Holy SHIT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sent them an email in protest. Hope others are too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... I've tried to call the first number I posted a couple times, and have gotten busy signals... a good sign for response, I hope. Keep sending and calling!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Im confused. Is the Law the Law? Or is it just a moveable line that can be moved based on 'whatever' line of thought.

Either George Bush is breaking the law with warrantless wiretaps, or he isnt. The LAW says that he is, but as we all know he is claiming otherwise.

Now, if the author would have presented the REST of this article without the GLARING omissions I see from actually reading the Chicago Tribune, I wouldnt be so quick to question this. In the original article, the fact that this tape doesnt actually show her being raped by her accuser, but show her having sex with SOMEONE ELSE at that party, is for some reason left out here. Why?

The defense is using the basic tenant of the accused to confront his/her accuser. That is the law. Because she doesnt want to see the tape that shows her having sex with someone else that night, hardly calls for an 'outrage'.

Im not claiming the defendants are innocent or even decent human beings. They also wrote vulgar words on her legs in markers. But to try to present this as something that should be an 'outrage' makes me wonder just exactly what point it is you are trying to make?

Is the law the law, or not? If not, then warrantless wiretaps are just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WE THE PEOPLE, OR THE UNITED STATES, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, AND SECURE THE BLESSING OF LIBERTY TO OURSELVES AND OUT POSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Were you going to post any follow ups on this? You 'outrage' looks like little more than something to drive traffic to your website, or make a name for yourself on the back of someone else. Consequences be damned!

The case has been decided. The defendants are NOT GUILTY.

It is absolutely disgusting what you tried to do with the legal system. This isnt a sit-in where popular opinion, or sending emails, will dictate the future of the defendant on trial. A jury of SEVEN WOMEN and 5 men, found this case to be without merit upon viewing all of the evidence.

Are all seven of those women seeing something that you didnt? Obviously, yes. And it gives me faith in the justice system(whats left of it) that the garbage reporting that went on here had absolutely zero effect on the outcome.

Upon reading the press release from the attorneys involved in the trial, one of the prosecutors sums up YOUR views perfectly in describing the actions of the defendant when he left the country;
"If he wasnt guilty, why did he leave the country?"

To that, all I need to say is;

"If you arent doing anything illegal, why does it matter if the administration is doing warrantless wiretaps?"

And, no amount of you telling yourself that my views are 'baseless', or idiotic, or whatever else you try to describe me as will matter. You picked the side of fear and persecution, over rationality and discourse. Worse, you tried to puff the story up into something that IT WAS NOT.

(note: warrantless wiretaps are still illegal) And you are god damn right I will jump all over, and attack, this attitude which seems to be spreading in this country, that you are presumed guilty and have to prove your innocence to the accuser. Not, innocent until proven guilty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since YOU arent going to post any follow up to this story that was so important just a few days ago, I will.

It has already been posted that the defendants were found not guilty. Today, a new story appeared in the chicago tribune. One where the parents of this girl are lashing out at the legal system.

And what are they lashing out about? They are upset that the prosecution was unable to bring in an expert witness to question their daughter(the accuser) about the content of the tapes. Remember? The tapes that SHE didnt want to watch and answer questions about?

Apparantly, they believe that she was given a date-rape drug, but since she did not seek medical attention in anything resembling a reasonable time frame, there was no EVIDENCE to support those claims. But they believed a cross-examination of the evidence(the tape) would have been able to show that she was indeed intoxicated.

However, since the story here was written pitting the legal system against the feelings of the accuser, you missed the whole point of a trial. That point being to introduce evidence and have it questioned by both sides to reveal the facts that occured that night.

Wether you agree with it or not, this prosecution team failed this defendant by not advising her of the legal ramifications of NOT viewing the tape, no matter how uncomfortable it made her. And frankly, you helped them fail by asking for an 'outrage' and email campaign to SUPPORT this decision.

Look a little deeper next time, maybe you will see that the gun you are aiming is pointing at your foot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]