The supporters of Ajay Dev, who is serving a 378-year sentence that his friends and family believe is unjust, were finally able to provoke a response this week from the powers that be.
On Wednesday, two years after the conviction that his supporters believe to be wrongful, 250 to 300 people hit the streets in protest. But it was another tactic that appeared to generate the response, in that every time someone filled out an online petition, the petition was set to generate emails to critical politicians and media that had previously ignored the efforts.
On Thursday, Matt Rexroad posted what he described, “This summary was put together for me and others regarding the case of Ajay Dev. The facts below are exactly why I will not be asking for an investigation into the case.”
Clearly, this was a lengthy response put together by the District Attorney’s office. One has to be puzzled by the need for them to respond. Mr. Dev is incarcerated. He is going through the appellate process which will be determined in the courts based on rules of law. Why did the DA’s office even bother to generate any type of response?
Second, Matt Rexroad would have been better advised to keep his nose out of this. His response should have been that this was a matter for the courts and he would allow the legal process to work. That is really all he had to say.
Instead, he allowed the fact that he received two hundred emails, perhaps half of them by people living in Yolo County and therefore constituents, to get under his skin.
He suggested that the Board of Supervisors will respond, but not as these activists would like. Frankly, the Board of Supervisors should not respond and if they do, they should simply point out that this is a matter for the courts to decide.
But that is not what happened starting on Thursday. This became a matter not for the courts to decide, but rather it was thrown into the public arena.
Mr. Rexroad stated, “The facts below are exactly why I will not be asking for an investigation into the case.”
With all due respect to Mr. Rexroad, he has no knowledge of the facts other than the fact that Mr. Dev was accused by his adopted daughter of raping her over a five-year period, that he was convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
Other than that, he does not know what a fact is or what is the opinion of the DA or what is fiction. He did not go to the trial. He likely has never read the court transcripts. Instead, what he is doing is taking the DA’s word for what the facts are in this case, without any type of inquiry.
In fact, what Mr. Rexroad posted on his site contains an appalling number of erroneous statements.
Wrote the DA’s office as posted by Mr. Rexroad, “The defendant and his wife brought the victim (a distant relative of the defendant) here from Nepal in January of 1999 when she was barely 15 years old to live with them and be educated in the United States because her family in Nepal was poor. The Victim testified that within weeks of her arrival in the United States, living with the Dev family in Davis, the defendnat began touching her inappropriately and soon moved to forcing her to have intercourse with him on average three times a week.”
However, then it went on to say, “At some point during these assaults the defendant had the victim watch pornography with him some of which included child pornography.”
The problem with that statement is that Mr. Dev was actually acquitted of any charges of showing the accuser pornography, and the child pornography that was on his computer was actually determined to have been downloaded by the accuser herself.
The facts surrounding her claims are in doubt, as well. For instance, the accuser testified that Mr. Dev showed her a pornographic movie in 1999 when she was 15, however, the laptop was not even purchased until 2001.
Investigators discovered, further, that the movie did not even exist until January 2002.
They continued, “The victim alleged that the assaults of the defendant actually impregnated her once in late 2002 and another time in the spring of 2003. “
Actually the victim alleged that the defendant impregnated her at least three times, each of which resulted in an abortion. The problem is that the medical history tells otherwise.
The medical records indicate a miscarriage in January of 2003 and an abortion in May of 2003. In November of 2003, she had a negative pregnancy test.
The evidence that it was Mr. Dev who impregnated her is, at best, unclear. She had claimed, when asked by the prosecutor, Deputy DA Steve Mount, at the preliminary hearing that she had had no sexual relations with anyone other than Mr. Dev.
However, during the court trial she described that her first sexual encounter with someone was in December of 2003 with her third boyfriend.
She would then testify that he was the first boyfriend that she had sex with, except that later it came out she had also had sexual relations that included sexual intercourse with her second boyfriend.
There was never any evidence presented at court that it was Mr. Dev who impregnated her.
The critical evidence that convicted Mr. Dev was a phone conversation, recorded by Detective Mark Hermann. After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”
Other jurors made it clear that it was the pretext phone call that decided his guilt or innocence.
The DA posted this portion of the transcript:
>>>Defendant: I have been telling you from the very beginning that my life will be gone but how about your life, your life will be gone, how can you save your life, just tell me.
Victim: How is my life re . . ruining daddy?
Defendant: Because you have [expletive for sex] me after 18 years of your age.
Victim: Ok, so?
Defendant: That means you have given me consent.
