Frimpong Gets Six Years

I've read every article I can find regarding this case, and I've yet to read about any evidence that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Frimpong committed this heinous act. Can someone please post a link to something that shows how the jury found him guilty?

I'm not trying to be insensitive to the people who were hurt by the crime, I'm just confused as to what - based on everything I've read - proves this guy did it?

hmmm, Barryman, your post is an excellent illustration of the unique nature of our justice system....you say that you have "read every article" about the case yet are stumped about Frimpong's guilt.........

....luckily, our justice system doesn't rest on people "reading articles" in search of evidence. jurors are actually required to sit through the trial, listen to, and deliberate upon the evidence......and voila, when they did in this case, they found the defendant guilty........
perhaps in some societies, reading articles passes for evidence, but not here....

With all due respect to your question maybe that is why court cases are not conducted in the media. I was a juror on this case and I can honestly say that there was not just one single piece of evidence that proves his guilt. Rather it was the combined and ample pieces of evidence that became insurmountable to have reasonable doubt. We had no racial agenda, we were very deliberate in our questioning of our individual and collective beliefs and in the end we all agreed he was guilty. You would have to have been there in court everyday and started out and kept an objective frame of mind to do this work. It was very difficult for all of us.
One of the many things I have learned thru this experience is that some people are so blindly enamoured with talented athletes and so incredibly cruel to rape victims.

Barryman to be honest you do not need to know the evidence. You were not a juror, judge, lawyer, defendant, or victim. I am a supporter of the victim and I personally believe that 6 years is far to short for a man, or should I say a confused little boy, that brutally raped, restrained, bit, and strangled a tiny girl and left her for dead on the beach. The judge sentenced him to a mid sentence today because of the extensive brutal nature of the rape and for the cruel manner with which the victim was treated. You will notice that no news articles mention the supporters of the victim although there have been many present throughout the trial. The media has turned this into the case of a beloved soccer player with a Cinderella story vs. the girl who just wants attention. I wish people would stop trying to look for something that isn't there. Can we finally get to a place in society where a woman who is the victim of a crime of this nature does not have to be bashed in the media? The media is treating her unfairly because she does not want to go public with her story and to them is being uncooperative. She did not know who he was she was!!! A young girl out in IV one night, just like many people reading this have been, was raped and the media and Frimpong supporters are making that her fault...? She did not know who Frimpong was, and if she were just out to get the soccer player she would have sold her story by now. Be rational people!!! The only money she is getting from this is $200 in restitutions and her medical bills paid for!!! She has never released her name and has done everything to shield herself from the attention. None of her friends including myself have been allowed to speak to the media on her behalf for fear of their names tracing back to her. If you take a second to look at the character of this girl it is obvious that she is not doing this for fun!!! This man and his actions have taken a year away from an amazing girls life and it's time for the media to stop skewing the story to suit Frimpong and start telling the truth. I watched reporters jot stuff down in their notebooks today and they were writing lies and writing things they could use out of context!!! The article should be about the honesty in our media. The reason you have not read articles proving Frimpongs guilt is because the media chooses to turn a blind eye in order to support a RAPIST!!

Correction I meant to type who *he* was.

"They were writing lies...". How do you know this? Did you read all of the notes from all of the reporters? I think you're getting a bit riled up...

I would love it if any of the jury members would elaborate regarding the evidence that they think proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he raped her. Granted, all we non-jurors have heard is via articles from local media. But, the things that we have heard are powerful. It's hard to ignore her incredibly excessive blood alcohol level, the NEXT day, her boyfriends semen, not Eric's, the bite mark, etc.

For her BAL to be that high, the next day, she would have had to consume copious amounts of alcohol. Unfortunately, that's not just "a young girl out in IV one night," that is a young girl who is lucky she didn't die from alcohol poisoning. And I'm sorry, when you're that drunk, it has got to be hard to remember things clearly.

I realize everyones emotions and tempers are running wild, but like I said in an earlier post, if we just blindly trusted that our legal system worked perfectly, there would be no need for the Innocence Project. Be well...

pinkerbell just know that you have nothing to do with this case and really don't matter, and the people that do have already decided. She matters, the judge matters and the jury matter. In court today the judge stated that he believed far beyond any reasonable doubt that Eric Frimpong brutally raped the victim. I can assure you that he has heard and read more testimony that you or anyone else including her and her parents. You know nothing of her recollections from that night and she should be admired for contacting friends and the police right after it happened. She wasn’t to intoxicated to go and get a rape exam and have all of her bruises looked at by doctors. Rapes are underreported and it is because of people like you who and the media who decide it is more interesting to run the victim through the mud. Alcohol affects people different ways and obviously she was coherent enough to make the right decision to get help.

You speak of her intoxication so much, and if you think for a second that most girls in IV aren't that drunk on a Friday or Saturday night than you are either delusional or ignorant. Beyond that BEING DRUNK OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE DOES NOT MAKE RAPE OK.

Let her finally move on. Do you think that any victim of rape doesn't blame themselves more than anyone else? They blame themselves and are embarrassed about it because of people like you. Yes I'm heated, a girl in IV was raped by the star soccer player and the school backed him and the soccer team backed him and the news media backed him and none of them have the information that the courts have. The courts backed her maybe it's time you people start paying attention to the people who know all the evidence.

