The Story of Eric Frimpong

Santa Barbara 2008 or Mississippi 1960's. In a city as diverse as Santa Barbara it is hard for me to believe that the law and Eric's rights were grossly mutilated. I mean no disrespect, but this case sounds like the Emmet Till case of 1955 in Mississippi. Though in Frimpong's case no murder was commited, except if you want to include due process and and a humans rights. I hope Eric has the power to appeal. As for the blackout drunk girl trust me karma is a bitch. You will get yours if you are lying and sending an innocent man to jail for 8 years. The cops and judge should be fired for their lack of professional process.

Joe - You are right on, except you left out the Deputy DA prosecutor, Mary Barron, who should also be fired, and possibly disciplined by the Bar. Not only did she bungle many aspects of the trial thereby violating Eric's rights, she cheated and did things she knew were wrong. All to win the game of getting a conviction, regardless of the truth and what is right. She stacked the jury with all-white and predominently females. She withheld evidence from the defense (did not disclose an earlier, exonerating expert witness). Violated defendant's right against self-incrimination by telling the jury "he had no alibi" (illegal). Barron is relatively new at prosecuting and is out to boost her career by convicting people any way she can. She's Santa Barbara's version of DA Nifong in the Duke University rape case.

What about her DNA on his penis? I suppose that is just bad luck... Sometimes people who appear to be nice do bad things.

A judge who was probably perilously close to his tee time
A detective fishing for anything but the truth
An unscrupulous prosecutor with the wrong kind of overzealousness all for the sake of getting the W
The only observable or tangible item found when looking for real evidence was another man's scrotum joose

This sounds terrible. The only thing that I can come away was that the girl was absolutely drunk out of her mind. No one should ever be raped, no matter the condition. If she was raped, then I am truly sorry for her, but I dunno about this.

I don't live anywhere near your community but can outsiders help out?

Response to Rocket: the way I heard it was that the DNA was found on his scrotum, not on his penis. Probably not important one way or the other. More important, though was that it was only ONE cell which supposedly contained her DNA. Since during the trial it came out that the government lab that did the analysis altered their "bench notes" weeks later (at the suggestion of either the DA or the investigating sheriff's deputy), their conclusion is tainted and questionable. Such an attempt to manipulate the evidence is highly improper and casts serious doubt on the conviction.

I was at the trial every day and I can tell you, the information provided in this article is completely skewed. Crucial evidence has been purposely left out and some of Ms. Seefeld's "facts" are wholely inaccurate. I find it very disturbing that one poorly informed individual can write such a biased article about this case and have it printed in the Independent, a paper I have always admired. Unfortunately, many people will read this article and believe her "facts" without ever looking at the evidence.
I know for a fact that many of the jurors searched for any way to find Eric not guilty, but with the evidence provided, that was impossible. Mary Barron did a terrific job. Judge Hill never told anyone not to look at all the evidence "to save time". I suggest to those who have come to a conclusion about this case based on this one article: find some more information elsewhere, then make your judgment.

I was surprised that the Indy gave Kim Seefeld's opinion piece the same prominence as an unbiased story from a reporter. And the title "Justice Denied"; was that Seefeld's choice of words or, like most editorials, the editor's decision? This case has much in common with another recent sexual assault case involving a poor West African man who also became a promising student at UCSB. A Mr. Kafatia (sp?), who took advantage of a tipsy woman while working security for SBCC. Like Frimpong, Kafatia had numerous supporters who could not or would not believe that he was capable of such actions. Mr. Kafatia was convicted of rape in an SB courtroom, presided by a different judge. Obviously there are substantial cultural differences on how men relate to women in West Africa as compared to a U.C. environment. Who is guiding these men in these dangerous relationship waters? As for Ms. Seefeld, what is her relationship to the defendent or the defence effort? Can she be unbiased? Based on the lack of a balanced approach to her "facts", I conclude she is biased, unable to accept the verdict, and, essentially, a zealot.

Finally, as I read through the comments it seems as if people are remembering that the evidence in a case is presented in a court room, not a newspaper. I agree with "livinginsb" that the article written by Seefeld was skewed. I also attended the trial and was there most days. Seefeld did not mention the DNA evidence found on Frimpong, his scrotum, penis and under his fingernails. She did not mention the time and effort spent by the prosecutor delineating the different forms of bodily secretions and the ability to somewhat differentiate between sources of the fluid, such as tears, saliva, vaginal fluids. This was presented in court, through scientists with the benefit of being cross-examined as thoroughly as either side desires. Seefeld also states that the jury was somehow composed by the prosecutor, but has she forgotten the jury is decided by both prosecution and defense attorneys? Both sides have the ability to remove jurors based on both "cause" and no cause whatsoever. I suggest Seefeld look at her own motives and be more honest and balanced in her perspective next time. Or perhaps the Independent edited the article for space and left out some of these facts. Nonetheless, it comes across as a hack piece.

