stories from the time of the trial: http://www.thedarksideofucsb.com/editorialDisplay.php?number=14 http://www.thedarksideofucsb.com/editorialDisplay.php?number=20 http://santabarbarasheriffblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/eric-frimpong-trial-more-testimony.html http://www.independent.com/news/2007/jun/21/d-launches-frimpong-rape-case/ http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=14376 IMO, the defense needed to address the issue of the victim's DNA allegedly found in the defendant's genital area. I have seen nothing about this. The defendant denied sexual contact, which would seem impossible, given the scientific evidence. He couldn't testify & change his version to consensual sex. He would also have had to address the allegations of the second victim (the jury acquitted on this aspect).
Just FYI, anything from "The Darkside of UCSB" is worse than the bias that may be seen in this article. That website is ran by a father of a student who partied way too much and was put on academic probation b/c of it. The father took her out of UCSB and blamed everyone but himself or his daughter for her failure. All he does now is try to make UCSB seem like the worst place ever. As for the DNA on the defendents genitals. It has been touched upon that vaginal cells can stay up to a couple of days on where they might be. It was also never conclusive that the DNA was from her vagina. She grabbed his balls. Who knows what she had on her hands when she did that, but she did that and Eric stopped her. It happens more than people may think that a girl will do what she can and put her hand down the pants of a male to show she's interested. I know plenty of people it has happened to especially in IV. Eric did not have sex with her. If he did, HIS DNA would be on her somewhere (pubic hair, semen, etc.) and there was NONE. As for the second "victim", that was a BS claim that was actually recognized as BS. They threw that out to make it look like they weren't trying to hang this young man and felt they had enough to give them a big case already.
Did Eric claim Jane Doe grabbed his balls BEFORE results came out saying there was her DNA on him, or was it after? I know it was a month later, that he was arrested from the purported incident. Nevertheless, I think even in a college partying atmosphere that would be something a guy would remember right off the bat of a certain interaction with a girl.
From my understanding he never denied she did that. That was how people who knew him knew the story from the beginning.
So I have had some ask about Frimpong's address in jail. For those that want to send Eric letters about how his story has affected you, how you are behind him, or anything motivational...please message me for his address. I don't want to post it publicly due to the fact that I am worried that some might send negative letters his way. He needs positive letters right now, not negative. So if you truly intend to send him a positive letter, send me a message about what you will talk to him about and I will give you his address at the jail. He normally responds to all letters. He is a good young man and deserves our support.
You certain Eric claimed the girl grabbed him before DNA came out putting her DNA on his genitalia? Before or after obviously makes a big difference. Nevertheless, you guys should read the comments section of the independent story linked by Jbigjake or the one in the comments section of the soccerbyives story on it form last week. I couldnt find them today, however, whats interesting when I read it last week is not necessarily what's said by others but by what is said by one particular commentator who turns out to have a juror. You don't find out til the end of the thread that that particular the person was a juror. If you read between the lines you can gather that this issue of the girl's DNA on Eric seems to have been "scientifically supported" by prosecutor's DNA expert during the trial as highly unlikely to have come from anywhere else than from the girls' vagina itself. Thats strong evidence, if scientifically supported.
this is the article with the comments section I referred to above. its the comments section that provides the juror's thoughts on the reporting of the case http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jan/24/story-eric-frimpong/
From one of the Independent stories that you are using as your evidence against Eric: "The victim’s DNA was found on a swab taken of Frimpong’s penis, as was DNA from another girl, although the victim’s DNA was more prevalent. On a scrotal swab taken of Frimpong, his DNA, along with two different women's DNA was found. Criminalist Lillian Tugado couldn’t rule out the alleged victim’s DNA as being one of the two. There are different sources of DNA Tugado said, including skin cells, hair, saliva, mucus, semen and vaginal fluids. She testified at the preliminary hearing that it was impossible to tell what sort of cells the DNA found on Frimpong came from." I have read through every article by the Independent and read all the comments since the Independent was completely 3rd party from start to finish of the trial and talked about all the important evidence presented. A funny thing is, you get the feeling that the writer, who stayed the same throughout the trial, started to think there wasn't enough evidence to convict Frimpong "beyond a reasonable doubt". From one of his later stories: "It could turn out to be a case of he said, she said. A DNA expert’s testimony Monday in the case against Eric Frimpong — the former UCSB soccer standout on trial for allegedly raping a female UCSB student — left plenty of unanswered questions about what happened early on the morning of February 17." The juror doesn't really make mention of anything other than the fact that she/he was in the courtroom everyday listening to all the evidence (she mainly does this to argue the story of another 3rd party who wrote the article in support of Frimpong after he was convicted to prove the article wrong). All he/she does is constantly repeat that the writer of the piece wasn't in the courtroom and thus has false information and that the jury made the right decision. Of course you are going to stick by what you said if you're a juror b/c you don't want people thinking you are a liar or you were wrong in your decision (basic human instinct). BUT, oh wait, there was another juror who came out and actually said that she made the wrong decision. Hmmm, gets interesting there.
