Child Rapist Goes Free Because Court Can't Find Interpreter

Originally posted by budski
Understanding of the criminal and the putting of their rights before those of the victim seems to be a symptom of our PC societies - something I believe is wholly wrong.

If that's the case, then let me ask, what are the victim's rights exactly? And in what way were the victim's rights violated in this case?

This is absolutly disgusting!!!!!! I live about 20 minutes from there. Every time I here about something like this with these rapist and child molesters getting off scott free or a slap on the wrist it makes me want to go hurt someone. I am in constant fear for my 3 year old daughter every day because of things like this.

It is just another example of why our entire government needs an enema.

I'd like to ask everyone how they would have handled this case. Keeping in mind that this case would provide president for all future cases similar in nature. And I don't only mean against child molesters, but applied to all defendants in criminal cases.

It's not really that hard....I'm sure they have prisons in that section of Africa that he is from originally, so therefore if words don't work, just use a picture of a stick figure with an arrow pointing to it, then show him a picture of a jail cell with the stick figure in it.
Done.

Originally posted by Frank_Rizzo
It's not really that hard....I'm sure they have prisons in that section of Africa that he is from originally, so therefore if words don't work, just use a picture of a stick figure with an arrow pointing to it, then show him a picture of a jail cell with the stick figure in it.
Done.

And how would that help him assist in his defence? It wouldn't. I am sure he is well aware that he is in "big trouble" since he had to go to court and sit in jail. But if he doesn't understand the legal jargon (and they use alot of it in court) he may admit guilt for something he didn't do. Innocent until proven guilty is a joke now in this country. Just look at all the ignorance posted on this thread alone. I guess the burden of proof should be put on the accused then, since he is a foreigner. Only American's should be allowed the right to a just legal proceeding (sarcasm).

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I'd like to ask everyone how they would have handled this case. Keeping in mind that this case would provide president for all future cases similar in nature. And I don't only mean against child molesters, but applied to all defendants in criminal cases.

Well they probably could have gone to the State Department for assistance. I'm sure they could have provided a interpreter or the UN could have spared an interpreter. Besides he should have been held until an interpreter could have been found.

Then why not just let him request to have things repeated in simpler terms if he doesn't understand? Why does his defense need to be spiffed up with terminology a majority of people don't understand? If he is innocent it should be pretty cut and dry. Why not even bother to look at the evidence the prosecutors had simply because the defendant may or may not understand what they are talking about, it's not his choice whether he is guilty or not anyways.

I've never been able to understand why court trials are like one big game where it isn't about finding out whether or not the defendant is truly guilty or not, but which side can be more convincing and deceitful.

[edit on 7/23/2007 by somedude]

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Besides he should have been held until an interpreter could have been found.

Does that mean indefinitely? The case was pending for 3 years, and they couldn't find an interpreter in that time. 3 years is certainly not a speedy trial, which is one of the rights granted us in the constitution.

If we held him until an interpreter could be found that would open a can of worms that I don't think we want opened. It means that we could hold anyone who doesn't speak English fluently until the state finds someone who speaks their native language. This could lead to massive abuse of the system.

I don't think people are realizing the impact this will have on future cases. I feel that people take the facts of this case, become outraged, then want immediate retribution. The problem is that the legal system is like a chess game, and you need to think ahead. Not only to anticipate how it will effect the case at hand, but how it will effect future cases. This is an all too common problem with people these days. They only see what's immediately in front of them, and not what's to come because of it.

Originally posted by SButlerv2
Why would they prosecute up a kindred spirit?


That majority of men who hold power in this country and around the world a sexual deviants and perverts.

i wanted to say that too. But there is the fact that he sat in jail for 3 yrs, i Figured they just would have let him go

Thoughful people may as well accept that there are those who cannot see past their emotions, and never will. They will NOT answer intelligently about what they would do, because all they know is that someone was ACCUSED of a terrible crime, so they assume that: 1. The man held for 3 years IS the guilty party even though no evidence has been presented. 2, The man deserves no fair trial, even though guaranteed by the Constitution. 3. ANY trial will do, even if it is not understood very well by the accused. 4. All persons charged by a cop or prosecutor are guilty and a trial is just a formality.