This is a rich town. Can't someone pay to get Frimpong a fair trial? Can't anyone get their high-power dad to call one of their friends to represent Frimpong? Won't someone out of their heart take this case as pro-bono??

This guy needs help.

Please help him.

The girl is a college drunk and Frimpong is black.
Who wins? the college drunk girl always. Did her dad pay someone?? Heaven forbid Mr and Mrs parents of drunk girl would acknowledge their daughter is a floozy, and a drunk.....so $$ shut the right people up and twist the law. Shhhh..the country club is listening!!!

Many of the comments on this page reflect blissful ignorance. You folks defaming law enforcement, the DA and the survivor are using this case for your own motives...to be angry and hateful. The young woman Eric Frimpong raped is a human being.
You are assaulting her with your words. You have no right to cast judgement and issue her punishment in the "court of public opinion". It's disgusting.
The level of ignorance and bigotry here is truly embarrasing. If you were truly worried about the issues of race & socioeconomic status you would learn the facts. Eric was afforded a premier defense lawyer. He is only suffering from his actions. This case followed procedure & was given due process. Ms Seefeld's claims are complete fabrication meant to incite hatred.
If you believe in equality, then act like it. Show respect for all people - regardless of their gender, drinking habits or race.

TO girlslocker. Sanger is a high priced lawyer, he represented Frimpong (along with Micheal Jackson do you see a connection here?) It would help to educate yourself before you start spewing. Your ignorance is bountiful, much like this attack by Ms. Seefeld.

Wow, the acid tongued vitriol of some fools. Are we enamored by the novelty of the defendant? A little cause celebre to embrace him as a new icon of oppression by the white devil race?

Don't tell me: Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent too.

Your rants aren't left field. They are out past the parking lot . I am not impressed by Mizz Seefield's credentials. The insinuation is that we should believe her over anyone else because she was a former prosecutor, which is foolish and pretentious.

So before you wrap yourselves up the in flag of self righteous indignation, do your darned homework, or have a nice hot cup of STFU.

I am so relieved to see that some people realize our justice system does work. As stated earlier, Frimpong had a very high profile attorney, paid for by Frimpong's roommate's dad, who is also an attorney. Sanger represented Michael Jackson and I'm sure he believed he could get Frimpong off. They had ONE witness-an expert who told us what the victim's BAL would have been at the time of the rape. Turns out, by Ms. Seefeld's own admission in the News-Press article covering Martin Luther King day, she did NOT attend the trial. I'm about to find out where she comes from, but I'm willing to bet she is friends with the roommate's dad.
l As another writer said, the newspapers do not tell the public everything. Only if you sat in that courtroom every day for 3 1/2 weeks do you have a right to come to a conclusion about this case.
And as for those people who blame "the drunk girl", shame on you. She and her parents acknowledge she has an alcohol problem and at the time of the trial, she was getting help. No one denies she has a problem, but that doesn't make it OK for a man to rape her!

livinginsb,

How much of "the drunk girls" statements would the same judge and prosecutor believe as credibile, if she was the defendent in a DUI case?

How sad that Ms. Seefeld, who up until now has only been able to garner support from Travis Armstrong, has been "legitimized"--if only until her cover is blown--- by the otherwise-reputable Independent....and Blogabarbara!?!?!

Aren't there fact checkers at the Indie anymore? If so, did you not connect the dots between Seefeld's longstanding and quite vocal antagonism towards the SB County District Attorney's office because the D.A. has repeatedly refused Seefeld's requests to:
a) prosecute affordable housing owners/neighbors of Seefeld for what Seefeld [and no one else] deems criminal fraud
b) conduct immigration checks on those receiving County services [check out the 8/29/07 Lompoc Record for this Seefeld quote: "County departments have a right and a duty to inquire as to the citizenship status of anyone obtaining county services, yet they don't.”
But besides all that obvious vendetta-seeking by the author, the Indie could have easily checked the statements she claims to be facts of the Frimpong trial but which are far far from fact and which only serve to further victimize the victim. For that alone, the Indie should be ashamed.
PS: tell me, where and when was Seefeld a "prosecutor"......