Victim: No, I have not given any consent to you.<<< The DA went on to explain, “This part of the translation of the phone call was agreed upon as correct by both the victim and the defense hired expert translator.” According to the family, in a response to Mr. Rexroad’s post, “As for the “you fu…d me…” exchange from the pretext call – Ajay was not speaking English. He was speaking Nepali. The prosecutor and the defense attorney did agree that the word “Fu…d” was used. However, and most importantly, they did not agree on the meaning or context in which that word was spoken.” It has been the contention of the family that that segment has been mistranslated and also taken out of context. It was actually a hypothetical posed by Mr. Dev. Writes the family, “This very controversial issue was the primary issue the DDA rested his case on, claiming Ajay ‘admitted’ to the sexual assault and rape by this sentence and was able to obtain a conviction and a 378 year sentence based on this so called ‘admission.’ “ They continue, “Although the DA argued to the jury that this telephone call was the most ‘honest’ communication between the parties, the detective testified that he scripted the accuser’s part of the conversation and that he threw away his notes before trial.” “The DDA completely ignored the 52 times Ajay directly and indirectly denied the accusations in English and Nepali,” they write. “The accuser herself during the call acknowledges that Ajay is not admitting anything.” Without ourselves listening to and being provided an independent translation of this conversation it is impossible to evaluate. But this is the central point in dispute – whether this portion of the conversation means what the DA says it means and that will be decided in the appellate courts, not in the court of public opinion. The protest, and more specifically the emails, also got the attention of Woodland Daily Democrat Editor Jim Smith. Mr. Smith wrote, “Immediately after the conviction, a network of people began protesting the sentence, claiming among a great many things, that the victim lied, there was insufficient DNA evidence, the right questions were not asked, and there was no enough evidence.” “A lot of allegations have been heaped on the rape victim herself, including that she ‘was convicted of passport fraud’ by the government of Nepal. Some people have claimed Ajay was treated unfairly because of his race, or because the DA’s Office was trying to boost its conviction rate to continue receiving federal grant money,” he continues. “For the past two years, there have been two protests of Ajay’s sentence. The most recent protest was held Wednesday night at Freeman Park in downtown Woodland,” Mr. Smith reported. “It reportedly drew about 250 people.” What got his attention was what he called “more than 100 identical letters to the editor protesting Ajay’s conviction and sentencing. Most of the letters were from people who live in Chico, some were from Florida, one was from Maine, another from Hawaii and still others from Las Vegas. I didn’t see any from people in Davis or Woodland, but I’ll be honest and admit I didn’t look at every single letter.” I was shown the petition list, and about 90 people were from Woodland or Davis. “Imagine going to your home mailbox, for example, and seeing it overflowing. It helps to visualize the first movie of ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,’ when all those owls are outside Harry’s house and the letters from Hogwarts suddenly come pouring through the fireplace,” he continued. “I love letters to the editor. We never get enough of them at The Democrat. But sometimes people go too far in trying to make their point. Identical letters are never treated very kindly by editors. We wonder, for instance, that if the issue is so important, why people don’t think for themselves and express their own thoughts?” he writes. “I’m also skeptical that people in Hawaii or Florida, would really have sufficient, independent knowledge about the case to author a letter,” he adds. “So, let this serve as kind of an object lesson. If you want to promote a cause, or make a statement on a public matter, send on your letters. But actually expend the brain power and write one yourself. It’s not all that hard to do and it will go a lot father than passing on something someone else told you to write.” The problem is that Mr. Smith misconstrues what he actually received, which was not letters to the editor, but rather a petition that people signed agreeing with the said statement, which Mr. Smith thought was in fact a letter to the editor. Mr. Smith cannot help but write, ” I have no sympathy for child molesters. In my book, Ajay was found guilty by a jury after a trial. That decision which is being appealed. That’s how our justice system works. Until that appeal is heard and the jury’s decision is overturned, Ajay is guilty and must do the time as ordered by the judge.” Indeed, although as Mr. Smith knows, there are people who have been convicted and served twenty years and had their sentences overturned. That is how our system works. I suppose Mr. Smith’s feeling is, too bad for Mr. Dev if he has to serve twenty years for a crime he did not commit, that’s how our system works and we all know it is not perfect. I started covering this case two years ago. I was invited by the family of Mr. Dev to look into the matter. I was skeptical. I mean, who wants to defend a child rapist? I agree completely with Mr. Smith, I have no sympathy for anyone who harms a child. But I also believe that not only are people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but that sometimes the court of law makes grave mistakes and puts innocent people in prison. That is why we have organizations cropping up all over the country looking into wrongful convictions, with the Innocence Project simply being the most prominent. The more I look into this case and the more I see about how Yolo County operates, the more I am convinced that a grave error was made in this case. I have not seen the full transcript or seen a proper translation of the Nepali from that phone conversation. That is something that I deeply want to see before I say I am convinced of Mr. Dev’s innocence. But I can say, having met critical members of the family who have seen this evidence, I do not believe they would be defending a man that raped a young girl. And that fact, along with so many others, has me very strongly leaning towards the firm belief that Mr. Dev did not do this and that there has been a terrible injustice in this case, one among many in this county, unfortunately.. —David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Those efforts hit paydirt when they provoked a response from the DA’s office, Supervisor Matt Rexroad, and the Woodland Daily Democrat.[/quote]
[quote]Clearly, this was a lengthy response put together by the District Attorney’s office. One has to be puzzled by the need for them to respond. [/quote]
The protestors are out there maligning the DA’s Office, drawing as much attention to themselves as they possibly can, for the very purpose of provoking the DA’s Office. And then there is puzzlement as to why the DA’s Office responded? You can’t have it both ways…
[quote]Second, Matt Rexroad would have been better advised to keep his nose out of this. His response should have been that this was a matter for the courts and he would allow the legal process to work. That is really all he had to say.[/quote]
So the AJ Dev supporters have freedom speech to express opinions about the case, but Matt Rexroad is not afforded the same right – he should just keep his mouth shut about his opinion? Again, you can’t have it both ways…
“Clearly, this was a lengthy response put together by the District Attorney’s office. One has to be puzzled by the need for them to respond. Mr. Dev is incarcerated. He is going through the appellate process which will be determined in the courts based on rules of law. Why did the DA’s office even bother to generate any type of response?”
It’s amazing how much power the DA’s office has. Both the Board of Supervisors and the local newspaper print their press releases for them.
“”I love letters to the editor. We never get enough of them at The Democrat. But sometimes people go too far in trying to make their point. Identical letters are never treated very kindly by editors. We wonder, for instance, that if the issue is so important, why people don’t think for themselves and express their own thoughts?” he writes.”
The Daily Democrat refused to print any letters to the editor in support if Ajay when the trial ended. The only thing that was printed was the DA’s press release.
[quote]But that is not what happened starting on Thursday. This became a matter not for the courts to decide, but rather it was thrown into the public arena.[/quote]
But who threw it into the public arena and is trying to “retry” the case in the press?
Thank you, David for continuing to be the voice for the people, as it is clear those in positions of authority have not done a proper evaluation of the facts. I am appreciative that you, even though you were skeptical, have taken the position to evaluate and investigate the facts beyond what one party says over the other. It is only this way that the truth can come out. I wish that others had the same integrity and honesty in their committment to properly evaluate one’s guilt or innocence. It is only through this honest yet rigorous process, which requires more than sitting back on the sidelines and assuming an uninformed position that the problems in our justice system can be addressed and corrected–with honesty, dedication and the willingness to hold firm to the principals of true justice. We forget that many people lie, have agendas and act in accordance with many different motives. In order to sort it all out, a proper investigation and fact finding of all evidence in totality must be conducted and considered. In order to accomplish that, you cannot get the whole truth from one source, which is precisely why proper investigations are done–either to corroborate and validate a claim or to reject as unfounded. What the investigator, DA and now apparently Mr. Rexroad have done is to ignore that very principle.