Of COURSE this is all drivel and foolishness and highly illegal, but that does NOT matter to them. They want a pound of flesh and do not care who fry's for the crime as long as the bloodlust is satiated. They want someone to pay and do not care if a fair trial is held or not. They will assume everything posssble to deny the accused his rights; they assume he can understand English well enough to assist in a major criminal trial; they assume that anyone who knows a little of any language is able to fully comprehend the intricacies of the language well enough to assist attorneys at trial; they assume that the Constitution is malleable and can be twisted and bent to fit the charges and emotions of a case.

You are NEVER going to get the people who scream for blood,NOW, to see the obvious. They would destroy the system to get one man into a prison. Remember the words of Lord Blackstone : " Better 10 guilty escape punishment than one innocent be convicted wrongly". But the' wise sages' here say " Better to convict them ALL than allow one guilty person to escape". That is the opposite to the standard for our justice system, and we do NOT need it thrown into the trash heap of history because some emotionally challenged people cannot see the OBVIOUS harms that are done ewhen ANYONE is cheated out of a just trial.

Three years in a cell, three years branded a child rapist, three years waiting for a fair trial...and what happens? The Prosecutors could not move enough paperwork in three years to get this man to trial. It is a shame and a travesty that anyone should sit in jail for 3 years while the Prosecutors fiddle and wait and stall. Here is what happened, in all liklihood:

The Prosecutors had a THIN case. They did NOT want it brought to trial at all, due to the fact that the alleged victim would have to take the stand and testify, always a traumatic thing; the accuser would be allowed to be cross examined by the defense attorneys and that is a difficult event for sure, it puts a great strain on the witnesses and is avoided by plea bargains whenever possible if the State can get it's desired punishment close enough in the bargain. The ' DNA ' evidence that they supposedly had might show that someone else was involved; we will never know.

Remember, the bloodlust crowd never answered my challenge to state what THEY would feel like if faced with a similar set of circumstances; they will not because the answer is so apparent: they would want ALL the rights observed, they would want ALL of the chances to get a fair trial. But when it is some OTHER guy, then they are OK with just tossing the rules out and hanging the poor sucker. No trial, or a sham trial, and they would be OK with that as they are SO SURE that the accused is guilty.

Where do these geniuses get their insights from? I want to know. Where do these people get the notion that anyone can be proclaimed guilty before a trial and conviction? They will not answer that either. Of course.
All they say is :" He knows English well enough, I know it!!" But a Court said he did not, and they had all the facts at hand. Three years in a cell and all while he was supposed to be ' innocent until proven guilty ', and still after all this time the Prosecutors, who brought the charges, who claimed to have probable cause, now have no case because they could not accomodate the accused in over THREE YEARS of trying.

They did NOT try very hard, or they would have found a translator. They probably did not WANT a translator as the trial may have shown a dearth of real evidence and just a lot of hot air and circumstantial things that would not add up to a conviction. Not ONE person replied about my request about the Duke ' rape ' prosecutor, who was disbarred last month for doing the exact same type things in a case here in NC.

He had DNA evidence too ( turned out to exonerate the accused ) but left that part out!! He stated that the accused were realy bad people and called them names in the media, prejudiced the public against them, but in the end it was all A LIE !! He was just trying the case in the papers and not the court. When it got to court, it got thrown out and the kids were let go and charges dropped . The State Attorney General apologized to the accused and the Prosecutor was disbarred and fired by the Governor.

But the bloodluster's here think that Prosecutors are actually honest and driven only by justice, and that is just stupid to believe in this day and age. Prosecutors generally are looking to make a name for themselves as ' tough on crime ' so they can move up into politics ,etc. It does not matter if a person is really guilty or not, only if a case can be proven. Convictions are the name of the game, not justice. Wake up!! This is NOT your Daddy's America, this is the Bush version and innocence and truth mean nothing when a highly charged and emotionally intense event gets the media atention; they want headlines and voters who think they are protecting them from some evil scourge. Show trials are such a way of showing strength to the voters.

But in this case, three years later and now they Prosecutors want a trial with the accused not able to assist his own defense or understand the myriad of technicalities and terms used in the system well enough to do any good. If the people screaming for this man to be denied due process were THEMSELVES arrested and charged, and sat three years in a jail in a foreign land, and were told ' no layers that soeak English" and " Sorry, but translators were just too hard to find ", they would be screaming from the rooftops that their Rights were being ignored.

