Posted on July 2 at 3:26 a.m.

Predictable and predicted:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...

On Wildfire Burns Above Goleta

Posted on June 23 at 2:01 a.m.

"democrats don't offer a valid alternative"

So many fools. Try actually reading the article:

"By that, Capps said, Congress and the federal government should be promoting conservation and alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, and biomass-derived fuels."

On Capps Blasts McCain and Bush

Posted on March 14 at 2:03 p.m.

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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 14 at 1:56 p.m.

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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 13 at 8:48 p.m.

"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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 12 at 2:36 p.m.

Make that "Rich", not "Rick".

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 12 at 2:34 p.m.

"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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 12 at 2:25 p.m.

"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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 12 at 5:46 a.m.

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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years

Posted on March 12 at 5:37 a.m.

"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.

On Frimpong Gets Six Years