The responses here to a simple request for information say a lot about why there are questions about whether Mr. Frimpong's received due process. No one has claimed that she wasn't raped or that rape is ok; the question is whether he did it. I've been on juries where one or more jurors displayed the sort of attitude that notlongenough has. In one case 11 level-headed jurors had to explain one by one to an elderly juror that "it's terrible what happened to her" and "someone has to pay" were not appropriate as explanations for why he favored a guilty verdict.

As for Judge Brian Hill, as far as I can tell he always thinks the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, Barryman9000, some of the evidence against Frimpong (which was, in fact, in several articles on the Independent and the Daily Nexus) was the presence of the victim’s DNA found on Frimpong’s penis and scrotum, as well as under one of his fingernails, and evidence of a fresh scratch on the victim’s thigh, explained as being the result of forcibly having her legs spread prior to being raped.

While racism in our judicial system is a serious issue that does need to be addressed, the accusation of racial prejudice that has been exhaustively brought up has no standing in Frimpong's case. The victim leveled her accusation against Frimpong PRIOR to the DNA evidence returning - therefore she did NOT randomly point her finger at the first African man she saw. She was simply, and quite bravely, pointing out who she was raped by.

It is bizarre that people keep bringing up her BAC level as if that proves Frimpong is somehow innocent.
Guess what! State law mandates that people who are intoxicated (especially to the point of unconsciousness) are legally UNABLE to give consent.
One damning piece of evidence that seems to be repeatedly ignored by commentators is the presence of the victim's DNA on Frimpong's genitals. How did it get there unless they had some sort of sexual contact? Sexual intercourse with a girl who is intoxicated to the point of blacking out is...RAPE. Period.

Also, please don't bother trying to posit that he is innocent because of the lack of DNA on the victim. 1/3 of all rapes occur WITHOUT the rapist ejaculating.

And P.S. Santa Barbara Independent writers: Is it necessary or appropriate to begin every single article about Frimpong by calling him a "UCSB soccer star" and ending by quoting his sympathizers? Biased much?

"We knew from day one that Hill wouldn't let him off because he's a former DA."

What a reckless statement.

Since when does "attack with a friendly weapon" get more time than second degree murder? Even if he did it, which I doubt, he should be only looking at 2 years and get out in 1 for good behavior.

Oh yes, I forgot, the extra time is for the bite.

"attack with a friendly weapon"? what a horrible and shallow characterization of rape! in fact, there were 2 bites, one to the face and one to the butt. NOTHING friendly about it!

truth_machine if you read my first post you may realize that I'm not just some person who is reading random articles in the Independent. I know a lot about this case probably more than most and all the information points to him being guilty. All 12 jurors gave a guilty verdict... She isn't even white so please stop playing the race card it's getting really old. And it was extra time for the bite, strangulation, beating, and leaving her half clothed on the beach unconscious. Yes I think, and so does the judge, that the viciousness of the rape deserves extra time. The scariest thing about this whole trial is that Frimpong has not once shown remorse for what he did. Psychopaths show no remorse; people who have no empathy or respect for human beings show no remorse. When the police picked him up the first time he was shown a picture of the victim and said he didn’t know who she was!!! How did he not know who she was if he was partying with her all night?!?!?!?! This guy is an idiot and I don’t get why everyone, especially people who know nothing except what has been reported in the biased media and are not involved in the case are trying to defend him.

ATTN Truth Machine: there is no longer a "question whether he did it". That has been resolved in open court. Sorry if you missed or chose to ignore the staggering, brutal evidence.

The questions raised by the Indy's article had to do with the processes by which the arrest was made, evidence gathered and the verdict arrived at. Apparently, and without making any judgments about Frimpong's guilt or innocence, some police and prosecutorial errors were made which could have prejudiced the outcome against the defendant.

I was not there, I know none of the parties involved, but it does behoove us all to understand that the errors described created questions which tarnish the verdict, and sentence. A thorough review by a higher judge seems to be in order. We would not tolerate the prejudicial errors made were we the defendant.

I have served on a criminal jury and know how much juries are allowed to hear of all the evidence and circumstances.

Judicial review is needed here, despite the emotional urges for revenge and retribution.

Two bites that news to me.

I can see where a bite on the butt can render one submissive to brutal sexual acts. So I think I get it . Two years for the "maybe rape". Two more years for the cheek bite and two more years for other cheek bite. If my math is correct that is 6 years.

Frimpong is innocent. Judge Brian Hill is an ex D.A., AND a racist! The girl's ex-boyfriend raped her. To those of you who think that due process and a fair trial occurred in that courtroom,
you must not have been there. I was.

Judge Hill should resign. Frimpong should be released immediately and a new investigation, perhaps from an agency outside of the thugish SB Sheriff's department(those deputies in I.V. are loose cannons with way too much authority).

Viva El Revelucion!!

Uh huh, and all the things you True Believers are saying about Frimpong have been said about hundreds of other wrongly convicted "criminals" whose convictions were later overturned. Don't act as if because someone was found guilty in a court of law means that there's no other possible reality or that it reflects the Absolute Truth. Unfortunately, though, that's all we have to go on, so yeah... we have to 'assume' he's guilty because the court has said so. You're probably the same type of people who I've heard say things about exonerated "criminals" like: "Well, even if he was wrongly convicted, he probably wasn't an angel anyway, otherwise why would there have been any circumstantial evidence in the first place?"

And no, I am NOT enamored of someone because he is a "star athlete". I could care less about that, so stop trotting that out too.