[quote]Without ourselves listening to and being provided an independent translation of this conversation it is impossible to evaluate. But this is the central point in dispute – whether this portion of the conversation means what the DA says it means and that will be decided in the appellate courts, not in the court of public opinion.[/quote]
Right, so why is the case being rehashed in this blog over and over again, if “the central point in dispute” – what the conversation means – “will be decided in the appellate courts, not in the court of public opinion”? Again, you can’t have it both ways…
Sorry for having 4 different responses – I get logged out very quickly, so this is the only way to reasonably proceed…
“The protestors are out there maligning the DA’s Office, drawing as much attention to themselves as they possibly can, for the very purpose of provoking the DA’s Office.”
Unfortunately, this is the very type of comment and position the article makes reference to.
How do you know what the motives for the supporters are? Have you ever spoken to them directly to find out? Have you ever attended one of the functions to investigate why they march and what their objective is? Before proffering an unsubstantiated opinion, why don’t you find our for yourself? Agreed, it would take an open mind, but you just may be surprised.
LOTR1OF9 — what is your position on this case? What is your belief reagarding the sexual relationship, if any, between Ajay Dev and the child who accused him of sexually (and otherwise) abusing her?
If you are convinced that Mr. Dev never had sex or never was sexually inappropriate with the child in this case, what makes you believe that, assuming you were not there when this alleged activity took place (or did not take place)?
[quote]How do you know what the motives for the supporters are?[/quote]
Directly from the Vanguard, to wit:
[quote]The supporters of Ajay Dev, who is serving a 378-year sentence that his friends and family believe is unjust, were finally able to provoke a response this week from the powers that be.[/quote]
If the Vanguard got it wrong, I suggest you correct it…
“If you are convinced that Mr. Dev never had sex or never was sexually inappropriate with the child in this case, what makes you believe that, assuming you were not there when this alleged activity took place (or did not take place)? “
A number of people were there a various times when she claimed she had sex with Mr. Dev, this is from last year’s event:
[quote]Her younger son, Ben Easley, also spoke and described in explicit detail the sleeping arrangements and why they believe there is no way that the accuser could have been raped in their Monterey home.
He explained that the accuser, himself, his brother, and his uncle Ajay Dev all lay shoulder to shoulder in the living room. Mr. Easley described himself as a light sleeper and a night owl who often lay awake at night, sleepless. “For her to say that she was raped by my uncle under these circumstances, considering that we were all lying shoulder to shoulder, it’s really unthinkable. I don’t understand how this could happen.”[/quote]
“If the Vanguard got it wrong, I suggest you correct it… “
I wrote it, I don’t know that’s their motivation it was just my wording as a lead in.
[quote]So the AJ Dev supporters have freedom speech to express opinions about the case, but Matt Rexroad is not afforded the same right – he should just keep his mouth shut about his opinion? Again, you can’t have it both ways.[/quote]
Both of your first two comments miss the mark. This is not a rights issue, it is a prudence issue. Rexroad has never even examined the facts of this case, he’s merely re-printing what the DA sent him. There is nothing to be gained by Rexroad responding other than encouraging more responses.
[i] “For her to say that she was raped by my uncle under these circumstances, considering that we were all lying shoulder to shoulder, it’s really unthinkable. I don’t understand how this could happen.”[/i]
So David, you are saying (based on this quote) that you believe there never was any sexual relationship between Dev and the child and never any sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual conduct on his part?
Regarding the sleeping arrangement described, you might note that this is typical [i]much of the time[/i] among families in overcrowded, poor conditions all over the world. Yet in spite of that, babies keep popping out of these families living in these conditions from poor mothers all the time all over the world. Those mothers are not getting laid in front of their nieces and nephews and cousins and aunts and uncles. The partners in sex are still able to go behind a closed door or in a closet or a bathroom or wherever. Crowded sleeping arrangements don’t preclude procreation or count out coitus.
Rich:
Increasingly so yes.
But Rich, it’s one thing for a couple to find ways to discretely have sex, it’s another thing to rape someone when there are a group of people all sleeping in close proximity. It doesn’t pass the smell test at least to me.
Mr. Smith writes, “We wonder, for instance, that if the issue is so important, why people don’t think for themselves and express their own thoughts?”
Says the editor who continues to reprint press releases from area agencies verbatim without fact checking, investigating, etc. then runs them using the byline “Democrat Staff.”
DMG, “I was shown the petition list, and about 90 people were from Woodland or Davis.”
Can you be certain they are the same list?
DMG, “The problem is that Mr. Smith misconstrues what he actually received, which was not letters to the editor, but rather a petition that people signed agreeing with the said statement, which Mr. Smith thought was in fact a letter to the editor.”
What was expressed on the “petition?” Can a link be provided? If it’s what Rexroad posted on his blog, is does read a bit like a letter. http://www.rexroad.com/
DMG, “The more I look into this case and the more I see about how Yolo County operates, the more I am convinced that a grave error was made in this case. I have not seen the full transcript or seen a proper translation of the Nepali from that phone conversation.”
DMG, “That is something that I deeply want to see before I say I am convinced of Mr. Dev’s innocence. But I can say, having met critical members of the family who have seen this evidence, I do not believe they would be defending a man that raped a young girl.”
It seems there are plenty of people weighing in on the conviction of Dev. However, from what I can tell, no one has claimed to have read the entire transcript and/or sought out a second translation from an objective party. Presumably, the prosecuting attorney, defense and jury know all the details of this case-they had access to it all anyway.
Perhaps some Dev supporters are just a knowledgeable, but not exactly objective and their analyses of the case, evidence and the like should not be taken as such. That isn’t to suggest that what they put forth is complete nonsense, but the source has an agenda-they believe Dev has been wrongly convicted and are seeking his exoneration.
It has been said by Dev’s supporters, in the first sentence of their petition/letter, that “Hundreds of people would NEVER support a convicted rapist! Hundreds of people ARE supporting Ajay Dev because they know he is INNOCENT of these crimes.”
Having supporters, even in the hundreds, is not a damning piece of information which lends itself to Dev’s innocence. I don’t find it unusual that the friends and family of a convicted child abuser would find reasons to deny his guilt or interpret the evidence in such a way.
DMG, “Rexroad has never even examined the facts of this case, he’s merely re-printing what the DA sent him.”
Has there been any confirmation, beyond Rexroad prefacing his blog piece with “This summary was put together for me and others regarding the case of Ajay Dev,” that the DA wrote that summary for him?