Why cannot they see the obvious? What blinds them to fact and reason? What is good for the goose is good for the gander, right? What hippocracy!! Fair trial or NO trial.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I don't think people are realizing the impact this will have on future cases. I feel that people take the facts of this case, become outraged, then want immediate retribution. The problem is that the legal system is like a chess game, and you need to think ahead. Not only to anticipate how it will effect the case at hand, but how it will effect future cases. This is an all too common problem with people these days. They only see what's immediately in front of them, and not what's to come because of it.

I don't believe most people want immediate retribution, but competent people representing their interests.

It appears the prosecutors don't know how to play chess for sure and they did not think ahead at all, because if they did this case wouldn't be getting thrown out on a technicality. But I do agree with you on one thing that people (prosecutors) see what is immediately in front of them, because they sure were not thinking of what was to come.

Again we are not talking about just "Due Process", but competence. The prosecutors need to be disbarred because this should have never happened for both sides involved.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by Realtruth]

I wont get into who is wrong and right here. But I did see this on the news this morning. I wasnt watching the TV, but it was on and I heard it from the other room.. (I swear I dont watch fox anymore )
I come in and take a look.. Its a good thing they didnt put the mans picture up.. As I come from the wrong side of the tracks.. If you mess up and get away with it, a group of bikers will be in your yard to "deal" with you in the old justice style manner..
If he did it or not, will not matter now.. Fox spun this out to make him hated and make people see what a crappy system we have.. I ask this, who failed us? The system?
So if anyones finds out who this guy is, and posts his pictures around the net and on TV.. All those who are out for blood will get it!
Trust me, shorteyes dont make it that far in life..
Shorteye is a jail term for a person who hurts children, and I do know that even the most harden criminals have a soft spot for kids! And end up shanking shorteyes in and outside of jails.
He wont last long in this world now.. And it doesnt matter what the case is or what the deal is, the media has made it national news, and he is a walking dead man, as I sense justice will be served one way or another.
black justice as I would call it has its uses.. Just like the Jessica L story here in Florida.. They had to test the mans IQ to see if he got the death sentance.. This made me so damn mad!!! I was like he is so dead! One way or another he will get it.. So weridly enough the bad guys are the ones who sometimes offer the sweetest justice!
So whats worse a crappy system? Or a bunch of Vigilanties taking the law into their own hands, you decide.


Edit:added more.

[edit on 103131p://5519 by zysin5]

Here we go again

Originally posted by eyewitness86
....we do NOT need it thrown into the trash heap of history because some emotionally challenged people cannot see the OBVIOUS harms that are done ewhen ANYONE is cheated out of a just trial.

And who was cheated out of a fair trial? EVERYONE!

Three years in a cell, three years branded a child rapist, three years waiting for a fair trial...and what happens? The Prosecutors could not move enough paperwork in three years to get this man to trial. It is a shame and a travesty that anyone should sit in jail for 3 years while the Prosecutors fiddle and wait and stall.

How do you know that what happened wasn't a the bequest of the defense team? I mentioned "dead time" earlier and you ignored it.

Here is what happened, in all liklihood:

Hold it right there. You are INVENTING scenarios again.

The Prosecutors had a THIN case. They did NOT want it brought to trial at all, due to the fact that the alleged victim would have to take the stand and testify, always a traumatic thing; the accuser would be allowed to be cross examined by the defense attorneys and that is a difficult event for sure, it puts a great strain on the witnesses and is avoided by plea bargains whenever possible if the State can get it's desired punishment close enough in the bargain. The ' DNA ' evidence that they supposedly had might show that someone else was involved; we will never know.

Very interesting story. But a story none the less.

Remember, the bloodlust crowd never answered my challenge to state what THEY would feel like if faced with a similar set of circumstances; they will not because the answer is so apparent: they would want ALL the rights observed, they would want ALL of the chances to get a fair trial.

I answered your questions but you ignored mine. Ah, convenient.

Where do these geniuses get their insights from? I want to know. Where do these people get the notion that anyone can be proclaimed guilty before a trial and conviction? They will not answer that either. Of course.

