tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052512569056298594.post5143081243698650997..comments2017-06-30T21:04:02.096-07:00Comments on THE RICH SPOT: Grichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10530697451695010341noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6052512569056298594.post-86490338379207306302017-06-30T21:04:02.096-07:002017-06-30T21:04:02.096-07:00It seemed to me, from the moment that hearsay evid...It seemed to me, from the moment that hearsay evidence was allowed at the pretrial hearing, I believe for the first time in Pennsylvania history in a case like this, the judge made every decision with the assumption that the defendant was guilty. Bringing in a woman and her mother to make a similar unsubstantiated charge that he did a similar thing to her 20 years ago, also disgraced the legal system. Not allowing a defense witness who was told by accuser that she was planning on becoming rich from a false drug and sexual assault accusation was another incredible decision that could only have been made with the presumption of guilt in the judge's mind. This was perhaps the most shameful trial since Dred Scott in 1857. There was no physical evidence of drugging or assault, and the numerous lies of the defendant and her actions and the actions of her mother made it clear that this was far more likely a case of extortion than a case of a man giving a woman some mystery drug that paralyzed her for 15 minutes while he touched her vagina. We can never be sure of what happened between the two, that evening 13 1/2 years ago, but based on the evidence I would guess the odds of the first being true at ten billion to one and the odds of the second being true at one in ten billion.Jay Raskinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13895996467533233549noreply@blogger.com