Frimpong Found Guilty of Rape

For those of us over age 30:

Beer pong?

Yes, Wikipedia has a long entry complete with diagrams and photos.

In my day it was quarters into Tequilla shots.

I guess with the price of tuition and books, the WalMartization of American culture has snuck into the best of traditions...

I guess Frimpong's gonna enjoy the other side of the coin soon enough...

This verdict is disappointing.

I know I wasn't on the jury, but from all the journalistic accounts of the evidence presented, I don't know how these 12 citizens felt there was enough justification to convict beyond reasonable doubt. No real physical evidence or DNA evidence, and a victim whose blood-alcohol level was 0.2 many hours after the incident. She had complete memory lapses to the level that could perhaps be described as "blackouts", yet she was able to say with absolute certainty who assaulted her? What percentage of rape victims have absolutely NONE of their assaulter's DNA on their genitals or anywhere on their body (especially if a medical exam is done within 5-6 hours of the event)?... seriously, I'm curious about this.

This feels like a travesty. How many jurors were people of color? What was the "race" of the victim? Was that ever mentioned?

sa1: Your comment is disgusting: "'enjoying' the other side of the coin..." You're completely uncouth. I have no doubt you're the type of person who'd fully support public torture of criminals to match the details of crimes they're convicted of. Oh, and of course, I'm sure you live in a society where no one EVER gets convicted wrongly. That's sure never happened anywhere I've ever heard of... nope... and certainly not on the basis of wholly circumstantial evidence.

Well, most likely he really is guilty. You'd have to be on the jury to have really known what happened in the courtroom, and it is no fun at all to be on a jury like this. They must have been very convinced he did it.

If he didn't do it, the main fault lies with his attorney for not putting on a stronger defense. Sanger took a chance with a minimal defense and it failed.

If he didn't do it, it is likely that the whole story was so foreign to the jury that they tilted and convicted him because they just hate the Isla Vista scene. Damn them all and let god (or the prison system) sort them out.

How does her DNA test on him, but his DNA not test on her? Assuming she goes straight to the police and the hospital. With a 0.20 BAC, if she was the defendant in a DUI case, her testimony to the facts of the night in question would be dismissed by both judge and prosecutor.

Travesty. This is just wrong. I don't understand, how does a jury convict him for RAPE, when his DNA is not found on her? Someone with real knowledge or experience with trials or forensic evidence........please respond, because I am at a loss.
And if he goes to jail, then she should spend at least 30% of that time in jail, or an alcohol treatment center......or something. Is she without ANY responsiblity here??

"sa1: ...You're completely uncouth. "

Guilty. Can I plead down to crass?

(actually I still have some couth. I save it for special occasions)

Don't get your panties in a wad, ole buddy. Frimpong still has plenty of appeals.

And what's race got to do with it? As usual, I'm probably wrong but I think she's Asian.

As to BAC, I'm pretty sure there's precedence that consent can't be assumed at her levels. As the IRS pointed out to me many years ago, Ignorance of the law is no defense.

"I have no doubt you're the type of person who'd fully support public torture of criminals to match the details of crimes they're convicted of."

Doesn't necessarily have to be torture. Besides, think of the money we can save from not incarcerating at, what, $65,000 a year nowadays?

Did anyone think of just offering career criminals $65K a year to not commit crimes?

Hammurabi,Abraham and 5000 years can't be all wrong, can they?

Besides, what's disgusting about a little rough gay sex?

Many times in sexual assault cases, there is no DNA found. If someone showers, pees, wipes, spits, gargles, etc- the DNA literally goes down the drain. And while forensic nurses do their best - sometimes they miss it. The fact that no DNA came up, just means it wasn't on the swabs that were submitted and analyzed. It doesn't mean the DNA was never there. It is more common to find victim DNA on the perpetrator's scrotum than to find perpetrator DNA on the victim ( you do the visualization)- either because the victim peed, wiped, etc - or perhaps the perp didn't ejaculate - or made her wipe up. In this particular case, there was evidence to back up the victims story - every step of the way. She said he bit her, there were bite marks, she said he touched her a certain place or held her down, there were bruises there, etc. Regarding the alcohol - Drinking alcohol does not mean you deserve to be assaulted or that you are a liar. In this case - he knew she was drinking and in fact provided alcohol to her (which is something perp's do- they ply the victim with alcohol so they are more vulnerable) and check the legal code people - if someone is intoxicated - they can't consent to sexual acts- meaning - it is almost automatically rape. He knew she was drinking, gave her the drinks and then raped her. Being a good athlete or playing on the team that got the championship doesn't make him innocent. 85% of all assaults happen by someone the victim knows - and are those people you think are so nice and "would never do that". It is hard for people to accept because calling this rape means that you are probably recalling something in your own life that you now have to identify as rape from either the victim or perpetrator standpoint. It is not ok to force any sexual activity on anyone and it is not ok to get them drunk or give them drugs in order to do it. And using your power as a well-liked, influential or popular person is not ok. What were all those mom's of the soccer team members doing supporting this perpetrator - you should be ashamed.

