Testimony is that after trying for some weeks (and failing) to get close personally to the crime victim, the suspect (at the same work place here in Manhattan) began to bother, then harrass, then quasi-stalk, and finally, committed the most egregious felony short of murder
Against a young woman;
the woman, a K-Stater, spent summers in Africa working with orphans--or as her testimony better describes--"living life with them, lovin' on these kids...";
you know,
one of those types of kids who make their parents burst with pride
Makes her equally excellent friends also fly in from around the world to testify on her behalf,
to help her cry through this layer of traumahealing,
this particular layer when
the county of Riley
will
attempt to protect its citizens
and
keep peace in our communities.
Here is Andrew Corum leaving the courthouse after damning testimony yesterday.
I think it is wrong not to post that Andrew was found "Not Guilty" of this crime by a jury of his peers. To talk about damning evidence one day of the trial and not relate the outcome final outcome is just wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf you will read the next few blog posts you will see that the not guilty verdict is reported. I will add a link to that effect to this post.
ReplyDeleteKaty, have you ever thought that perhaps Mr. Corum was in fact innocent. My knowledge of this case is based only on your posts, the little facts I have read, and the comments that follow. Reading them though, the fist bump, the phone records, and the video surveillance those seem to be empirical evidence vs. what seems to be the DA's inflammatory nearly baseless attacks. I would ask you one question... How many guilty men free is worth one innocent man in prison to you?
ReplyDeleteI support your cause, I believe in what you do. But I think blind support leads to an inability to see truth. Lady Justice may be blind, but she relies upon our sight to guide her.
Thanks for your interest.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of an innocent man going to jail is anathema to me.
And i agree that the line must be drawn to generally spare the innocent, even if that means letting many guilty go free. Such is life.
As one attends more and more rape trials,--actually, in most trials-- one can see (at least in my experience) that juries are loathe to convict. There is a great fear of convicting the innocent. I think the state does in fact need to put together a case that lets the jury convict without having reasonable doubts.
In this case, i already had some knowlege of those involved, and as i became acquainted with others involved and privy to some information not presented in court, i was left with no doubt whatsoever. or i would not have published public information of the case as i did.
By the way, our CA is a very low-key man, he is always calm and not prone to inflammatory attacks. He is a man of great integrity. He takes no pleasure in the pain that guilty verdicts produce.
I found the inflammatory, unsubstantiated remarks by the defense attorney to be outrageous and the exact thing many have been fighting againt for decades.
It seemed the evidence as presented convinced the entire room that he would be found guilty-- but juries have a very different experience than onlookers. Their task is heavy.
Of course, i myself do not presume to be the keeper of the truth. I do believe all will be known and seen. My apologies for any words which have hurt you.
I have several times worked with cases in which i felt that reasonable doubt existed. But this case was not one of those. The court system is so overloaded now that many districts do not take cases unless the evidence is pretty convincing. In this case the evidence was plentiful. (I did not put up here everything that was presented in court.)
Really, the main defense was that she and all her friends were lying to cover up a consensual sex act. There was no evidence to support this and it defied reason.
How did 12 random citizens then find there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Katy I hear your cry, but don't most rapes "that are reported" get bargained out? I mean isn't Manhattan under the grips of a serial rapist. It would seem a person would have to be crazy to actually take his chance on a trial.
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you as a citizen of the United States I would not mind putting any individual guilty of rape behind a Prison door for 40 years or more. It just seems in this case which after hearing other views, that the testimony of witnesses for the CA changed their stories more then once, there must be more then what we heard the CA tell us.
I want to believe in what your doing here, but I think perhaps in small cases, that in our efforts and pursuits we are going after the victims, and not the guilty. I can't say for sure if this is one of those. But to me from what I have heard from the postings of people in your comments, there was no where near enough evidence to not convict this man. Are you sure your "i already had some knowlege of those involved..." didn't have some effect on your perception of the case? This now is a lingering question for me.
Thanks for your response. If i outlined all the evidence, it might be more clear. As my office is leaving to prepare for Celebrity bowls today,( see newest post) i do not have time but will just say:
ReplyDelete1.the evidence was overwhelming that the woman was highly intoxicated, in fact the words used by witnesses sounded like she was drugged in addition to alcohol -which is not unommon in aggieville now. The general law is, consent cannot be given under these circumstances.
2. There was in fact an official request by the woman that A.C. desist from harrassing her at work. The testimony was that he was pressing/harrassing her and the management was brought in to end this.
3. Testimony was that there was a "standing agreement" among her friends to leave a bar if AC entered.
4. It was known that AC knew the woman was highly intoxicated, as she was vomiting in front of him. The testimony told a story that seemed to indicate that after she called boyfriend for assistance in getting home, and was on the corner waiting for him, she became ill, her phone was turned off during the time she was vomiting, and she was "helped" into the apartment of AC. it was clear she was superintoxicated as she was half-carried in. and so her calls from her boyfriend who was trying to find her were not received.
5. The LEGAL point is, did AC get Mindful Consent from the woman? that is the legal point' but the TRIAL point is, was it proven.
Reasonable citizens must decide what makes "sense." If we stop using our reason and logic and life experience, we no longer have a jury functioning the way it intended.
6. Someone can argue back and forth all day what beyond a reasonable doubt is (versus the "all possible doubt" that TV has taught us) but the true guilt or innocence has nothing to do with the trial. The truth is the truth, regardless of what was proved. Based on everything i know, i have decided to believe what i think was in fact proven beyond any reasonable doubts. The witnesses were all highly respected, honorable young students who told the same story. Did you know at least one flew in from africa to testify on her behalf?
God knows the truth.