If this woman doesn't go to jail for at least the same amount as he did then we can be certain their is no justice in this world

tmackattak · 2011-06-01T06:21:40+00:00

TL:DR

The DNA evidence is conclusive to show the alleged assault did not occur.
There were no eye witnesses to anything criminal.
It was introduced into evidence that the accuser’s nickname in high school was “Schemin’ Demon.” This was further explained to have been acquired because “basically all of [her boyfriend's] friends didn’t trust her.” (Transcript 229)
Jordan’s nicknames in high school were “Champ” and “Homer.”
The woman was thrown out of a bar earlier that same day for causing a scene and throwing punches at her boyfriend. She was upset because her boyfriend hadn’t become jealous of her open flirting with an ex-boyfriend who was also at the bar. Her boyfriend was allowed to stay. (Transcript 26-27, 222-224)
His accuser testified that no one believed her. (Transcript 38)

During the verdict the judge concluded that: “No evidence was presented which placed serious doubt on the truthfulness of [the accuser's] testimony. Without a firm reason to believe the [the accuser] was lying or had been dreaming, the verdict in this case cannot be not guilty.” (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Verdict 15) This is a very interesting statement, considering:

The woman’s own boyfriend, who was in bed right next to her when she alleged to have been assaulted, did not believe her. He shared this view at the party, he reported it to police, and he testified to it in court. (Transcript 59, 139) This should have spoken volumes about her credibility.
It was Jordan’s understanding that he was considered innocent until proven guilty, not that he had to prove she was lying or he would go to prison.
Every aspect of the physical facts in the case corroborates Jordan’s explanation of what happened.
The DNA expert never waivered from his final analysis. He found the forensic evidence to be “inconsistent with oral sex.” (Transcript 306-307, 331-332, 345-346, 349, 352, 355)
The State never provided any explanation for the absence of Jordan’s DNA from all four vaginal swabs that could combat Dr. Benjamin’s explanation of “it was never there.” (Transcript 306) This is true despite the DNA expert extending a clear invitation to the State to try to explain how the absence of Jordan’s DNA from the vaginal area could possibly support the accusation.

AnnArchist · 2011-06-01T13:09:00+00:00

I was at that football game...

However, this wasn’t the first time Lindsay had resorted to hitting someone. About seven hours earlier she had been thrown out of a bar by security for throwing punches at Joe. At that time she was upset with Joe because he hadn’t become jealous of her ex-boyfriend while she openly flirted with him in the bar. Joe was allowed to stay at the establishment.

Thats probably the most interesting part of the entire story.

Bobsutan · 2011-06-01T06:38:18+00:00

The title is misleading. Was he released and exonerated because she lied and they just opted not to charge her?

Here's the case file for more reading.

http://law.justia.com/cases/iowa/court-of-appeals/2005/03-1906.html

Something's off about this case:

At trial, Dr. Robert Benjamin testified for Holm as an expert witness in the field of forensic DNA. He testified that he would expect to find Holms DNA in the swab of Lindsays vagina if Holm had performed oral sex on her. Dr. Benjamin opined that the small amount of Holms DNA from the swab of Lindsays thigh was likely the result of incidental transfer from Lindsays hand, after touching Holms head, to her thigh. Dr. Benjamin further testified that vaginal fluid is quite viscous and would likely be visible on Holms face, even if dry. Because Lindsay was at the end of her menstrual cycle at the time of the incident, Dr. Benjamin felt it would have been even more apparent. No witness testified to seeing anything on Holms face following the alleged attack.

Given the girl's history my gut instinct on this one is she was trying to bait the guy and create a scene for the boyfriend to do something and it got out of hand. It sounds like he went upstairs, she invited him to go down on her, he refused, she bitched out causing a scene, and the rest is history. It really is a case of he said/she said, only the the medical evidence doesn't support the girl's claims. I have to ask, why is this guy in jail?

Also, what the fuck? At first they're all:

Although Holms expert (Dr Benjamin) opined his belief that the DNA was the result of incidental transfer, he could not rule out the possibility that oral sex was the method of transfer. As the district court stated in its decision: The defense expert actually supported the probability that saliva was more likely the source rather than epithelial cells picked up by Lindsay . . . when she touched the Defendants hair. The defense expert repeatedly testified to the excellent transfer capability of a viscous fluid such as saliva. The credibility instruction instructs the fact finder to consider testimony which is reasonable and consistent with other evidence you believe. In that respect, [Lindsays] testimony is more believable, and Defendants version is not credible.

But then they drop this on us:

Dr. Benjamin's testimony was not credible in light of the facts of this case.

Well, which is it?

KMFCM · 2011-06-01T22:05:59+00:00

there is no justice in this world as it is

that's why I don't expect her to do any jailtime, knowing OUR system.

zerobot · 2011-06-01T09:19:42+00:00

Holy shit! Deserves massive upvotes. This is why people are angry about misandry.

http://www.northfieldnews.com/content/prison-holm-turned-god-family-and-pursuit-dreams-survive

chavelah · 2011-06-01T14:55:56+00:00

It's insane. I've never met a woman who isnt going to cry rape merely from the barest proximity.

Celda · 2011-06-01T16:15:12+00:00

This is a gross miscarriage of injustice. The judge should be shot to death for perpetrating it, and if the woman did in fact make a false accusation (seems 90% likely if not more) she should also be killed.

daygamer · 2011-06-01T13:00:21+00:00

!0 year minimum for licking someone's pussy without consent? Wow, that's a bit much.

Jello5678 · 2011-06-01T16:45:57+00:00

In the case history tab, it says he was released April 25th 2010.

chavelah · 2011-06-01T19:47:44+00:00

This was a BULLSHIT conviction. There was no fucking evidence whatsoever, just he-said she-said.

... and for that same reason, it would be bullshit to convict the girl of making a false allegation. Did she probably make one? Yeah. But there's no proof. She didn't confess, there's no witness who can attest to it before, during or after the fact, and the lack of DNA, while suggestive, doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no assault took place.

shady8x · 2011-06-01T09:50:29+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Comments