One doesn't deserve to be violently raped just for being drunk to the point of blacking out or very nearly so.... but I hope young women will take something away from this that there is a level of responsibility involved in drinking and being able to remain in a state of consciousness that allows you to ensure your own safety as much as possible. And no, I'm not being a "misogynist" by saying that.

If the "body of evidence" that the alleged juror above referss to shows that they were together at some point, and he had her DNA on his genitals... who knows what all the possible alternatives are. I have no idea why his attorney didn't posit some of them -- maybe because he thought he had an ironclad case. Maybe she performed oral sex on him at midnight, and then god knows how long she was staggering around intoxicated in Isla Vista or on the beach, where god only knows how many men could have happened upon her in a state in which she probably couldn't have judged with whom she came in contact. Do you know what it means to have a BAC more than double the legal limit and what that might do to one's possible memory or even whether one is considered "conscious" or not? Please.

@mosquito
Thank you. That was more along the lines of what I was looking for. Unfortunately, some people on this board think that we should read the paper, watch the news, and never ask questions or seek more information.

@sbsleuth99.
Thank you so much for your not-so detailed description of how our justice system works. Read my post again. I never proclaimed he was innocent, nor did I say I read every article out there ("...every article I can find..."). My point was, the info "I could find" highlighted facts in the case that suggested he was not guilty... I was simply looking for more information, which only matters to me not our judicial system...

Six years, is that all? For Judge Hill to claim that the rape was so violent, his sentence is absolutely inexplicable. At least 10 years should have been the sentence for such a violent act as rape, if it was truely his judgement of the case. I for one believe, the case was based on questionable evidence and testimony. Yes, Judge Hill was biased for the D.A. To the father of the victim, why should he show remorse for something he didn't do? Tell your damn daughter she needs to address her under aged drinking problem. Next time she'll be on the stand for killing someone in a drunk driving case.

If this was as violent as it seems, how is there no DNA from the accused on the victim? You'd think if not touching someone was enough to have DNA on them, then the bite marks, scratch, rape, etc. would produce some of his DNA on her. No?

OK...notlongenough, you need to stop and think before you post, you're just babbling.

Are you going to answer my question? How do you know that the reporters were writing down lies? Please explain this to us. I just cannot stand it when people make statements like this w/o being able to back it up.

And for the record, I didn't say I mattered in this case, I don't know where that one came from, and I think you're being a bit rude. Yes, the victim matters, the judge and jury matter too. You forgot someone, the accused matters as well, people are wrongly accused all of the time. Just because you go to school with her, or hang out with her, or maybe you're even best friends with her, doesn't mean he raped her.

I already stated that all I have heard, and most of SB has heard is from the media. I never said I heard more than the judge/jury, that is just ridiculous. And second, I AM a rape victim, so don't try to say that people like ME are the reason that the media "like to run the victim through the mud" that does NOT work here. I get that you're angry. A girl was raped, that is horrible, I think we can all agree on that one. But as we all know, just because a jury finds someone guilty, does NOT mean that they are. Again I bring up the Innocence Project, you should google it.

Wow, did I EVER say that being intoxicated is a permission slip to be raped? Again, you need to reread the posts here, and take a big breath before you reply. The only reason I bring up the alcohol is because of how clouded ones memory can be when they are intoxicated to the point of alcohol poisoning.

If you can simply answer the question I asked you, please do. If you're going to continue to get angry/emotional and spout exaggerations, please don't waste your energy. And I'd still like to hear from jury members. Although I have nothing to do w/ this case, even though "I don't matter", if he's innocent, then the people trying to make sure he received a fair trial, WE do in fact matter.

All Barryman did was ask a question and look how he/she gets personally attacked.

While I cannot address the case itself because I don't have the facts, I will only address some of the responses to Barryman's question by pointing out that such attacks are indicative of the general direction of our society, When this behavior becomes mainstream, people become afraid to ask questions (some people anyway--I am one of those who isn't afraid to be insulted) and when people are afraid to ask questions, then freedom itself is in peril.

I will leave it up to the rest of the bloggers to determine Frimpong's guilt.

The only thing to add is that we need to address the fact that so many rape victims are afraid to come out of the shadows and go public. THIS is an indication of a big problem in our society. If rape victims didn't feel stigmatized, then the long-term damage to their beings would be lessened.

explain this to you I was sitting next to reporters in the court room watching them write is that enough for you.

Notlongenough...what lies were written down? Also, I'm still puzzled by the lack of DNA from the accused on the victim. You'd think there would be some, right? I might be missing something, let me know if I'm way off.

Justice was done when Eric Frimpong was sentenced to 6 years in prison. With a little good behavior he'll do 3 yrs. and then go back to Ghana where tribal laws allow adult men to sexually molest underage girls without impunity - it's a shame we, as tax payers, have to pay for his time in jail before deportation. I find Sanger's attempt at covering the fact that Frimpong had her DNA on his penis by hiring a professional dental expert willing to use his expertise to confuse the bite mark evidence appalling. Dr. Bowers should be ashamed of himself. Thank God that Judge Hill was smart enough to listen to the expert Barron brought in as Dr.Golden made it pretty clear there was subterfuge going on and the intellectually honest folks could see the bite as it should be! I hope the young lady has learned a lesson and gets help with her drinking issue. Arlene.

<i>She isn't even white so please stop playing the race card it's getting really old.</i>

Excuse me? I never mentioned race. As I said, the attitude (and intellectual dishonesty) displayed by such as yourself helps explain why there is doubt.