DarNel:
Your comparison elucidates the point nicely. Someone receiving a DUI has broken the law for two specific acts in concert. What would her statement be...that she wasn't drinking, that she wasn't driving? There would have been evidence towards both for an arrest & conviction. Believing her is irrelevent.
Someone who is sexually assaulted while intoxicated isn't breaking the law. She has done nothing wrong and her statements are consistent with the evidence found.

InTheKnow.Thank you for being so In the Know. What would this world do without you?
I was fully aware that Sanger defended Frimpong. Obviously it wasn't good enough. How about a 2nd premier attorney to do the appeal for Frimpong. Would you like to defend?
You could read your How to Defend people for Dummies book that you purchased at Costco this weekend!

It was reported that the 19-year-old victim was on probation for a DUI conviction, a condition of which was that she could not drink any alcohol. Since it was proven in the rape case that she drank 13 alcoholic drinks on the night in question, does anyone know if she has been charged with a violation of probation?

If you are looking for a News-Press connection here, Ms. Seefeld has a long professional association with Barry Cappello. We all know who he represents.

How about publishing an article from someone in the DAs office? As in most of these types of cases, I suspect the truth is a little different than each side would have us believe. However, it does sound like justice was carried out. People capable of sexual assault typically are well liked and appear normal, but given an opportunity. . .

TO GIRLSLOCKER, so you knew that about Sanger? Then why did you make such an idiotic statment about getting someone to represent Frimpong that had money? You think Sanger is cheap? OR are you one of those people that can't admit when someone is guilty that they really are... "oh oh oh it had to be the "bad" attorney". Just trying to shotgun any arguement in there huh? And your childish attack upon me is proof of your uneducated mindset...

Ms. Seefeld's opinion piece (or perhaps letter to the editors?) in the Daily Nexus is more clearly put forward, in my opinion. It contains some other points of hers as well.
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=...

Not having been to the trial, I don't know what to make of this all, but having taken a course years ago whose subject was the various ways human psychology can influence court cases such as these, I will say that the extent to which a victim's testimony is reliable can often be surprisingly small, even if the victim feels he or she is telling the truth. Furthermore, the extent to which convictions sometimes rely on that testimony and little else can be downright scary. Rape cases where the victim and accused are different races and there is little other than circumstantial evidence can be especially bad, and there are many cases in which innocent people have been wrongly convicted based on a false ID, only to be exonorated years later by DNA or other incontrovertible evidence. Google the Innocence Project to see a few.

I remember a high profile case from long ago where Sanger was a defense attorney but can't remember the case.

Can anyone tell me if Sanger was involved in the David Kurtzmann/Rusty Trammel (sp?) case?

Kim Seefeld's hack piece is anything but objective. Her connection with Frimpong is unknown, but is in suscpicion based on her style of writing and criticism of anything/person associated with Frimpong's guilt.

Its pathetic!!! That a true-thick-blood-flowing son of Africa is being laid as red carpet for an undeserving walker. IF.....and i repeat, IFF the boy of our heart-Nana Frimpong did commit himself to the act, then may our ancestors have mercy and forgive him.......BUT BBBUT.....if not.......
It's sometimes difficult for outsiders to understand our language. you run to retract levelled falsehood when its told you......
One of us above-"wonarrowfan" tried making cast of the African culture.......An advice for your tongue-"what you don't know about the African culture, you only can ask and it isnt all questions that have answers for kids.
Those accusing the brother are very fortunate of his religion, that he leaves everything to God.
The spirits of the living dead when evoked, can cause havoc irrespective of where or who you are. BEWARNED!! about your utterances.
I therefore urge you all to end the insults and be realistic by your understanding. Nature knows whats best for Frimpong.
Saviola is how we liked to call him on the field. He is no corrupt person to deserve all this humiliations. If he were your brother...........????? Wish him the best and not worse.
Judge us with the colour of our blood and not of our skin, for the latter can be changed by wish.
I write from the center of the earth with great demand for justice and respect.
I write from AFRICA...

Postername-
Kim Seefeld's article in the Nexus was, once again, incorrect. Remember, she didn't attend the trial-I did.
It is extremely frustrating, from my viewpoint, to read belittling comments from people regarding this case, when the people writing weren't in the courtroom every day.
The jurors didn't come to a conclusion based on race. We didn't find him guilty because we didn't like him , or because the victim was white, or because we believed her testimony. We sat through 3 1/2 weeks of evidence, much of it presented by experts. We then followed the judicial procedure and came to our decision based on the evidence presented! That's how our judicial system works!
That said, if it turns out that there is new evidence that we didn't see that will help Eric, then by all means he should receive a new trial-but once again, that doesn't mean we the jurors, or the judge or the D.A. were out to "get" Eric. We simply made a decision based on the large amount of evidence we were provided.