“The protestors are out there maligning the DA’s Office, drawing as much attention to themselves as they possibly can, for the very purpose of provoking the DA’s Office”
ERM unfortunately protesting seem to be the only way to get their message heard. Yolo County seems to be no different then those Middle Eastern countries where peaceful protesters have no other means to seek change because other channels seem to be lost to them. If the local newspaper and elected officials are complaining because they are getting too many people asking for someone to look into the situation and they don’t, then there is a major problem with these institutions in Yolo County. Instead of complaining about these letters they should be taking the complaints more seriously. After all 2 years is a long time to keep up a protest unless you think there is a real problem of injustice.
I have ultimate faith in the jury system. They make mistakes but get it right almost all of the time. They decided this one. The defendant’s family and friends have elected to take this public at the same time the appellate courts are deciding the case. They thus cannot complain that politicians and prosecutors respond to heavy public outcry in public. The pretext call transcript is certainly more than troubling. If that’s what the defendant said the argument that he victimized a young girl for years that his family brought over here seems justifiably to have weighed heavily in the jury’s decision.
Themis, “Yolo County seems to be no different then those Middle Eastern countries where peaceful protesters have no other means to seek change because other channels seem to be lost to them.”
Mr. Dev was convicted of a crime by a jury and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The only channel available, if the objective is to have the concerns surrounding the evidence, circumstances and trial revisited with the hope that he will be exonerated, is to appeal to a higher court.
Mr. Dev has appealed his conviction, so there it is.
“If the local newspaper and elected officials are complaining because they are getting too many people asking for someone to look into the situation and they don’t, then there is a major problem with these institutions in Yolo County.”
It’s only the one editor, whose priamry complaint seemed to be with the uniform letter, and one elected official, right? Clearly, they were not moved or swayed. Why haven’t the supporters mentioned the silence from the other recipients of their letter/petition? Smith and Rexroad acknwoledged Dev’s supporters and effectively shrugged them off, but at least they responded. Where’s the outrage for those who did not respond at all?
“Instead of complaining about these letters they should be taking the complaints more seriously. After all 2 years is a long time to keep up a protest unless you think there is a real problem of injustice.”
What more would you like the editor and Rexroad to do at this point? Regarding Dev’s conviction, what can they do?
“Mr. Dev was convicted of a crime by a jury and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. The only channel available, if the objective is to have the concerns surrounding the evidence, circumstances and trial revisited with the hope that he will be exonerated, is to appeal to a higher court.”
Superfluous Man, unfortunately you sound just like the uneducated people that don’t seem to really know what goes on not only in our legal system but legal systems around the world. If you think just because a jury comes back with a guilty verdict the person has to be guilty you should read more it might just open your eyes.
I believe we still live in a country were the citizens have the right for freedom of speech, so the fact that the supporters of Ajay Dev are conducting peaceful rallies should not provoke anyone especially those who are elected officials as they themselves conduct peaceful rallies in order to be elected.
What is interesting is the fact that the support for Mr. Dev has continued to grow and is far reaching, like Florida. Why? People in general are very scepical, as they should be, and so if persons after looking into the facts, which is what the supporters of Mr. Dev has encouraged from day one, are moved to publicly declare their support and thus encourage others then there must be substance. The truth will always stand-up against scritany but a lie will crumble and will not last. The family and supporters of Mr. Dev have welcomed and quite frankly encouraged everyone to look at the facts. As David Greenwald mentioned in this article, at first he was sceptical but as he reviewed the FACTS and got to know the supporters his opinion has changed. The family and friends of MR. Dev are not afraid of the DA’s or anyone else responses,what is clear is that they want to make sure that the DA’s office get the FACTS RIGHT!
Themis,
“Superfluous Man, unfortunately you sound just like the uneducated people that don’t seem to really know what goes on not only in our legal system but legal systems around the world.”
Enlighten me, please tell me in what way I am mistaken re: only recourse for Dev is to appeal to a higher court? That is a channel that has not been closed off to him.
If, however, you are referring to the legal system in general having problems that’s a much different conversation. Advocates can lobby local, state and federal representatives to effect change in the justice system. There’s nothing wrong with that. The research needs to be done (and sound) and sent their way.
Do you believe additional channels need to be made available to the public to exonerate the innocent and/or change the legal system?
I think the Dev supporters, if they are trying to change the legal system and/or policies of the elected DA, may be better served by focusing more on that than Dev’s innocence. An appellate judge isn’t going to be too concerned with the Dev supporters’ interpretation of the evidence and trial.
“If you think just because a jury comes back with a guilty verdict the person has to be guilty you should read more it might just open your eyes.”
In what way did I suggest that a verdict of guilt by jury is without error, every time? Don’t think I did.
Eyes,
“As David Greenwald mentioned in this article, at first he was sceptical but as he reviewed the FACTS”
Yes, as expressed to him by Dev’s supporters, whom, by the way, he did not name or convey their relation to Dev. If he spoke with his wife, mother, etc, how objective can they be?
You can find Advocates for Ajay response to Rexroad here.
[url]http://www.rexroad.com/?p=402&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150242018529069_17465975_10150242755804069#f17892e1469d77f[/url]
Superfluous Man I am referring to the legal system in general. There are far too many people sitting behind bars that are truly innocent and to think that their only recourse is to sit there for years until an appeal process can be maneuvered through is unimaginable. The whole system from top to bottom has very little, if no oversight. Judges get to decide whether they have made an error in a case or not, prosecutors get to lie during closing and opening arguments, the Supreme Court is taking away the chance to have any recourse for people wrongly incarcerated and a defendant seems to be the one that carries the blame if his lawyer made mistakes during trial. Since most people have not gone to law school, most people have no understanding of how lopsided the system is for the prosecution.
It’s quite odd that so many women are supporting a guy convicted of rape – the protest is growing and it has lasted a long time. Yolo County is certainly a likely place for injustice to occur – weak judges and a tunnel vision DA.
First I would like to apologize for having my “eyesclosedtight” when it came to typing (spelling) my comment, however it does not undermine what was said.
Superfluous Man no matter who David spoke to is not the point as he considered the facts. And that is the point and the continued encouragement for the supporters of Mr. Dev, they don’t want people to take their word for it, but investigate the FACTS.
[i]”It’s quite odd that so many women are supporting a guy convicted of rape – the protest is growing and it has lasted a long time.”[/i]
There are two ways to take this. Either:
1) that the supporters of Dev are odd. That is possible. It is very unusual, even in cases which later proved that the convicted was factually innocent, to have such a large group protest as much and in such large numbers* as the Dev supporters have. Maybe those folks are just odd?; or
2) that the case against itself was terribly odd.