<i>The scariest thing about this whole trial is that Frimpong has not once shown remorse for what he did.</i>

None of the people who were convicted of crimes who have since been exonerated ever showed any remorse either. Gee, I wonder why?

<i>Thank you. That was more along the lines of what I was looking for.</i>

Personally, I take with several grains of salt any claim that something was reported, unless a citation is provided. The internet is rife with false claims.

<i>ATTN Truth Machine: there is no longer a "question whether he did it". That has been resolved in open court.</i>

It has been resolved legally, but it has not been resolved epistemologically, thus you are wrong that there is no longer a question. If you were correct, then it wouldn't be logically possible for a convicted person to later be found innocent.

<i>Sorry if you missed or chose to ignore the staggering, brutal evidence.</i>

Whether the evidence is of that sort is still in question, regardless of your assertions.

<i>Also, I'm still puzzled by the lack of DNA from the accused on the victim. You'd think there would be some, right?</i>

There's no guarantee that a sample can be found; people have been raped before with no DNA evidence available. Whether or not the evidence rises to the level of no reasonable doubt, it certainly seems consistent with Frimpong being guilty.

<i>This guy is an idiot and I don’t get why everyone, especially people who know nothing except what has been reported in the biased media and are not involved in the case are trying to defend him.</i>

This isn't the sort of thing one says if one wants to be viewed as credible. I suspect that there would be fewer people with doubts if folks like "notlongenough" and kthots remained silent.

first off barryman...state mandates that 8 years is the maximum sentence for rapists....

Now...

I have extensive knowledge of this case, so I feel that I should clear things up

First, the defense did not argue that the victim had been raped, they conceited this. However, they argued that Eric Frimpong was not the one to do it. This is a very important part of the case that I feel most people did not know.

The victim had been seen with Frimpong all night, and minutes before the attack at his apartment above the beach on Del Playa. Many witnesses attested to this.

So Frimpong claims he didn't rape her, but agrees that she was raped. He claims he never laid a finger on her, yet her DNA is all over his penis/scrotum. His scratch marks are on her body. People! The reason his DNA isn't IN her is because he didn't ejaculate!! It is much much harder for DNA from the penis to be found in the vagina, because the penis does not produce any sort of substance (unless ejaculation occurs) However, her DNA (vaginal fluids) were all over his scrotum! He argued he never even touched her! That is the case right there! Further, shortly after the rape, she came up the stairs on Del Playa screaming, crying, and bloody, claiming a black man named Eric had raped her.

Second, state law rules that if one is intoxicated, they are legally unable to give consent to sex. So, once again, by law, this was a rape.

I am not biased on this matter, however I feel there is no stronger evidence than the fact that 12 jurors were able to objectively come to the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused, whom they had no idea about nor biases against/towards, was guilty. We must have faith in our legal system, and in our US population, that 12 people can be chosen and effectively determine whether one should be found guilty or not. These 12 people are at every hearing for these cases, and hear and see 95 percent of the evidence/testimony that us reading the biased newspapers do not.

Lastly, remember my first point, that the defense did not argue that she was raped. They strongly agreed that she had been the victim of a brutal raping. They claimed that Eric Frimpong had not laid a finger on her. However, as evidence shows, this is far from the case. This is why the defense team had absolutely no chance in making their case, and rarely looked to anything to prove their case other than upside-down bitemarks, that by 1 of 4 doctors, concluded it MIGHT not have been Frimpong, while the other 3 though it WAS Frimpong.
This was a well-run trial, and the Judge's sentence of 6 years seems appropriate, as Frimpong didn't have any prior convictions, and the rape had not been pre-meditated. I do not wish to comment on the media's spin on the trial, as they have the right to publish whatever they so please. I just wish for people, before making outrageous claims about who is guilty/innocent, examine ALL the facts of the case, not just the ones reported in the news. Thank you.

"However, her DNA (vaginal fluids) were all over his scrotum! "

Odd that someone who has "extensive knowledge of this case" would make such a statement. The expert testimony was that it wasn't possible to determine what sort of tissue produced the DNA. There was no evidence of vaginal fluids on Frimpong. The defense argued (plausibly or not) that she put her hand in his pants and that's where the DNA came from.

And I'll reiterate the point I made before: there would be *fewer* people with doubts if frothing, ignorant, illiterate people with an axe to grind like "turningthepage" simply remained silent.

Turningthepage...truth_machine already commented on a point that you made that was incorrect "her DNA (vaginal fluids) were all over his scrotum!" ...so I won't say anything. It also was never provin that "His scratch marks are on her body" ...if that was the case, how is their none of his DNA on her? I'm not saying that their has to be DNA 'in' her. But come on, for this to be such a brutal rape (biting, choking, scratching, etc.) I'm confused as to how no DNA was found on her.

Confused said it in a nutshell: "for this to be such a brutal rape (biting, choking, scratching, etc.) I'm confused as to how no DNA was found on her."

This one fact, I believe, raises more doubt about his guilt than any other. If the lab can find a single cell with her DNA on him, why can't they find even a single cell of his on her? He allegedly bit, choked, scratched, and penetrated her--surely he must have left at least one cell on her somewhere. Please, will one of you who support the conviction offer a reasonable (and unemotional) explanation for this? Without that, many of us will always have doubts about his guilt.

