man charged with "rape" 32 years latter *** case dropped!

[Vic]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

You are useing something Nifong said in the duke case as fact?


but i beleive it is a decent number. BUT not in a case that is 32 years old.

As I have argued before, it is why he chose to continue prosecuting the case. He was just doing what every other DA does. Just like the DA in this case is doing. This is our legal system doing business as usual. Quit reading the news, and go check out the dockets down at your local courthouse.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Majunior

Originally posted by: Vic

Yeah right... 80% of all rape cases in the US are successfully prosecuted with no physical evidence whatsoever.

This is an interesting statistic. Where did it come from? Seems pretty unbelievable.

I'm fairly sure it came right out of his ass.

Text

After the first round of tests came back from a state crime lab without a match, Nifong said that in 75 to 80 percent of all sexual assault cases, there is no DNA evidence. In those cases, prosecutors had to proceed "the good old-fashioned way. Witnesses got on the stand and told what happened to them," he said last month.

You are useing something Nifong said in the duke case as fact?


but i beleive it is a decent number. BUT not in a case that is 32 years old.

As I have argued before, it is why he chose to continue prosecuting the case. He was just doing what every other DA does. Just like the DA in this case is doing. This is our legal system doing business as usual. Quit reading the news, and go check out the dockets down at your local courthouse.

yeah even after the witness changed her story, one had proof he was not there And she had a history of doing it.


i know that they do prosacute with no hard evidance. BUT NOT after 32 years. this case is going no where.

 

[waggy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07...055&partner=RRCOLUMBUS

BOSTON, July 12 ? The Rhode Island attorney general dismissed charges on Thursday against a man accused of raping a teenager 32 years ago when he was 16.

Michael J. Healey, a spokesman for the attorney general, Patrick C. Lynch, said that prosecuting the case against the man, Harold Allen, 48, of Narragansett, would be problematic because the woman making the accusations said that she had repressed the memory of the attack for more than 30 years.

The dismissal, filed in Washington County Superior Court, said that because of Rhode Island case law, ?the high burden for admissibility, at trial, of testimony based on repressed memory? would create ?a legal impediment that the state is unlikely to overcome.?

Mr. Lynch said in the statement: ?Perhaps a prosecutor?s greatest power is to dismiss a charge and end an unwarranted criminal prosecution. In this case, focusing upon the legal issues that have arisen due to the passage of time since the alleged crime occurred, we have dismissed the charge.?

Mr. Healey said that prosecutors had also mistakenly charged Mr. Allen under a statute, first-degree sexual assault, that did not exist at the time that the rape was supposed to have occurred.

?Because the law that we used to indict didn?t exist then, we also would have problems prosecuting this case, and it wouldn?t be right for us to press on,? Mr. Healey said.

A statement from Mr. Lynch?s office said that the woman told the police in North Kingstown, R.I., about the attack in June 2006. Mr. Healey said prosecutors presented the charges against Mr. Allen to a grand jury in May 2007, based on the testimony of the woman, who was 16 at the time of the alleged rape, and a relative who saw Mr. Allen in the accuser?s home but did not see the assault that she said took place.

Mr. Allen was indicted and pleaded not guilty. The charges said the rape took place in North Kingstown between April 1 and Oct. 31, 1975.

Mr. Allen?s lawyer, Walter R. Stone, said his client?s ?name?s been dragged through the mud,? and that the indictment was ?bizarre? because it was ?one paragraph about something that allegedly took place between April Fool?s and Halloween




heh figured it would get dropped.