They did NOT have witnesses and DNA!!! They ' alleged ' that they had DNA and witnesses. EXAMPLE:
Read the comments and see that the PROSECUTOR said HE had DNA also; what was not mentioned by the Prosecutor was that the DNA CLEARED the suspects.
And the witnesses he had were lying and proven to be so. So it is plain and clear that Prosecutors can and DO lie, obstruct justice, tamper with
evidence, withhold evidence that tends to prove the innocence of the accused, etc.
I am NOT saying that this is the case in the instant subject matter; just that as long as it DOES happen and CAN happen, we CANNOT take the words of
a partisan player, a Prosecutor, too seriously. They have an agenda, get convictions. They are SUPPOSED to seek only justice, but that is a joke and
anyone who believes that Prosecutors are neutral and fair and living in a dream world.
Who can say that if the case came to Court that the evidence would have been so thin, or rejected by the Judge for various technical reasons, that a
case would have been imp[ossible to prove. Would you put a 7 year old kid ( well, 10 now) on the stand after three years of waiting and subject the
kid to the vigorous cross examination by a defense attorney? If so you had better have the witness thoroughly prepared and all your cards ready to
Three years later and no hand to put down on the table. Three years and no competent interpreter. By the way, there is a difference between a '
translator ' and an ' interpreter '. An interpreter does not have to have the necessary skills to relate the language exactly and have a vast
command of it; relating is a summary and does not have to be exact. A translator, on the other hand, must have a full and complete knowledge of the
language and be able to quote words exactly and know the meanings of colloquialism,s , slang etc. To find a translator that fit all the needs of this
trial was the job of the Prosecutor; if the Court insists on a translator then the State must find one. That person would be getting paid by the
State, and would be beholden to faithfully represent the words spoken regardless of anything else.
To believe that in three years not ONE qualified translator could be found that could do the job and fulfill the expectations of the Court is
ludicrous. they simply did not try hard enough, that's all. Had they spent the time and affort and money they COULD have come up with a way to try
this man fairly in three years. They FAILED TO DO SO.
Some people here would say " Keep him there forever ", never imagining THEMSELVES facing such a horror; all of the people here screaming for blood
would be screaming for the exact opposite if it were THEY who were on the receiving end of a screwed up deal. Rights must be protected for one, or
they cannot be there for any at all.
So, there is NO EVIDENCE that this man has committed a crime, NONE. The Prosecutor, just like in the Duke ' rape ' case, SAID he had all kinds of
DNA evidence, he SAID that the defendants were, for all practicle purposes, guilty. He hinted at overwhelming proof of guilt. And today, he is in
front of a Judge facing criminal charges for ' intentioally deceiving ' the Court and public. Who says that this case is any different? NO ONE CAN,
because UNTIL the case has been tried in a court of law and evidence sorted and admitted as such, and witness testimony has been heard and judged can
anyone believe what some Prosecutor says. THEY LIE!!
In any event, if the alleged victim was indeed assaulted by this man, I hope that he gets his just dessert's from Karma or whatever, but to drag on
a case year after year demeans the system and justice in general. If the man is innocent, which is possible, no one can say it is not given the facts
above, then a great miscarriage of justice has been prevented.
This country is above assumption of guilt and mock trials that sully the Constitution. Once in a while a bad guy gets away as the price we pay for a
system that offers protections necessary to a free nation; it sucks, but it is the best way yet. Those of you hung on " what if , what if " may as
well be playing a guessing game as no one knows what the future holds. You are PRESUMING GUILT beefore a trial!! That is UNAmerican and
anti-Constitution and that is not the path of the wise choice, now is it?
If we have to ruin the system to get revenge on a man that has never had a chance to defend himself, we are pretty sad specimens of a democracy and
can never point a finger at any totalitarian regime and say that they are bad; we are just as bad when we deny ANY rights to ANYONE under ANY
Emotion versus reality. Fact versus allegation. Proof versus innuendo. Fair trials versus kangaroo courts set up to convict despite the law and
rules and protections. Seperate the emotion from this debate and the truth is clear and obvious: WE must protect the worst and most hated people as we
would ourselves, a variation on the Golden Rule, which always seems to work no matter where it is used. Give this man the kind of trial YOU would
insist on, or admit that the rule of law and fairness and the Constitution mean less to you than naked vengeance and emotions ruling the day.
While I ' feel ' for ANY victim of a terrible crime, I also ' feel ' very strongly that we are heading down a very dangerous and slippery slope
when we denigrate the system we rely on for OUR justice in order to demonize and castigate someone else; someone who has never even had a fait trial
by the standards of the court itself. Fait trrial or NO trial.
THAT is what this boils down to, and the Judge saw plainly that the Prosecution was never going to be able to comply with the courts instructions;
three years and still no case. Enough. More than enough.
Throw your emotions away and see this as a law professor would and you will soon see the wisdom in protecting the rights we have zealously. Any
other way will lead to our demise as a free nation and our Rights will have been trasshed in the name of outrage and emotion and bloodlust. That is
NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and thank God for that. Blame the people who did not come through, did not perform, did not make the case.
They damn well had long enough.
Once again, read the Duke case & see how low a Pros. can really go. Typical!!