How come everyone keeps refering to Eric as a 'man' (one reference to 'confused little boy') and to the victim as a 'girl'?

Isn't that maybe part of the larger problem? Even the victims's supporters refer to her as a girl. The only person who refers to the victim as a 'woman' is the victim herself.

There are a lot of very interesting posts on here. I have been interested in this case, and as most of us on here, I feel compassionate, concerned for the sake of justice, and burdened to look past what is written for further details. I would love to know more, by anyone who was close to this case, either as a juror, attorney, or just someone who sat through the proceedings and made notes. I have a local TV show that airs in 20 cities now, and I would love to talk about this case, but need some further details. I saw that someone posted that the girl who was raped was back out on the party circuit in IV. Is that verifiable fact, assumption, a rumor, or? I would also like to know if the girl's boyfriend's semen/DNA was found on Frimpong's genitals? That would determine whether he actually penetrated her or just touched extremities and then himself, or maybe she touched his with her "stuff" on her fingers??? Is it possible, at all, that she was blacked out, came to, and found semen in her, and the last thing that she remembered was being with Eric, and accused him, without remembering that she had sex with her boyfriend prior, or did she mention having sex with her boyfriend from the get go? I would love to know, either way.
I was very close to two of the girls involved in the Andrew Luster case, and saw how much BS and lying went on in that case, so I am not so quick to believe what I am hearing. Not to say that Andrew was some innocent guy, either, but the girls certainly fabricated quite a bit, and I was there to see and hear it. It just seems like a VERY STRANGE pattern for a girl who claims to have been raped, to be right back out there partying???? I would also be interested in knowing if her probation was violated. That is a great point? If she is partying , once again, that would be further violation, and a horrible display of character and discretion I would think.
I realize that I use others from Africa, that I have known as my templet, and that I do not want to believe that this guy would throw his career away, and that someone would have to be incredibly stupid and careless to throw away a pro soccer career on one night of ass, but people do stupid things. However, I also realize that he has a lot more to lose than she does. Coming from a small town in a country where I am sure that he is feeling the burden to achieve for his family and friends, I would think, or at the very least, hope that he would come to a far away country with much more on his mind than booty, and instilled with the healthy fear of being in a foreign place, with less than average powers. That being the case, it would be a true crime against us all, to not, at least, invest a certain amount of energy and time into asking the fair question of "how much do we really know about this case, and is this guy guilty beyond reasonable doubt?"

You know....I don't want to sound crude, but to be blunt, I just thought about this, and if she just had sex with her boyfriend and touched herself during the act, and did not wash her hands, it is possible that she could have held Mr. Frimpong's hands, getting it under his nails, and on his hands, and if Mr. Frimpong scratched his balls, he got a little on himself. I'm just saying.....it is a possibility. How much semen was found?

Ya I don't know if I buy this completely.

The people here arguing for Frimpong are arguing calmly and rationally, and simply want a rational explanation. The people arguing for the "woman" are emotional and have been caught changing and fabricating evidence in their posts.

I'm not saying he didn't do it, I just don't think the evidence points in that direction. If she was blacked out, a lot could have happened that nobody will ever know about.

The dental evidence is key here...was the jury shown the dental evidence or did they just get dental professionals to testify?

PEOPLE! LISTEN!

ERIC FRIMPONG ARGUED THAT HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW THIS GIRL IS EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM! THE DAY AFTER THE RAPE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED HE CLAIMED TO NOT EVEN KNOW THE GIRL. HOWEVER, THERE WERE WITNESSES WHO CLAIMED HE WAS WITH THE GIRL ALL NIGHT, INCLUDING THE MOMENTS BEFORE THE RAPE! HE WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF SAYING THEY DID HAVE SEX, AND IT WAS CONSENSUAL. THEN, HER BAC AT THE TIME COULD HAVE COME INTO PLAY, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DEFENSE CLAIMED!

ERIC FRIMPONG CLAIMED TO NOT EVEN KNOW THE VICTIM, YET HER DNA IS FOUND ON HIS SCROTUM. HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?????

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEFENSE IS ARGUING? THEY ARE ARGUING THAT HE DIDNT EVEN COME INTO CONTACT WITH THIS GIRL, NOT THAT SHE WASNT RAPED!!!!!!!!!

When he say he doesn't know her, he meant she wasn't known to him. She might know him by name because of his fame.
And even if he did know her but denied it, does that conclusively make him the rapist?
As far as he not coming into contact with her, is quite credible; there was no DNA of his on her!

The rational explanation was given in court. If you weren't there for it, then you'll just have to trust the 12 people who represented you. If you can't do that, then show up in court for the next rape trial of a sports star.

Damn good thing 'jury of your peers' doesn't mean 'Every idiot on the Internet who thinks they know better'.

How long did this trial last? And you want to be convinced in a 20 line blog post? Must be our soundbite culture. Give me the news of the day in 1 minute or less.

Jury: sorry there is so much disrespect for your time and effort.

If the people who trust the jury are emotional, then maybe it's because they're frustrated by the stupidity of those who don't.

I'm just sayin'...

"...then go back to Ghana where tribal laws allow adult men to sexually molest underage girls without [sic] impunity ..."

You, Ms. Arlene, are a certifiable chauvinistic, backward-thinking, patronizing IMBECILE. And I shouldn't even be giving time to a comment troll such as yourself.

