Frimpong Appeal Denied

Tough break. You should've been white and from Mountain Drive.

Or not raped her.

So you believe he did it? I do not like sexual offenders, but this case sounds "iffy" by the information given in the articles printed a month or so ago. As much as I hate the "blame it on the man" excuse this is actually seems like a case of "blame it on the man". A witness with selective memory who was coached by an unethical detective sounds like a classic frame up.

Agreed. Blame it on the man. Poor guy's life was ruined. Probably not guilty, but I guess we will never know.

So tired of people casually second-guessing jury verdicts without having been there and having heard and seen the evidence. That's why verdicts are rendered only after trials rather than just taking a popular vote. In this case, there was abundant evidence that Frimpong raped the woman. Frimpong was represented by an excellent lawyer and had a full and fair trial before an able judge. He was found guilty by a jury that heard the testimony (and assessed the witnesses' credibility), and weighed the evidence, and his conviction has now been affirmed on appeal - he must now do the time. End of story.

Look at it the glass half full: what great PR for SB. The world gets a glimpse at "love, American style."

"Justice"s hypocrisy is immense, as s/he, who was not there and saw or heard nothing, tells us about evidence s/he never saw -- in fact fabricated out of thin air; there was no such "abundant evidence".

P.S. I doubt that "Justice" has the same view of the jury that found OJ Simpson innocent despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I can't stand a rapist, but I have heard nothing to convince me of this kid's guilt.

He was pretty clearly railroaded, and there is no WAY the courts are EVER going to admit they blew it...SOMEONE has to be guilty...may as well be this poor guy, yeah?

We live in truly terrifying times.

What about all those convicted "guilty" people who were later exonerated by DNA? So if a jury convicts, we just accept it because they said so?

To truth_machine - Lose the sarcasm - civil dialogue is possible without it.

Both your comments are smug, simplistic and wrong - I saw much of the Frimpong trial and in case you are senile and don't remember, the entire Simpson trial was televised nationally and seen by much of the public. You can figure out the rest, can't you?

Holly, how was "this poor guy", to use your words, "railroaded"? I would understand making that claim if he had been pushed into pleading guilty or confessing but your comment seems baseless and simply inapplicable in this case.

Bill - No, but you don't attack the verdict without some evidentiary basis for doing so whether it be DNA testing or some genuine knowledge of the evidence presented at trial. Most of those commenting simply toss off simplistic conclusions, slogans and claims with no knowledge of the facts or the evidence presented at trial.

Justice, did you miss the multi-part article about the case from a couple months ago that people keep referring to?

There were like 9 pieces published on the site in sequence which showed clearly how botched up the case was and outlined quite a bit of evidence that Frimpong could have very easily been innocent.

I looked through the comments and never saw anything that indicated anything in the articles were incorrect, people were just bantering back and forth without analyzing any specifics in the articles.

So why is it hard to imagine that there might be a lot of people who think Frimpong got a bad deal?

It's pretty obvious that a lot of people think Frimpong got a bad deal. It's also obvious that the state appellate court disagrees.

So either they didn't find all the evidence published in the Indy to be compelling, or they have some other information, or they didn't see all that evidence. Or they're all racist.

Yes, I saw that multi-part article about the Frimpong case in the Independent.

I also noticed that despite the length of the piece, the author could never bring himself to admit that the victim's DNA was found on Frimpong's genitals.

It is interesting that the "victim's" dna was found on Frimpong's genitals yet none of his dna was found on the "victim" but her boyfriend's dna was found on her. I have no doubt based on the evidence that Frimpong is not guilty.

Frimpong is guilty. O.J. didn't do it. The officers who beat the snot out of Rodney King were justified to do so, and Manifest Destiny was a mission from God.

I think he deserves another trail. So many people are guilty and they are allowed to get an appeal. This guy doesnt sound guilty. I am not saying free him, but give the man at least an appeal.