The thing is, sitting where we are, we cannot realistically know if the guys was guilty or not. But the more significant point is that, based on all the information coming out, it appears highly dubious that he got a fair trial. So, the issue we are fighting for is, the guy has no money for a decent defense, but he does deserve the right to appeal and have the conviction looked at and have it determined if indeed he deserves another trial. Then maybe he can get justice, and it can be determined whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or not. I think that is all we are asking, which is what in the same situation, somebody else with more resources would get.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4300383 Now, I am not saying he had a decent defense, but he had resources for defense. having never been to trial, I do not know whether 25k is sufficient to finance an adequate defense.
The 25 thousand wasn't the total amount of financial support, it was only the amount that came from the campus fundraising. The full quote says some other dude was helping to pay the defense, while others helped pay for the bail.
For all the talk about national health care, how about some national legal care. The poor should get the same quality representation as the rich. Where is the concern over the average Joe getting bankrupted by the legal system in addition to the health care system. If as Yossarian said, 25K is not enough for adequate representation, the I would say that the financials of the legal system are even more screwed up than the financials of the health care system. We as a society go nuts over a 25K hospital bill, but do not bat an eye at a 25K legal bill, at least in terms of having the government improve the system to make if affordable for all Americans. We have had multiple pages on these boards discussing heath care costs. What are the reasons for the ridiculously high legal care costs? Can and should something be done about it? When I hear politicians saying we all deserve the same quality health care as members of Congress (and I agree), I want to scream back at them, "What about the same quality lawyers you get to use?"
Below is a quote from another commentator from the independent story who attended the trial...which i confused with comments from juror on that comment thread: "She [reporter] 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." I only paste that section in cause it refers to scientists in the plural...meaning more then one scientist testified on DNA evidence. Of course, the section you put in bold refers to "preliminary hearing". A proper story on the case would have to relay all the science-experts giving testimony at actual trial.
actually i confused other commentator's post with jurors from that comment thread. The comments are below. However, the commentator refers to scientists- plural... meaning more then one science expert was used in the DNA section of the trial. Also, the part you put in bold refers to "preliminary hearing". "She [reporter] 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." A proper reporting of case would have to refer to the various science testimony given during actual trial.
My concern goes beyond criminal defendants, who do get the shaft. It includes the poor sap innocent sap who gets sued for no good reason and must either settle or shell out a sh*t load of money for a civil attorney. It concerns the regular people who get screwed by government mistakes, bureaucracy, and regulation. It concerns the little guy who has no real recourse when up against powerful interests, be they corporate or government. For those who argue for single payer for medical care, could we also not do the same for legal care in the areas of attorneys fees and court costs? The government can set the rates that attorneys will receive the same way the government sets medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals. I cannot see any reason why legal care should be a "for profit" enterprise any more than medical care.
Very good point. I don't mean to derail the thread, but this is a big problem for small businesses. Unscrupulous lawyers and opportunists know that a small business owner is likely to settle and pay some money rather than try to fight a lawsuit, do to the high costs of fighting it. That is one of the difficulties facing small businesses in America.
I remember trying to make a similar argument in law school, but I couldn't really ever come up with a way to make it work. To some extent, bankruptcy and collection laws protect the poor sap who gets hit with a civil suit. Also, the government would have a hard time setting rates legislatively without a separation of powers problem. FWIW, profit is awfully hard to come by in legal practice these days.
Nonsense. First, cost does not always equal quality. I've seen some tremendously dedicated public defenders over the years, as well as some high-priced attorneys who IMO basically steal their clients' money, relying more on a standard battle of personalities than a meticulous & well-reasoned analysis of the strengths & weakmesses of a criminal case. If anything, there is a shortage of funds in the prosecution sector, as a large percentage of cases are downgraded or plea bargained due to volume & personnel constraints. Second, there is no insurance system set up to fund criminal defense, such as there is with medical plans. No company paying $12Gs annually for each employee's medical coverage wants to fund an attorney insurance plan as well. Even union plans that provides for legal services usually limit them to one minor event annually (a will, a closing, a traffic or minor court appearance).