I am not certain which it is.
*I can only think of one famous, national case in which a large group regularly turns out to protest a conviction: the case of a black Muslim in Philly named Mumia, who, beyond a shadow of a doubt, murdered a cop in Philadelphia. A great number of radical black Muslims as well as a smaller number of radical leftwingers and a few phonies like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make money off of such protests regularly hold “Free Mumia” marches. What I can gather about that case is that most of Mumia’s adherents are a part of a cult, led by Mumia. He has written a number of (really crappy) books, and they read Mumia’s writings like he is their Christ. Not all of his followers are that way. The rest simply seem to hate the police or, in the case of the Sharptons and Jacksons, are out to make a buck.
CORRECTION: “2) that the case against [s]itself[/s] [b]Mr. Dev[/b] was terribly odd.”
In my opinion, I believe that these protesters are asking for an investigation into the Cash for Convictions which David brought out awhile ago and they believe Dev and others are victims of. You do have to wonder about how a man like Dev can get the same sentence (400 years) as the Jaycee Dugard perpetrator when there is no evidence in Dev’s case compared to the overwhelming amount in the Dugard case. It appears that it is because there were so many charges which seems to add to the number of convictions and that in turn to more funding. Seems like they have a complaint to me and the county supervisors or anyone in power should be looking into this.
Also I do not believe they are trying to retry the case in the public as they have said it is on appeal but are trying to correct the lies that the DA has put out and continues to put out.
Rifkin: “So David, you are saying (based on this quote) that you believe there never was any sexual relationship between Dev and the child and never any sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual conduct on his part?”
“For her to say that she was raped by my uncle under these circumstances, considering that we were all lying shoulder to shoulder, it’s really unthinkable. I don’t understand how this could happen.”
This is just one of the many times that the witnesses contradicted her testimony.
1. She claimed to have been raped at her uncles house while she slept in the cellar with her parents. The uncle and aunt testified that she had never ever slept over their house.
2. She claimed to have been raped in the same bed her mother was sleeping in. Peggy Dev (the wife) absolutely refutes that. She reminds us–how could she not know. The dog walking across the floor wakes her up at night.
3. The accuser’s best friend for the first few years she lived in the U.S. testified that she slept at the family home 2-3 per week and never saw anything remiss.
4. She claimed to have been raped at a family friends’ house and they testified to the contrary.
Remember she said she was raped 750x yet no one saw any signs of abuse–no one saw them sneaking off to a bathroom for a quickie like you propose. Again no signs of abuse were apparent to her doctor who examined her, not her teachers that are mandated reporters, not her friends or family. She also had sexual relations with several boys which might be difficult if you are being raped 3x per week.
There are hundreds of text and private emails between the accuser and Ajay Dev, and not one has any sexual content or anything that would lead one to believe that something is amiss.
Also, she testified to have been raped since she was 15 and that there was no protection used. Yet, she doesn’t ever get pregnant? Now once she is dating other boys (after 18), she gets pregnant twice in a year. How does this happen?
Eyes,
“Superfluous Man no matter who David spoke to is not the point as he considered the facts…”
Actually, it is very much relevant and central to his remarks. DMG remarked “But I can say, having met critical members of the family who have seen this evidence, I do not believe they would be defending a man that raped a young girl.”
He states that he received that information, which he bases his opinion on, from parties whom are not impartial.
Whether knowingly or unknowingly, they may be ignoring, misinterpreting, omitting, etc. information that is critical to this case.
So for you to assert “As David Greenwald mentioned in this article, at first he was sceptical but as he reviewed the FACTS and got to know the supporters his opinion has changed,” is inaccurate.
In fact, he has not concluded anything (from my reading of this article), beyond his belief that an error was made in this case/they wouldn’t be defending someone who would rape a girl. He doesn’t specify what that error is; he admits not reading the full transcript/translated call and doesn’t state that Dev is innocent. Further, the source of the “facts” seems to have been members of the Dev family who are, again, not impartial.
I don’t think DMG has said he considered all the facts in this case, as you seem to think.
Themis,
“There are far too many people sitting behind bars that are truly innocent and to think that their only recourse is to sit there for years until an appeal process can be maneuvered through is unimaginable.”
This is true, people are convicted of crimes they did not commit and spend decades in prison, tragically. I commend the efforts of those who work tirelessly to exonerate the wrongfully convicted. Do you happen to know what percentage of all convictions in this country result in exoneration?
What are your suggestions, as an alternative to the appeals process?
“The whole system from top to bottom has very little, if no oversight”
You feel the appellate process is insufficient, in terms of oversight?
“Judges get to decide whether they have made an error in a case or not”
Which judges?
“prosecutors get to lie during closing and opening arguments”
Is that the procedure? During opening statements only the prosecution can present to the jury what they will prove/disprove with the evidence they’ve obtained? During closing arguments only the prosecution can summarize the evidence from their point of view?
“Since most people have not gone to law school, most people have no understanding of how lopsided the system is for the prosecution.”
The prosecution has the much larger burden, the burden of proof. In what ways do you think criminal trial procedure unfairly favors the prosecution? They get to go first and are allowed a rebuttal following the defense’s closing argument?
Rifkin you seem to forget that people protest for injustice all the time. Have you forgotten the Casey Anthony trial where people protested because they could tell the jury didn’t get it right. What about the 2 boarder patrol agents that were charged with murdering a convicted drug dealer. They were later released, but they wouldn’t have been if the public didn’t protest. Injustice goes both ways and when people see it hopefully they do protest. That is the only way to get heard.
I don’t know why you say all the protesters are women, I saw men protesting on channel 13’s news report, as a matter of fact one of them was even interviewed. These people didn’t seem crazy to me, they looked more shell shocked which is how I am sure we all would look if we were in the same situation.
Part of the Response to Matt Rexroad that didn’t get published in this article speaks to the credibility of the accuser. I put it below.
“This is important because these allegations have been made by someone who has a pattern of not being credible.
After questioning the accuser at the preliminary trial, Michael Rothschilds asked for all the charges to be dropped—due to the lack of credibility of the accuser. Rothchilds explained that he rarely makes a request like this—maybe once a decade. He explained that everything in the case was based on the accuser’s credibility, and she had demonstrated that she was not credible. In response the DDA, in a highly theatrical rebuttal broke down in tears, pleading with the judge to maintain the charges.