First who ever said she deserved to be raped? No one deserves to be raped. The defense never questioned that she was raped. The question I still have, is with her BAC how can she say this kid raped her and not someone else? Bite marks, how was it proven that they were from him? Most people I see in I.V. have teeth. He provided her with alcohol, well then charge him for that since she was a minor. With a BAC of "0.20" her testimony is not credible.

I can understand why her DNA would be found on him. Harder for me to imagine why his DNA wasn't in the bite marks.

tahoecat... you are totally right, there is no excuse for sex with someone too drunk to consent. But the 85% statistic is irrelevant; the relevant question is, did Frimpong commit this act? I can imagine from the news reports that an alert reader would think reasonable doubt existed.

It didn't help that the prosecution messed up a few times, with bite evidence and implying Frimpong had an obligation to testify.

But the jury in the jury box has the best view and most info. If all 12 of them found no reasonable doubt, that is an important and serious conclusion. I can't really second guess them. He's probably guilty.

Would also like to add that this reporter seems to be writing from a very biased opinion in favor of the soccer star. Any professional reporter would use the appropriate terminology - suspect and either alleged victim or victim. It is a gross violation of news writing standards to call the victim "the accuser". That is a term that was only recently created and used during the Kobe Bryant case to try to discredit the victim. Although Frimpong is not on the same scale as Bryant, there seems to be continuos reminders of what a home town hero he was. The reporter also injected his own uneducated opinion. My favorite was last Thursday in the paper, saying "Peculiarly, however, the alleged vicim's DNA was found on a swab taken from Frimpong's penis." He did use the correct term for the victim that time -but "peculiarly"??? why do you think it is peculiar? Who made you an expert on what is the norm and what is peculiar? Where is your editor?

taceohat,

Until a crime is proven, the "victim" is the accuser. Or had you already convicted Frimpong, without ever seeing or hearing any evidence to support a conviction.

Editor? Editor? There's no editor in Blogball !

Editing's for sissys.

DarNel,

Actually - the press and police have always used victim and alleged victim and it was only during and after the kobe bryant case that people - especially right wing radio talk show hosts - started using "accuser". Think about how this blames the victim of a crime. You don't hear people call a person who reports being mugged an accuser. You don't hear people call a person who is reporting that their house burned in arson an accuser. You don't hear someone who was hit by a drunk driver called an accuser. They are called victims - even before the case goes to court. You only hear about it with rape victims.

ps. sa1 - meant the editor of the written version.

My theory: it is all true, including what Frimpong said. She did touch him in a sensitive place, and encourage him, but she was so drunk she honestly does not remember. And then he did what she seemed to encourage, but it was miscommunication, and so the rough stuff was not what she was asking for. But it was what he thought he wanted and she wanted. But it never really excited him and he took off bewildered, disgusted, and confused, leaving her there half dressed and passed out.

But she was too drunk to have ever consented and that makes it rape. Would have been interesting if the Indy or some news org had printed the Judge's instructions to the Jury, that would help sort it out.

Actually, taceohat, accuser is a more objective term that's been used by the press for decades. To call someone a victim is to admit that wrongdoing had been done, which would not lead to a situation of innocent until proven guilty in court or in the public realm. In this case, no one doubted that the woman was raped, so perhaps victim would have been equally appropriate here, so long as it was not used with regards to the suspect as the definitive attacker. But in general court cases, accuser makes more sense for the press to use, at least if we're worried about objectivity.