Turningthepage....First of all, he wasn't with her ALL night. He did meet her on the street and they went back to his house to play beer pong. I don't think people are debating that. By him saying he didn't know her, doesn't mean that he committed the crime. And no, by saying "he would have been better off saying they did have sex, and it was consensual" ...would not have been a better defense. He said that he didn't, by saying they did would have left it up for more questioning given the state of her intoxication. There is no DNA of his on her, which I find to be quite interesting given the nature of this crime. Do you not agree?

"The people arguing for the "woman" are emotional and have been caught changing and fabricating evidence in their posts."

Indeed. These people are clearly very emotionally invested, especially "turningthepage" with his or her screaming all caps who claims not to be biased but clearly is and claims to "have extensive knowledge" but is unfamiliar with basic facts and makes them up as he/she goes.

"I'm not saying he didn't do it, I just don't think the evidence points in that direction."

I disagree; as I noted above, there's no evidence inconsistent with his being guilty, including the failure to find his DNA on her (that often happens), and certainly not the bite mark, much as Sanger worked to show that. If the standard were that of civil court, a preponderance of evidence, then I think that's well established, but the standard for criminal courts, beyond a reasonable doubt, is much higher, and reasonable people can differ as to whether that has been established.
But the actual strength of the evidence is undercut by the evident bias of the screaming crazies with their calls for longer sentences, for sending Frimpong "back where he came from", and so on.

"If the people who trust the jury are emotional, then maybe it's because they're frustrated by the stupidity of those who don't."

Since the verdicts of many juries have later been shown to be incorrect, it would be most stupid to simply "trust" them. Do you trust the jury in the O.J. case? No, sorry Rick, but the stupidity is all yours in attacking those who merely have doubts and ask questions.

Make that "Rich", not "Rick".

I don't understand why those defending the "victim" cannot see how she was extremely drunk, eventhough she is underage. Second, there were a few comments saying that his DNA wasn't in her because he didn't ejaculate; there is no need for a man to ejaculate in order to actually have some ejaculate come out. While not every man has pre-ejaculate secretions, there are some that do, and if Frimpong had been one of those men, then his DNA would have been found in her or on her, w/e, even if he had not ejaculated. Given all the information and all the evidence that has been provided and talked about, I still feel that Frimpong was wrongfully accused and moreover, being bashed for something that none of us will ever know for certain if he did or didn't do it. For now, I have to say that I feel bad for him, for the way that he's been talked about and how everything turned out. Someone mentioned that he had to much to lose just to get laid, and its true. While those that have been bashing him and accusing him of being this "monster", maybe you don't come from backgrounds where getting as far as he had actually mattered and where not simply handed down by your mommies and daddies. Lastly, instead of the victim's father speaking out against Frimpong like he did, maybe he should deal with his daughter's drinking problem first and teach her that she shouldn't have been out drinking illegally in the first place before looking down on someone else! He shouldn't view his daughter as "innocent", especially when she was out in IV being as drunk as she was. If she was old enough to drink that much, then no matter what happens, she should be old enough to deal with it and learn not to point fingers at someone who might have not even done it.

I am done talking about this case. As someone mentioned above, none of us are more aware of the facts of this case than the 12 jurors who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story.

"Someone mentioned that he had to much to lose just to get laid, and its true."

What a sad reflection of what our society has come to that someone can make the generalization that men stop themselves from raping because they are afraid of the consequences, not because they respect women as equal human beings.

"I don't understand why those defending the "victim" cannot see how she was extremely drunk, eventhough she is underage."
Thanks for putting victim in quotation marks even though the defense never contested that she was raped. Regardless of who perpetrated the crime, she is now a survivor of sexual assault. A little more respect is due. Furthermore, yes, we know she was inebriated. Your implication that this is somehow a free pass for men to rape is reprehensible.
And, of course, how reasonable that her father SHOULD'VE blamed his daughter for being drunk instead of "looking down on" her accused rapist. Rape is, after all, a much less serious crime than underaged drinking... especially when the rapist in question "got so far" by being awesome at kicking a ball around... Right?

While truth_machine is actually making valid points that people should consider when thinking about this case, you should just be ashamed of yourself.

Cornflak3 is doing nothing more than participating in the disgusting charade of victim-blaming and contributing to rape culture.

By the way, truth_machine, the information I provided was reported in several newspapers, several times. It appeared in the Nexus as well as in the Independent. Incidentally, the information also appears quoted on the "Frimpong Freedom Fund" page.
Feel free to check it out at
http://ericfrimpong.wordpress.com/about/...

"Malmgren then described the various wounds found on the woman’s body during the examination process, which included swelling on her face, bruising on the neck typical of strangulation, linear lacerations that looked like finger scratches on the inner thigh and a wound on the right buttock. Additionally, the woman had bleeding, open tearing and sand-like debris on her genitals."

I don't agree with a lot that was said by cornflak3. I think we are getting away from the real issue. We can not excuse rape because someone was drunk. She unfortunately was a victim of rape, and that is sad. We can't also say that he couldn't have done it because he has so much to lose. Yes, it is a priviledge for him to be in this country, he was able to get a degree from a well respected university while being able to playing soccer. But people who commit rape have everything to lose...their freedom. The question that has to come from this is the lack of DNA. And the whole 'he didn't ejaculate' comment, means nothing. I'm not saying the DNA has to come from semen. It can come from any skin cell. He supposedly scratched, bit, choked, etc. her. How did they not find any of his DNA? Thats the question. And that is why the whole beyond a resonable doubt is hard for me to believe.

