Comments by livinginsb
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 30 at 1:59 p.m.
To summitup:
I am a jury member and a person who feels very strongly about equal rights for all, and I'm very offended by your comment regarding our desire to go on Christmas break. Every one of the jurors was focused on doing the right thing even if we had to deliberate for an indefinite period of time. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made-but not because jurors can't wait to go on Christmas break. As jurors, we are given information and with that information, we make our decision. We are not allowed to discuss anything other than what has been provided as evidence in the courtroom. That said, the transcripts you are referring to that we "should have read" were simply that: transcripts of what had been said during the trial. Since all 12 of us listened to everything that was introduced as evidence, there wasn't anything "new" that we "should have read". When we were out of the courtroom, there were discussions we weren't allowed to hear. That means they are not to be used as evidence, therefore we never had access to them. I went into this trial with an open mind and I really hoped he wouldn't be found guilty, but to me, along with the 11 other jurors, there was just too much evidence pointing to his guilt.
Posted on March 8 at 5:51 a.m.
I was a juror on this trial. I think it's important to remember that unless you sat through this trial for 3 1/2 weeks, you really don't have all the facts. We saw and heard a lot more than what you are stating you've heard through the media.
Please trust in our justice system-all 12 jurors found him guilty for a reason.
Posted on March 3 at 8:16 p.m.
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.
Posted on January 26 at 10:38 a.m.
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!
Posted on January 25 at 6:18 a.m.
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.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on March 30 at 2:01 p.m.
To answer the questions so many of you are asking regarding evidence: without going into a lot of detail, because I feel my explanation will be nitpicked to death, several of the factors that pointed to his guilt included: when he was picked up by the police, he admitted being with a girl at his house, but he described her as tall and blond-the exact opposite of the victim; his cell phone records had a 1/2 hour gap at the exact time of the rape; his clothes were covered in sand even though he said he had not been on the beach, there was sand ground into both forearms of his long sleeve shirt (as if he had been down on his forearms and elbows); he told the police he thought had been "drugged" but there was never any evidence shown by the defense to substantiate that, the bite marks , (especially the face, it was emotionally overwhelming to see the match), the DNA (explained well earlier on this blog by the forensic expert), his girlfriend was searching for him (according to his roommates); he didn't answer his phone many times when she called.
So, we looked at everything. We debated. We asked questions. It didn't take long to decide because we all thought it was obvious, given the evidence. All 12 jurors came to the same conclusion -there was no cajoling, convincing, etc.
Finally, we all also believe the victim has a drinking problem. Her father knows she has a drinking problem. She was violating parole when she was drinking in IV. All of that was presented in court. However, as many have stated, that doesn't mean she should be raped.
Also, several doctors (one who works in the ER at night and testified to seeing many drunk students from IV), said the victim seemed coherent.
If new evidence is found, I believe Frimpong definitely deserves a new trial! But, for now, I believe justice has been served and I know I made the right decision based on the information provided in court.
On Frimpong Gets Six Years