LosMediasBlancas Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Found not guitly in a court of law. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3959544 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I'm guessing the video didn't broadcast the defendents face, and the only remnants of him were background sounds--which would have to be corroborated by the victim. Since she refused to watch the video, no validation was given. Reasonable doubt was created. Everyone probably knew he was guilty. It just wasn't possible to convict him on the evidence provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Just read the article on the decision. Don't want to see the video but it obviously showed it was consent. I believe it did show two of the kids faces. The 3rd kid wasn't taped. It i suspicious that all these kids fled the country, kind of showing they maybe guilty, but the prosecution didn't do their job. Did the girl testify? I don't think she did but wondering what she would of said. Paper said she woke up with nasty words marked on her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 How can it be "legal" consent since she was 16 and well under the influence of something (alcohol/drugs/etc)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 QUOTE(Brian @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 02:04 PM) It i suspicious that all these kids fled the country, kind of showing they maybe guilty, but the prosecution didn't do their job. I've wondered that myself. I wonder if they can look in the mirror after all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 01:46 AM) I'm guessing the video didn't broadcast the defendents face, and the only remnants of him were background sounds--which would have to be corroborated by the victim. Since she refused to watch the video, no validation was given. Reasonable doubt was created. Everyone probably knew he was guilty. It just wasn't possible to convict him on the evidence provided. The judge in this case is a meathead. He used to be a public defender, what a shock. Any judge who thinks its a requirement in a rape trial to have the victim watch the attack should be taken off the bench. But because he is a public defender, he will get a great rating from the bar association come next election. He is doing some goofy things in the criminal court. This is just one of them. Edited March 4, 2006 by southsideirish71 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) The judge in this case is a meathead. He used to be a public defender, what a shock. Any judge who thinks its a requirement in a rape trial to have the victim watch the attack should be taken off the bench. But because he is a public defender, he will get a great rating from the bar association come next election. He is doing some goofy things in the criminal court. This is just one of them. I agree. And as Queen pointed out, the victim was intoxicated, so legally, consent could not be given. I was absolutely shocked by this verdict--and it takes a whole hell of a lot to shock me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pale Hose Jon Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 quick reply as i have to go to work. I am VERY disappointed in this decision. I went to school with these assholes and everyone knows that they are guilty. i'll elaborate more on what exactly happened later, but i have to go to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Un-f***ing-believable. Its s*** like this that makes you absolutely hate attourneys and our legal system in general. How he couldn't have AT LEAST been guilty of child pornography is beyond me. The kid is on tape having sex with a 16 year old girl, which they know is being videotaped. Excuse me? The version on NBC5.com includes a quote from the videotape which is where I am guessing they got "reasonable" doubt from. NBC5's Natalie Martinez reported that prosecutors presented the videotape to the jury with a portion of the audio enhanced. On that portion of the tape, Missbrenner could be heard saying, "The good drugs are paying off." http://www.nbc5.com/news/7661247/detail.html I am not quite sure what else it could have been, that got these rapists off. They'll all get there's though, I have no doubt about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosMediasBlancas Posted March 6, 2006 Author Share Posted March 6, 2006 The prosecution must have blown it. That's the only way you can explain having it on videotape and STILL losing the trial. I know people get emotional about these kinds of verdicts and rightfully so, but a lot of innocent people get locked up every day and guitly people walk free every day. A trial by a jury of your peers is still the best system of justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 (edited) Werent all the kids innebriated? Isnt it possible that they all got messed up, decided to portake in this activity, and she just regretted it later? Isnt it possible? Kids these days are sexually active before the age of 16, I wouldnt put it out of the question. Edited March 6, 2006 by RockRaines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Wow, I wonder if you had personal ties to the defendants? Once again, I actually share your view. If I had sex with the girl this weekend after a long night at the bars. No matter if it was consensual, if she accused me of rape, I would be labeled a rapist no matter what. I think after seeing the tape of the whole incident, we have to believe the jury. They are the only people who saw the act, and they didnt think it was rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Joined 30 minutes ago and the first post is a trolling flame.. Personal ties Rock.. ya think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I edited out our "new posters" first post. Its one thing if members want to discuss this, its another for someone with a clear agenda to join and look to cause trouble in his first post. If anyone has a problem, they can PM me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) Joined 30 minutes ago and the first post is a trolling flame.. Personal ties Rock.. ya think. NO WAY!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 02:31 PM) NO WAY!!!!! Beats me... Just guessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Beats me... Just guessing. We are definately on the same page with that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.