After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”
The accuser was convicted in Nepal for passport fraud and perjury. She was found guilty of lying in court at the age of 22.
The accuser contradicted herself many times. There are differences in her story when you compare the police report, her interview with the detective, her sworn testimony in the preliminary hearing and her sworn testimony throughout the trial. Her testimony is also countered by both prosecution and defense witnesses.
In fact, DDA Steve Mount in his closing statement makes excuses as to why the accuser has been caught in so many lies. He claims that the defense lawyer has asked her tricky questions saying, “She is clueless as to what she’s saying.” (RT 5122)
Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred.”
This is a person with a pattern of telling lies. People who knew her know that about her. Her best friend when she made the allegations avoided the subpoena from defense lawyer. Why wouldn’t her best friend come to testify for her if she knew she was really being abused.
The incredible part here is that everyone wants to believe one person with a background of lying over dozens of upstanding people that know these things didn’t happen in their presence the way she describes. How can people seriously think that all these people are banding together for someone that might have caused such a heinous crime. Some of Ajay’s supporters are actually victims of abuse who would never support a rapist.
Viven,
“I believe that these protesters are asking for an investigation into the Cash for Convictions which David brought out awhile ago and they believe Dev and others are victims of.”
Frankly, I think that’s worth examining: in what ways does the reliance on grants, which are result-based, for funding impacting the criminal justice system. I would like to see some comprehensive report on that. What investigative body would examine this issue, the grand jury?
But, Viven, what has been the primary story this week: “Cash for Convictions” or the protesters and there support for Dev? I think their mission would be better served if they focused more on the former.
“The whole system from top to bottom has very little, if no oversight”
You feel the appellate process is insufficient, in terms of oversight? “
Are you for real? The Appellate Court has nothing to do with oversight.
What are your suggestions, as an alternative to the appeals process?
“The whole system from top to bottom has very little, if no oversight”
This is obviously not the forum for that.
Themis, why not?
Below is a part of the response to Matt Rexroad that was not discussed in the article.
“This is important because these allegations have been made by someone who has a pattern of not being credible.”
After questioning the accuser at the preliminary trial, Michael Rothschilds asked for all the charges to be dropped—due to the lack of credibility of the accuser. Rothchilds explained that he rarely makes a request like this—maybe once a decade. He explained that everything in the case was based on the accuser’s credibility, and she had demonstrated that she was not credible. In response the DDA, in a highly theatrical rebuttal broke down in tears, pleading with the judge to maintain the charges.
After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”
The accuser was convicted in Nepal for passport fraud and perjury. She was found guilty of lying in court at the age of 22.
The accuser contradicted herself many times. There are differences in her story when you compare the police report, her interview with the detective, her sworn testimony in the preliminary hearing and her sworn testimony throughout the trial. Her testimony is also countered by both prosecution and defense witnesses.
In fact, DDA Steve Mount in his closing statement makes excuses as to why the accuser has been caught in so many lies. He claims that the defense lawyer has asked her tricky questions saying, “She is clueless as to what she’s saying.” (RT 5122)
Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred.
Those people that knew the accuser well know that she had a past reputation for lying. Even her best friend at the time of the allegations refused to testify for her. The defense tried to subpoena her but she avoided it. Why would you not testify if you thought your best friend was being raped.
The most incredible part is that people want to believe the accuser who has a background of lying over dozens of upstanding people that know first hand that the lies she is telling didn’t happen. Why would all these people support a rapist? Some of the people supporting Ajay are themselves victims of rape/abuse and would never support a rapist.
FAI,
“Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred.”
Which is not necessary to convict.
“Why would all these people support a rapist?”
Because THEY don’t believe he is a rapist?
If someone believes that the entire family and all their close friends are lying and trying to protect Ajay–which of course is ridiculous–why would the doctor and the social worker lie?
The doctor is not related to Ajay and is a mandated reporter. Why would the doctor say there was no sign of abuse. The social worker states that the accuser is in a happy home and wants very much to be adopted. The social worker is not related to Ajay and is a mandated reporter. Neither of these professionals have any vested interest in lying to protect Ajay. In fact, they have a professional responsibility to protect victims of abuse.
THEMIS: [i]”Rifkin you seem to forget that people protest for injustice all the time. Have you forgotten the Casey Anthony trial where people protested because they could tell the jury didn’t get it right.”[/i]
Your example is nonsense. While the Ajay Dev supporters have gathered many times in very large numbers to protest his arrest and conviction–which speaks of a great deal of affection and loyalty to Mr. Dev–there was a very small gathering outside of the courthouse in Orlando protesting the verdict in the Anthony case that day and none since.
The proportions are magnitudes different. There are likely fewer than one thousand non-Nepalese people in the U.S. who are at all familiar with Mr. Dev’s case. By contrast, there are at least 200 million people in the U.S. who watched or followed in some respect the Casey Anthony case, the vast majority of whom think justice was not served.
Before you take this in the wrong way: I am not condemning anyone for expressing their views on the verdict in the Dev case. I just note that it is unusual, which does not make it bad.
Superfluous Man: “Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred.”
“Which is not necessary to convict.”
When you have an accuser’s whose testimony is contradicted by herself, prosecutor and defense witnesses, the lack of physical evidence that a crime even occurred becomes relevant.
When you have doctors, teachers, friends, and family all supporting Ajay and not the accuser, then the lack of physical evidence that a crime even occurred becomes relevant.
When you have hundreds of private texts and emails between the accuser and Ajay and none of them have any mention of sex in them, then the lack of physical evidence that a crime even occurred becomes relevant.
The prosecutor’s entire case rested on her testimony (which had all kinds of contradictions/lies) and one sentence from a 50 minute phone call that was translated from Nepali. The DA took the sentence out of context and said erroneously that this was an admission of guilt. The DDA forgets that Ajay denied these allegations 52x (directly/indirectly) in a 50 minute phone call. How many times does one have to deny the allegations?
So with the circumstances listed above, the lack of physical evidence that a crime took place should cause some doubt and is relevant.
here is a fair synopsis of Rifkin:
he is upset because he is also being challenged since he posted Rexroad’s prepared blog stating that it was a fair synopsis indeed.
he is upset because he is associated with the Davis Enterprise which did not acknowledge the gathering of more than 250 people protesting for Ajay Dev’s case.
he is upset because he has been forced to go to Third World countries and sleep in the same bed with 3 other relatives and a dog.
