Comments by zorro
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on October 1 at 1:34 p.m.
What's really disturbing about this story is the warped attitude of law enforcement and the prosecutor. Dudley is dead wrong when she says that "it wasn’t the court’s responsibility to eliminate danger in jail, but the Sheriff Department's." Truth is, it is the responsibility of everyone in the criminal justice system to see that prisoners within its control are kept safe from physical harm. If the cops are not meeting their responsibility, then it is the judge's responsibility to step in to protect him. The man may be an alcoholic, and even a danger to society when he drives, but that is no reason to effectively condone subjecting him to a "severe" beating.
Dudley needs to learn what "equal justice" means; that it does not mean selective prosecution of PC crimes like DUI rather than just another severe jailhouse beating. She should vigorously pursue the attacker and bring him to justice too. Since presumeably he is confined as another prisoner it should be easy to find and prosecute him. Wanna bet she does nothing about it?
I hope that Sgt. Tripolt's comment “We do have assaults here and there.” was not intended as flippant and callous as it came across.
Posted on March 16 at 8:18 p.m.
Thank you, IDs187s, for explaining some aspects of DNA forensics for those of us who are not experts. One question arises, though, from your comment "post-coital semen can remain detectable for up to 72 hrs, which is why her boyfriend was implicated." Since semen with his DNA was detected on her underwear, does this mean that the boyfriend likely had some sexual contact with her that night or within the preceding 72 hours? I believe she testified that she had sex with him four days earlier and he testified he had sex with her a week earlier. Since his DNA was detected at least four days after they admitted having sex, does that mean that they were both mistaken or lying?
Posted on March 12 at 8:13 a.m.
Confused said it in a nutshell: "for this to be such a brutal rape (biting, choking, scratching, etc.) I'm confused as to how no DNA was found on her."
This one fact, I believe, raises more doubt about his guilt than any other. If the lab can find a single cell with her DNA on him, why can't they find even a single cell of his on her? He allegedly bit, choked, scratched, and penetrated her--surely he must have left at least one cell on her somewhere. Please, will one of you who support the conviction offer a reasonable (and unemotional) explanation for this? Without that, many of us will always have doubts about his guilt.
Posted on February 21 at 1:09 p.m.
Actually, lovechop, the "bureaucrat" throwing his considerable weight around is Ed Schneider, the Garden's "executive director".
Posted on February 20 at 10:51 p.m.
Here's an idea: Why not build out the "meadow" so it can be used for outdoor nightime concerts? What a great location, with the mountains in the background. We could move the County Bowl there which would relieve the Riviera neighbors of all the noise when there's a concert. The rest of the garden land could be paved for parking for the concerts. Why hasn't anybody thought of this before?
Posted on February 20 at 11:56 a.m.
So what's so bad about putting a nice flagstone patio there so more people can enjoy the place?
Posted on February 13 at 8:20 p.m.
To Pepsifan:
You miss the central issue here. No one has argued that she wasn't forcibly raped; only that Frimpong didn't do it. The relevance of her BAC has nothing to do with whether she gave consent; only whether she was so impaired by her drunkeness that her credibility in identifying Frimpong as the attacker is questionable. Her BAC was so high that had it been a few hundreths of a point higher, she would have been in the range of alcohol poisoning and could have died from over-drinking. At that level (she apparently blacked out for a time).how could she reliably identify Frimpong or anyone else as the attacker?
It most certainly DOES matter that one of the jurors may have been biased. Everyone has the right to a fair and IMPARTIAL trial by a jury.
There were several serious irregularities in the trial, any one of which could have caused Frimpong to be erroneously convicted. To borrow your phrase, NOT granting him a new trial would be a "slap in the face" to all of us because it violates our Constitution.
Posted on February 12 at 7:28 p.m.
Sure sounds like a rush to judgment. There's all kinds of "reasonable doubt" here. In the interest of fairness and justice, he should be granted a new trial.
Posted on February 4 at 8:28 p.m.
The papers had to be filed within 15 days of what?
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Previous Month
2 of 3 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on October 7 at 11:30 a.m.
The prosecutor pushing this case is the same one that handled the Frimpong case: Mary Barron.
Count on her to use the same bad judgment and questionable tactics this time. This man needs some sort of compassionate treatment, not the threat of jail for the rest of his life. Is Barron the only person who doesn't see that? What's wrong with the DA's office?
On Public Grieving, Private Loss