"While truth_machine is actually making valid points"

Thanks for the recognition; I also agree with you about Cornflak3's comments, which are on a par with talking about tribal practices in Ghana.

"the information I provided was reported in several newspapers"

My point was to barryman9000, who clearly hadn't already read those articles, that he should check them out rather than simply believe what some unknown person says about them. It always helps if you include links to the articles rather than just saying they exist.

I would point out some things about your original post:

1)
"The victim leveled her accusation against Frimpong PRIOR to the DNA evidence returning - therefore she did NOT randomly point her finger at the first African man she saw."

No, she pointed her finger an someone whom she had spent time with earlier and -- in the Frimpong version of reality -- someone whose pants she had thrust her hand into. Who said anything about "the first African man she saw", or "randomly" pointing her finger? These are odd strawmen. Of course she leveled her accusation prior to the DNA evidence returning -- they couldn't have collected her DNA from his body before he was even a person of interest.

2)

"It is bizarre that people keep bringing up her BAC level as if that proves Frimpong is somehow innocent."

It's bizarre that you say that when people usually bring it up to cast doubt on the reliability of her testimony -- that's certainly why Frimpong's defense brought it up. And in fact pinkerbell03 had said that just before you posted: "I'm sorry, when you're that drunk, it has got to be hard to remember things clearly." An appropriate response might be to note the police testimony that she seemed lucid, and perhaps some discussion of alcohol tolerance by frequent users.

3)

"One damning piece of evidence that seems to be repeatedly ignored by commentators is the presence of the victim's DNA on Frimpong's genitals. How did it get there unless they had some sort of sexual contact?"

But you surely know that Frimpong's defense claimed that she thrust her hand into his pants. Intellectual honesty demands that you at least mention it. Cherry picking (as Kim Seefeld does on the other side) suggests bias and a lack of credibility. If you really want to reduce the number of doubters, it behooves you to be as forthright as possible, regardless of which side of the equation some fact falls on; otherwise, you appear to be committed to a position rather than to the truth.

In response to Confused: I think you overestimate the likelihood of obtaining DNA resulting from biting or choking -- otherwise we would hear a lot more about such evidence in other cases. As for scratching, it has been reported (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/feb...) that they did find DNA, *hers*, under *his* fingernails, which is what one would expect.

truth_machine...you have great points. In response to your response to my lack on his DNA on her comment...it still doesn't make sense. Take out the biting and choking, still hitting, penetrating (which if you were in the court room during the trial, saw the graphic photos), etc., you're telling me that no DNA is transferred whats so ever? How? Thats my question. It just doesn't seem possible.

No, I didn't say that no DNA was transferred; what I said is that I think you overestimate the likelihood of /obtaining/ it; if the quantity transferred is too small, sampling can miss it. But I'm not an expert, nor are you, nor are the jurors, and they can only deal with the matters brought up in court. if I were a juror and another juror raised that issue, I would dismiss it by saying that we didn't hear testimony on that. That's why I distinguished between legal and epistemological settling of questions; they are quite different things.

P.S. If you think that it just isn't possible for DNA not to be found, given what the photographic evidence suggests, then why was no DNA of /any/ assailant found (excluding the semen of her boyfriend)? Your argument is self-defeating, and it implies what I suggest: that despite the violence of the rape, forensics wasn't able to recover the DNA of the rapist. It's neutral in regard to Frimpong, and thus plays no role in establishing doubt, any more than not having a video of the rape in progress establishes doubt; demanding evidence that simply cannot be obtained is too high a standard.

The question has been asked as to why no Frimpong DNA was found on the victim?
As a forensic expert, I may be able to clear some of this up. Research shows that the typical potential yield of saliva from a bite averages approximately 40ul (microliters) from which 108ng (nanograms) of DNA can be obtained. These micro-amounts can easily be wiped or washed away during contact with foreign substances or simply by washing the area with water. The victim was crying for several hours according to her friends and the police... that could easily have cleansed the bite of any foreign DNA. She was covered with sand when she came up from the beach. That could have destroyed the DNA from the bite found on her left buttock, or it may have been made through clothing and nothing she was wearing was tested. That HER DNA was found on his penis and scrotum does not necessarily indicate vaginal penetration. He could have forced her to orally copulate him, thus no pre-ejaculate or semen would be found in her vagina. However, post-coital semen can remain detectable for up to 72 hrs, which is why her boyfriend was implicated. I won't comment on her morals or drinking habits.

One major problem that occurs with DNA swabbing is the frequent collection of an overwhelming sample from the victim which totally obscures the small amount from the suspect. We don't know if the swabbing was done according to correct protocols, or whether the samples were handled properly. Assuming that due diligence was done by the criminalists and SART nurses who examined her, no Frimpong DNA correlation was discovered on her. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't there. All that aside, having closely examined hundreds of bites, I firmly believe that Frimpong's teeth did, in fact, implicate him and exonerate her boyfriend. As for the person who keeps bringing up "The Innocence Project", I can tell you from personal experience with The Innocence Project that a large number of erroneous convictions are due to reasons other than biased judges or stacked juries. Frequently the responsibility falls on the shoulders of so-called "experts" who through inexperience or ignorance commit gross errors in formulating their opinions and ultimately testify to a jury that gives him/her more credibility than is deserved. I thank James Watson, Francis Crick, and Sir Alec Jeffreys for giving the world a scientifically reliable method of providing the truth to these cases.