I am not upset, son. I really don’t give a crap about the Ajay Dev case. I have no reason to have any bias whatsoever in this case.
[i]”he is upset because he is also being challenged since he posted Rexroad’s prepared blog stating that it was a fair synopsis indeed.”[/i]
It struck me as fair. It was not loaded with prejudicial terms. It made it understandable why the case was brought.
[i]”he is upset because he has been forced to go to Third World countries and sleep in the same bed with 3 other relatives and a dog.”[/i]
No one has ever [i]forced[/i] me to go to any Third World countries, though I have been to many of them. In fact, I have lived in one Third World country and spent months at a time in others.
Also, your comment about sleeping in a bed with a dog is really not my experience in the Third World. I’m sure there are many counterexamples, but my experience generally is that dogs which sleep in the beds of their owners are the dogs of the middle classes or higher. Even one-upping that, my old lab-dobie mix, Moxie, used to sleep with my neighbors in their bed when I would go out of town and they took care of her. Their two dogs at the time lost out, having to sleep on the floor while Moxie nestled in between my neighbor and his wife on their large master bed. Fortunately, other than the occassional lick on the face, Moxie slept quietly.
Rifkin: How can you say it is a fair summary?
This summary is still talking about pornography, pregnancies and Motel 6 when Ajay Dev was not found guilty for any of these. It seems that the only reason to keep bringing these things up is to incite people’s anger or to prejudice them against his character. They had their chance to prove these lies and were unable.
Their words in this summary may not be prejudicial, but their actions are–otherwise why keep perpetuating the lies that were not proven in court.
They should let these arguments go, or is the case too weak to stand alone without adding these……
FAI,
“If someone believes that the entire family and all their close friends are lying and trying to protect Ajay–which of course is ridiculous…”
Let me be clear, I am not accusing anyone of lying so much as I am questioning Dev’s supporters’ impartiality. This goes back to DMG’s comments, as well as the letter/petition in support of Dev, that these people wouldn’t support a child abuser and DMG’s comments with regard to points of the case communicated to him by Dev’s supporters.
“Why would the doctor say there was no sign of abuse.”
Beyond what was reported this week, I have limited knowledge about this case. I would think, for that statement to be significant, the timelines re: assault took place, visit to her doctor and what the exam entailed would need to be known.
It could be that an assault took place and there were no signs of abuse, no?
“The social worker states that the accuser is in a happy home and wants very much to be adopted.”
I don’t know what type of assessment the social worker performed and when it took place in relation to the sexual assault, but a few things come to mind. I am not an expert, however I believe victims of sexual abuse don’t always outwardly express what they have suffered or show signs/symptoms of sexual abuse. The worker is trained, but a happy home can be feigned and the victim may have felt obligated to perpetuate that image out of fear or allegiance to her abuser. Could the victim have felt that she would have been deported or suffer worse if she did not?
My understanding is that it’s not uncommon for sexual assault cases to lack physical evidence and/or rely on he said/she said information.
“The DA took the sentence out of context and said erroneously that this was an admission of guilt. The DDA forgets that Ajay denied these allegations 52x (directly/indirectly) in a 50 minute phone call. How many times does one have to deny the allegations?”
I have not listened to or read the transcripts of the call, so I can’t judge for myself. I would guess that the defendant could have denied the allegations any number of times and still be guilty of the crimes he is accused of. 52 denials does not necessarily eliminate one admission of guilt.
“When you have doctors, teachers, friends, and family all supporting Ajay and not the accuser, then the lack of physical evidence that a crime even occurred becomes relevant.”
Maybe Dev was a pillar of his community with a strong support system of family and friends. On the other hand, perhaps the victim had/has none of this? Where is her family? Does no one support the victim?
Note to baccha, as well as to other participants: please do not attack other blog participants. Stick to the issues.
DGM: “Both of your first two comments miss the mark. This is not a rights issue, it is a prudence issue. Rexroad has never even examined the facts of this case, he’s merely re-printing what the DA sent him. There is nothing to be gained by Rexroad responding other than encouraging more responses.”
if this is a prudence issue, fine, but that cuts both ways, meaning neither rexroad nor the protestors should comment because neither are well versed in the facts. otherwise, rexroad and the protestors equally can voice any opinion they have, facts or not.
it is questionable the protestors have “all the facts” just as much as it is with Mr. Rexroad.
The presumed vilification bestowed upon the Yolo County DA stands in direct proportion to the dereliction by the DA to produce a scintilla of forensic evidence to medically and legally confirm that the plaintiff was raped ONCE…let alone the 700+ times that was alleged, by virtue of anecdotic testimony under oath.
Thank you David for your intrepid support and dispassionate commitment to assist in the rectification of such a horrific injustice.
In answer to Mr. Rifkin, I do not believe that Mr. Dev and the accuser had any sexual relations. I am basing that opinion on my personal experience with the Dev’s (both Ajay and the accuser),and my own personal investigation into every possible minute detail of the case, because like any reasonable person I wanted to be sure of either his guilt or his innocence.
I have read the court transcript. I do have first-hand personal knowledge of the accuser lying about more than once instance in significant incidents. I’ve looked at all the evidence and compared it to timelines, testimony, personal emails back and forth between the two over a period of 4 1/2 years, including the pretext call in its entirety, and compared all of these things to see where the consistencies and inconsistencies were.
It all led to one constant…the allegations are false.
As far as the sleeping arrangements you commented on earlier, I can assure you that my home and the mental disposition of it is not consistent with that of a third world country. My children from a very early age were taught about the impropriety of inappropriate conduct from adults–on all levels. They understood and knew it is wrong for any adult (with several warnings that often times these crimes are committed by family members or people you would otherwise not suspect). They have come forward acknowledging that nothing inappropriate happened,and can testify that they were up pretty much most of the night watching movies and playing video games–not necessarily sleeping.
In fact, the only time my son came forward to me to express concern over any conduct from either of them was upon the accuser’s arrival to this country. After spending time with her and another teenager away from the company of adults, he explained that he no longer wanted to associate with her (which is something coming from this kid). He further explained that he did not trust her and that she is not who everybody thinks she is. That she acted one way in front of adults or around us and completely different away from their company. This almost immediately (before the allegations took place) upon her arrival. In fact, my son refused to be in her company without the presence of adults–he distrusted her that much. I understood my son’s position, but gave her the benefit of the doubt, like so many people who want to evaluate things for themselves based on their own experience and observations.
