posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:52 AM
THE TITLE IS MISLEADING and possibly slanderous and libelous. The title SHOULD have said " ALLEGED rapist goes free.". Or perhaps a more
realistic headline would have been " Accused man protected by due process". THAT would be more honest and accurate than the one on this thread.
See how dangerous it is to assume? Just that false and misleading headline made at least one reader assume that the man WAS a rapist, and he is
NOT!! At least not legally. Not before a fair trial!!
Anyone who says that trials are not needed for ANY offense, or alleged offense is howling mad if they think that it is a way to protect anyone.
Suppose some person falsely accused YOU of some horrid crime, and you knew you were innocent. Would you tell the lynch mob that it was OK because you
are a believer in non-judicial verdicts and murder as punishment? I thought not; you would scream to the high heavens that you wanted full due
process: WHY cannot some people see that even ONE exception means that the whole system is gone, usless, ruined?
NO crime, no matter how shocking to the conscience, ios worthy of a lynch mob mentality; ALL charges merit a trial, a FAIR trial, and we cannot
allow our emotions, which is all that this ' death without trial ' nonsense is about, to dstroy the system. then we ALL are unprotected, at the
mercy of the mob.
No trial, no guilt. No fair trial, no trial. No trial without all due process rights intact. Otherwise, do not complain when they mob makes a
mistake and grabs YOU for the rope party. Only a fait trial will allow guilt to be established, THEN you can punish the accused , not before.
Are we a nation of law or a nation of men doing whatever gets them the fastest fix on their vengeance and hate train ride ? Emotion has NO place in
court or in life when a decision has to be made; emotion is the opposite of common sense and reality in most cases, and always in matters of the
And remember, SAYING that you have DNA and evidence is NOT true and actual; ONLY when evidence has been ADMITTED to the case can is be said to be
evidence, before then it is all conjecture. Doesn't ANYONE care to comment on the Duke prosecutor who lied about the DNA evidence and witness
evidence? Why not? Because it points out undenibly the fact that a Prosecutor can say anything he wants OUTSIDE of a trial, but when the matter gets
to court, it can be a totally different state of affairs.
Remember Jose Padilla, the American citizen falsely accused by the US Govt. of having a plan to detonate dirty bombs and such? Well, as it turns out
the Govt. had NO PROOF of that at all and simply charged him with something else ( after three years sitting in navy brigs being tortured and denied a
trial.) . Why? Because they LIED about the dirty bomb evidence and when it came to court all they could do is bring some weak conspiracy charges. BUT,
most of us remember the phony and lying charges from the first part of the case, and no doubt so did the jury. The intent was to PREJUDICE the case
and that is illegal, morally wrong and a danger to all of us.
The fact is this: In three years a prosecution team could not provide the means for a fair trial despite many chances, and they failed. The accused
is not guilty, as he was presumed not guilty by law and no trial was given him. I did not say he is innocent, I said he is NOT GUILTY, WHICH IS A
DETERMINATION BY A COURT THAT GUILT IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. HOW can a person get a fair trial if assumptions are made and guilt is assumed?
Answer: They cannot!!
Like many people I am enraged at horrific crimes, I have a daugher and 2 sons, and if anyone harmed them I would be looking for blood; but NOT in
the form of a lynch mob or from a verdict from a kangaroo court hearing. No, I would want to KNOW that the person charged was guilty from the
evidence and a fair trial, that way I could be assured that the right person was in jail and that the bad guy was not still walking the streets to
strike again. ONLY a fair trial can provide that assurance.
Place emotions on the back burner and see the obvious: we had better not bite off our own nose's just to spite our face's. WE might need those
protections someday and so we must preserve them for all of us, even the one's who seem to be very bad people; maybe especially them as the lowest
denominator is usually the one that the system tends toward unless we keep a close vigil on the rights we cherish so much.
The right decision was made in this case; anything else would have demeaned the system and risked all of us in the future.