11-03-2012, 07:28 PM
If the accuser recanted and no other witnesses/victims emerged, the fact that the girl has wounds "consistent with" sexual assault, doesn't mean that they resulted from assault (or that Kasper was the guilty party if she was assaulted). I'd like to know the answers to a few obvious questions:
?? The girl originally said that he "touched her", according to the links upthread. What kind of wounds does touching leave?
?? Is there proof of an incriminating connection/relationship between the two? (EDIT: saw in Adub's link that he knew the family, but isn't related to them - nothing incriminating in the article.)
?? What kind of intimidation does the prosecution claim was levied against the girl to make her falsely recant?
As for the prosecutor's claims that Kasper showed his true colors by getting aggressive in denying his guilt, that's bullshit. Innocent people can get aggressive when they are wrongly accused (no matter who the accuser) and their freedom is at stake. That's not proof of anything.
This guy may be guilty as sin in which case he shoud rot where he's at. But, if there's not a whole lot more circumstantial or physical evidence that was shared with the jury (but not the public insofar as what I've seen in this thread), I don't find it far-fetched that knowledge of his relationship to Gacy could have created prejudice.
?? The girl originally said that he "touched her", according to the links upthread. What kind of wounds does touching leave?
?? Is there proof of an incriminating connection/relationship between the two? (EDIT: saw in Adub's link that he knew the family, but isn't related to them - nothing incriminating in the article.)
?? What kind of intimidation does the prosecution claim was levied against the girl to make her falsely recant?
As for the prosecutor's claims that Kasper showed his true colors by getting aggressive in denying his guilt, that's bullshit. Innocent people can get aggressive when they are wrongly accused (no matter who the accuser) and their freedom is at stake. That's not proof of anything.
This guy may be guilty as sin in which case he shoud rot where he's at. But, if there's not a whole lot more circumstantial or physical evidence that was shared with the jury (but not the public insofar as what I've seen in this thread), I don't find it far-fetched that knowledge of his relationship to Gacy could have created prejudice.