Tweet
He basically told the prosecutors that they should consider a settlement since their trial evidence isn't up to the "reasonable doubt" standard.
"Simply put, this court could not make a finding of probable cause... absent reliance upon those inferences supportive of the people's case,"
In fact the only reason he bound the case over for trial is because of the laughably low standard used in Colorado. In most states the charge would have been dismissed.
In fact the evidence shows that she had sex with another man in the single day between going to Bryants room and reporting the "rape" to authorites & getting tested.
IMO this provides reasonable doubt as to if her injuries, which were minimal according to the prosecutions own witnesses, were indeed caused by Bryant. The 'injuries' noted were swelling and microscopic abrasions, which can occur as easily during extended consensual sex as they can during a forced encounter.
This is starting to sound like a prosecutor in search of a "big fish" he can make a name on and a 'victim' who's in search of a payday.
Dr. Mordrid
"Simply put, this court could not make a finding of probable cause... absent reliance upon those inferences supportive of the people's case,"
In fact the only reason he bound the case over for trial is because of the laughably low standard used in Colorado. In most states the charge would have been dismissed.
In fact the evidence shows that she had sex with another man in the single day between going to Bryants room and reporting the "rape" to authorites & getting tested.
IMO this provides reasonable doubt as to if her injuries, which were minimal according to the prosecutions own witnesses, were indeed caused by Bryant. The 'injuries' noted were swelling and microscopic abrasions, which can occur as easily during extended consensual sex as they can during a forced encounter.
This is starting to sound like a prosecutor in search of a "big fish" he can make a name on and a 'victim' who's in search of a payday.
Dr. Mordrid
Comment