Page 2 of 2
Posted on March 13 at 3:07 a.m.
I am done talking about this case. As someone mentioned above, none of us are more aware of the facts of this case than the 12 jurors who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story.
On Frimpong Gets Six Years
Posted on March 12 at 2:18 p.m.
ERIC FRIMPONG ARGUED THAT HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW THIS GIRL IS EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM! THE DAY AFTER THE RAPE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED HE CLAIMED TO NOT EVEN KNOW THE GIRL. HOWEVER, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO CLAIMED HE WAS WITH THE GIRL ALL NIGHT, INCLUDING THE MOMENTS BEFORE THE RAPE! HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF SAYING THEY DID HAVE SEX, AND IT WAS CONSENSUAL. THEN, HER BAC AT THE TIME COULD HAVE COME INTO PLAY, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DEFENSE CLAIMED!
ERIC FRIMPONG CLAIMED TO NOT EVEN KNOW THE VICTIM, YET HER DNA IS FOUND ON HIS SCROTUM. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?????
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING? THEY ARE ARGUING THAT HE DIDNT EVEN COME INTO CONTACT WITH THIS GIRL, NOT THAT SHE WASNT RAPED!!!!!!!!!
Posted on March 12 at 3:26 a.m.
Lastly, remember my first point, that the defense did not argue that she was raped. They strongly agreed that she had been the victim of a brutal raping. They claimed that Eric Frimpong had not laid a finger on her. However, as evidence shows, this is far from the case. This is why the defense team had absolutely no chance in making their case, and rarely looked to anything to prove their case other than upside-down bitemarks, that by 1 of 4 doctors, concluded it MIGHT not have been Frimpong, while the other 3 though it WAS Frimpong.This was a well-run trial, and the Judge's sentence of 6 years seems appropriate, as Frimpong didn't have any prior convictions, and the rape had not been pre-meditated. I do not wish to comment on the media's spin on the trial, as they have the right to publish whatever they so please. I just wish for people, before making outrageous claims about who is guilty/innocent, examine ALL the facts of the case, not just the ones reported in the news. Thank you.
first off barryman...state mandates that 8 years is the maximum sentence for rapists....
I have extensive knowledge of this case, so I feel that I should clear things up
First, the defense did not argue that the victim had been raped, they conceited this. However, they argued that Eric Frimpong was not the one to do it. This is a very important part of the case that I feel most people did not know.
The victim had been seen with Frimpong all night, and minutes before the attack at his apartment above the beach on Del Playa. Many witnesses attested to this.
So Frimpong claims he didn't rape her, but agrees that she was raped. He claims he never laid a finger on her, yet her DNA is all over his penis/scrotum. His scratch marks are on her body. People! The reason his DNA isn't IN her is because he didn't ejaculate!! It is much much harder for DNA from the penis to be found in the vagina, because the penis does not produce any sort of substance (unless ejaculation occurs) However, her DNA (vaginal fluids) were all over his scrotum! He argued he never even touched her! That is the case right there! Further, shortly after the rape, she came up the stairs on Del Playa screaming, crying, and bloody, claiming a black man named Eric had raped her.
Second, state law rules that if one is intoxicated, they are legally unable to give consent to sex. So, once again, by law, this was a rape.
I am not biased on this matter, however I feel there is no stronger evidence than the fact that 12 jurors were able to objectively come to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused, whom they had no idea about nor biases against/towards, was guilty. We must have faith in our legal system, and in our US population, that 12 people can be chosen and effectively determine whether one should be found guilty or not. These 12 people are at every hearing for these cases, and hear and see 95 percent of the evidence/testimony that us reading the biased newspapers do not.