Comments by Confused
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 13 at 8:16 a.m.
I don't agree with a lot that was said by cornflak3. I think we are getting away from the real issue. We can not excuse rape because someone was drunk. She unfortunately was a victim of rape, and that is sad. We can't also say that he couldn't have done it because he has so much to lose. Yes, it is a priviledge for him to be in this country, he was able to get a degree from a well respected university while being able to playing soccer. But people who commit rape have everything to lose...their freedom. The question that has to come from this is the lack of DNA. And the whole 'he didn't ejaculate' comment, means nothing. I'm not saying the DNA has to come from semen. It can come from any skin cell. He supposedly scratched, bit, choked, etc. her. How did they not find any of his DNA? Thats the question. And that is why the whole beyond a resonable doubt is hard for me to believe.
Posted on March 12 at 1:32 p.m.
Turningthepage....First of all, he wasn't with her ALL night. He did meet her on the street and they went back to his house to play beer pong. I don't think people are debating that. By him saying he didn't know her, doesn't mean that he committed the crime. And no, by saying "he would have been better off saying they did have sex, and it was consensual" ...would not have been a better defense. He said that he didn't, by saying they did would have left it up for more questioning given the state of her intoxication. There is no DNA of his on her, which I find to be quite interesting given the nature of this crime. Do you not agree?
Posted on March 12 at 7:26 a.m.
Turningthepage...truth_machine already commented on a point that you made that was incorrect "her DNA (vaginal fluids) were all over his scrotum!" ...so I won't say anything. It also was never provin that "His scratch marks are on her body" ...if that was the case, how is their none of his DNA on her? I'm not saying that their has to be DNA 'in' her. But come on, for this to be such a brutal rape (biting, choking, scratching, etc.) I'm confused as to how no DNA was found on her.
Posted on March 11 at 9:49 p.m.
Notlongenough...what lies were written down? Also, I'm still puzzled by the lack of DNA from the accused on the victim. You'd think there would be some, right? I might be missing something, let me know if I'm way off.
Posted on March 11 at 1:22 p.m.
If this was as violent as it seems, how is there no DNA from the accused on the victim? You'd think if not touching someone was enough to have DNA on them, then the bite marks, scratch, rape, etc. would produce some of his DNA on her. No?
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on March 14 at 9:35 a.m.
truth_machine...you have great points. In response to your response to my lack on his DNA on her comment...it still doesn't make sense. Take out the biting and choking, still hitting, penetrating (which if you were in the court room during the trial, saw the graphic photos), etc., you're telling me that no DNA is transferred whats so ever? How? Thats my question. It just doesn't seem possible.
On Frimpong Gets Six Years