We should have empathy for both the victim and Mr. Frimpong. Each of them have suffered for their mistakes and must live with the consequences for rest of their lives.

Thank you, IDs187s, for explaining some aspects of DNA forensics for those of us who are not experts. One question arises, though, from your comment "post-coital semen can remain detectable for up to 72 hrs, which is why her boyfriend was implicated." Since semen with his DNA was detected on her underwear, does this mean that the boyfriend likely had some sexual contact with her that night or within the preceding 72 hours? I believe she testified that she had sex with him four days earlier and he testified he had sex with her a week earlier. Since his DNA was detected at least four days after they admitted having sex, does that mean that they were both mistaken or lying?

Zorro:

Scientific research says Its likely that they were both mistaken on timing. Mr. Randall naturally wanted to distance himself from her to protect himself and at the same time, not make her look like some tramp. My guess is that they had sex within 72 hrs of swabbing. All things being equal, it doesn't do her image any good to admit that she's somewhat promiscuous, but then, she has numerous other contributory problems that have no bearing on her being forcefully assaulted either. Had there been no bites, bruising, or scratches, the case would have probably resulted in an acquittal. The beating and bites are what made this case a non-consensual encounter.

Point of clarification re: the 72 hr post-coital semen: I take it back.

Come to think of it, either one of them could have been telling the truth about their sexual history. Some DNA samples collected on evidence from cold cases that are 10 or more years in storage have still been successful in proving guilt or innocence. Google Ray Krone, Kennedy-Brewer, or check other Innocence Project cases. Sorry for the confusion. My bad.

I was in the courtroom every single day of the pre-trial, the trial, the evidentury hearing and the motion for new trial. I heard the court arguments and evidence that was withheld from the jury. I have every court document, transcript written. I know Eric Frimpong did not rape this girl. Before everyone, including the jurors say they are 100% convinced he did, they ALL should read every word of the case. I know the jury did not. I know what evidence was kept from them by the DA and Judge. The jury should have read all of the documents that they requested during deliberations and not have been in a hurry to go on Christmas break!

IDs187s-
Did you know that the test of the girl's DNA found on Eric proved it was not vaginal DNA? It was not skin DNA but could have come from hand sweat, a runny nose (it was February) or saliva from a shared drinking cup! Reads the transcripts.....

To summitup:
I am a jury member and a person who feels very strongly about equal rights for all, and I'm very offended by your comment regarding our desire to go on Christmas break. Every one of the jurors was focused on doing the right thing even if we had to deliberate for an indefinite period of time. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made-but not because jurors can't wait to go on Christmas break. As jurors, we are given information and with that information, we make our decision. We are not allowed to discuss anything other than what has been provided as evidence in the courtroom. That said, the transcripts you are referring to that we "should have read" were simply that: transcripts of what had been said during the trial. Since all 12 of us listened to everything that was introduced as evidence, there wasn't anything "new" that we "should have read". When we were out of the courtroom, there were discussions we weren't allowed to hear. That means they are not to be used as evidence, therefore we never had access to them. I went into this trial with an open mind and I really hoped he wouldn't be found guilty, but to me, along with the 11 other jurors, there was just too much evidence pointing to his guilt.

To answer the questions so many of you are asking regarding evidence: without going into a lot of detail, because I feel my explanation will be nitpicked to death, several of the factors that pointed to his guilt included: when he was picked up by the police, he admitted being with a girl at his house, but he described her as tall and blond-the exact opposite of the victim; his cell phone records had a 1/2 hour gap at the exact time of the rape; his clothes were covered in sand even though he said he had not been on the beach, there was sand ground into both forearms of his long sleeve shirt (as if he had been down on his forearms and elbows); he told the police he thought had been "drugged" but there was never any evidence shown by the defense to substantiate that, the bite marks , (especially the face, it was emotionally overwhelming to see the match), the DNA (explained well earlier on this blog by the forensic expert), his girlfriend was searching for him (according to his roommates); he didn't answer his phone many times when she called.
So, we looked at everything. We debated. We asked questions. It didn't take long to decide because we all thought it was obvious, given the evidence. All 12 jurors came to the same conclusion -there was no cajoling, convincing, etc.
Finally, we all also believe the victim has a drinking problem. Her father knows she has a drinking problem. She was violating parole when she was drinking in IV. All of that was presented in court. However, as many have stated, that doesn't mean she should be raped.
Also, several doctors (one who works in the ER at night and testified to seeing many drunk students from IV), said the victim seemed coherent.
If new evidence is found, I believe Frimpong definitely deserves a new trial! But, for now, I believe justice has been served and I know I made the right decision based on the information provided in court.

Not all involved agree with what's said below, though sadly the decision--regretted by at least one I hear-- has ruined the life of a young man. Those of you so confident of Eric's guilt, who think he should be serving a longer sentence, god forbid you ever find yourself a "defendant," punished by individuals who mete out "justice" in this draconian fashion. What kind of fair, just courtroom has a judge who refers to an African defendant as having done something "primitive"? Oh no, of course race wasn't a factor, absolutely not. I'm sure the judge would have made the same comment about a white defendant, and I'm also sure a middle class white "Santa Barbarian" would consent to a full search by the police! Come on people. And yes, I know the judge's comments were made during sentencing, but if that's his attitude toward the accused, it infects the jury plain and simple. This case keeps me awake at night.