fellow African- Americans.

 

[Kobe]

Well, of this guy's 12 jury (it is claimed) that the all white cast consisted of 9 women and 3 men. If its true, I don't think he stood much chance of getting an innocent verdict.

 

[Ristol]

There are no 'innocent' verdicts. Just not guilty verdicts. Important distinction.