I never said that at all, I want a trial.

Not ONE person replied about my request about the Duke ' rape ' prosecutor, who was disbarred last month for doing the exact same type things in a case here in NC.

He had DNA evidence too ( turned out to exonerate the accused ) but left that part out!! He stated that the accused were realy bad people and called them names in the media, prejudiced the public against them, but in the end it was all A LIE !! He was just trying the case in the papers and not the court. When it got to court, it got thrown out and the kids were let go and charges dropped . The State Attorney General apologized to the accused and the Prosecutor was disbarred and fired by the Governor.

This isn't the Duke case dude, but I can see where you can draw a corrolation. So, let's get back to my UNANSWERED question. If this guy IS a pedophile how are YOU going to feel for future victims he assaults? What about their rights?

Fair trial....

Exactly.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by intrepid]

Since that one newspaper was able to find an intrepeter so easily in one of the above posts, I started to wonder if the prosecution was trying to buy time? If those intrepeters are so easily found, what other reason there would be not to get one unless you've got some kind of problem with the evidence or something and you want to use that as an excuse to buy time. I mean in 3 years they should've been able to list everyone who speaks this mans native language

I just thought of something, as long as we're dealing in "scenarios".

"Here's the translator counsel."

"Sorry, he's unacceptable."

"Here's another counsel."

"Nope, no good either."

"............................"

".............................."

Etc, etc, etc..............................

See where I'm going with this?

Three years is a pretty short time to spend in jail as opposed to being convicted.

intrepid, which councel are you referring to? Defense or prosecution?

Why should it be the US' problem that he speaks Vai?

Btw, the prosecution had found 3 previous translators for this guy:

The first one couldn't tolerate the gory details
The second one was chronically late
The third one had work issues that interfered.

Originally posted by ninthaxis
But if he doesn't understand the legal jargon (and they use alot of it in court) he may admit guilt for something he didn't do.

Since when is it a requirement that the defendant be well-versed in legal jargon? That's the duty of his attorney. Very few defendants are well-versed in legal jargon.

This guy was a liar. All of a sudden, he can't speak English. But he could go to hs and cc, talk to the police, and live in the US for a long period.

What makes this guy any different than a run-of-the-mill illiterate English-speaking defendant? Do we require that defendants have a law degree? No.

To me, the guy scammed the system. And he knew it when, in the telephone interview afterward he said "I said what I had to say". He knew what he was doing.

Originally posted by jsobecky
This guy was a liar. All of a sudden, he can't speak English. But he could go to hs and cc, talk to the police, and live in the US for a long period.

What makes this guy any different than a run-of-the-mill illiterate English-speaking defendant? Do we require that defendants have a law degree? No.

To me, the guy scammed the system. And he knew it when, in the telephone interview afterward he said "I said what I had to say". He knew what he was doing.

K I said I wasnt going into who is right and wrong, but after spending the morning researching and seeing what I could find I change my mind about not wanting to pick a side..
Well I am fully on the side of intrepid's veiws on the matter, as well as jsobecky comments here! This guy fooled the system and got away with it!! Makes me so mad!! And now mad that people would stick up for him!!
Please those who feel they need to play lawyer, read up on the articles and know that he did speak english well enough! And he is a lair and will sertinly be paided justice one way or another! Like what I said in my post above, Black Justice will find its way to this sicko and I will sleep better at night knowing this monster is off the streets and in the ground!

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
Besides he should have been held until an interpreter could have been found.

Does that mean indefinitely? The case was pending for 3 years, and they couldn't find an interpreter in that time. 3 years is certainly not a speedy trial, which is one of the rights granted us in the constitution.

If we held him until an interpreter could be found that would open a can of worms that I don't think we want opened. It means that we could hold anyone who doesn't speak English fluently until the state finds someone who speaks their native language. This could lead to massive abuse of the system.

Define "speedy trial".

If it is the fact that he was incarcerated that bothers you, then give him the opportunity to make bail.

Apparently this guy's native tongue, Vai, is some obscure tribal tongue. Let's prevent future occurences like this by supporting only the major languages of a country, not every obscure tribal dialect. Some people click their tongues to communicate. How are we supposed to support that?