So, I speak from personal first-hand knowledge and a thorough and comprehensive understanding of what went on in the court and much of the Dev’s lives as re-visted through my own experience, and an absolute behemoth of evidentiary information–some of which was used in court, some that was asked to be used in court, but wasn’t, and other evidence that was not allowed in court.
I realize that not everyone has the position or knowledge that I do in the case, but I sincerely hope that once the appeal has been filed, we will be able to discuss and share other more significant facts of the case.
Rifkin,
I don’t know what experiences you had in a third world country, but your remarks came off very prejudicial. I’m hoping you didn’t mean them that way. Let me clarify that Ajay is in a mixed marriage. The family David was speaking of is the nephew of his wife and are white, born in America, never any problems with the law. Ajay, his wife and adopted daughter were visiting her sister. The cousins all wanted to sleep in the living room. There were 4 total people and a dog sleeping like a slumber party in the living room. The accuser claims that she was raped at that house, and this was the only time she slept there. She didn’t make an accusation at that time and no one saw anything wrong. The nephew and the sister testified about this. Please don’t jump to conclusions about the character of the family or make seemingly prejudicial comments.
The proverbial WHY…?
Why no rape kit?
Why no trauma in the plaIntiff?
Why did the primary detective in the Dev case fail to investigate the homes where rapes had allegedly occurred?
Why did the plaintiff falsify a medical record?
Why did the plaintiff fail to notify her physician about the alleged sexual abuse?
Why did the plaintiff feel compelled to prevaricate about her pregnancies as it related to Mr. Dev?
Why did the plaintiff prevaricate about who was actually responsible for downloading pornography onto the computer?
Why did the plaintiff prevaricate about her age?
Why did the plaintiff prevaricate about a rape that never occurred at the infamous Motel 6?
Why did the DA fail to speak with friends and immediate family members of Mr. Dev, prior to, and/or pursuant to filing formal charges against Mr. Dev.
Why did the detective confiscate his notes attendant to the pretext call?
Why did the plaintiff fail to inform her parents about the alleged abuse?
Why did the plaintiff unilaterally choose to return to the United States with the defendant (the alleged abuser) after a brief vacation in Nepal?
Why did the plaintiff fail to provide with specificity details about alleged rapes that repeatedly occurred in years three-to-five?
Why did the DA fail to produce any evidence in connection with what he deemed was the plaintiff’s specious memory?
Why was the jury predisposed to convict Mr. Dev on some rapes and exonerate him of others with the identical degree of information?
Some questions that remain unanswered.
[i]”I don’t know what experiences you had in a third world country, but your remarks came off very prejudicial.”[/i]
You don’t know what the eff you are talking about, son. You don’t know anything about me if you think I have any prejudice. It is not bigotted to point out a fact–that large, poor families all over the world sleep many to a bed, including in the United States.
If you have one ounce of character, you will apologize profusely for insinuating I am the prejudiced one. However, given your comments, it is clear you lack the decency to do the right thing and say you are sorry and ignorant.
A lot of commentators have spoken of the partiality of the Dev supporters but none have turned that around. Perhaps the DA also has a stake. He and his staff have a stake in “not getting it wrong” when it comes to the Dev case. The man was sentenced to378 years. They have also made this “personal.” I have not seen a response like this generated by any other case the Vanguard has written about. Before anyone says anything – I’m not saying they are not entitled to “free” speech or a response. I’m just saying that it also illustrates some partiality. And FAI has noted that the DA keeps bringing up salacious accusations as though they were fact when the jury did not convict on them. This also illustrates that they are not being impartial.
Rifkin,
I wrote that it appeared that way to me. I also wrote I hope you didn’t mean them that way. I didn’t mean to insult you. I’m glad to hear that you are not prejudice. Obviously words can be taken in the wrong way. I took yours wrong and you took mine wrong. Sorry let’s call it a day.
Rexroad posted a message from one of the jurors on his blog http://www.rexroad.com/
Lyah,
Obviously the impartiality of the DA’s statements should be similarly scrutinized.
FWIW, I don’t find the juror’s comments particularly damning. That is just one statement, though
The proverbial WHY…Continued.
Why did the trial judge fail to sanction and/or disciple the detective of record in the People v. Dev when officially notified of a breach of conduct by the detective for speaking directly with two jurors during a scheduled recess?
Why did the trial judge fail to sanction and/or discipline the detective of record in the People v. Dev when it was verified by the aforementioned jurors that the detective misinformed the judge concerning the nature and content of the discussion with the respective jurors?
Why did the plaintiff prevaricate about viewing a pornographic tape allegedly provided by the defendant, when it was clearly established that the tape was unavailable for public distribution and consumption until nearly [i][b]two years[/b][/i] beyond the specified date testified to by the plaintiff under oath?
Why did the DA dismiss to the jury in closing arguments the defendant’s 52 categorical denials in the pretext call of any instances of sexual misconduct and/or contact with the plaintiff?
Inquiring minds wish to know….
[quote][i]”Without ourselves (David) listening to and being provided an independent translation of this conversation it is impossible to evaluate. But this is the central point in dispute – whether this portion of the conversation means what the DA says it means and that will be decided in the appellate courts, not in the court of public opinion….
And that fact (that David does not believe ‘they would be defending a man that raped a young girl’), along with so many others, has me very strongly leaning towards the firm belief that Mr. Dev did not do this and that there has been a terrible injustice in this case….”[/i][/quote]Raising a number of probabilities, among them:
1.) David requires a very low standard of proof–your basic gut feeling of what motivates the family’s continuing support for the criminal will do fine–to decide a person is innocent in spite having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2.) David may have gotten way too close to this case even though the family he’s been supporting for so long refuses to give him access to the “central point” of evidence in Mr. Dev’s trial–an odd stand since David has spent two years on the case at their request.
(But, didn’t his attorney already challenge the DA’s translation at trial, and didn’t the judge and jury already weigh the evidence?)[quote][b]LOTR1OF9[/b]: “[i]How do you know what the motives for the supporters are?[/i]”
[b]Elaine[/b]: “[i]Directly from the Vanguard, to wit: The supporters of Ajay Dev, who is serving a 378-year sentence that his friends and family believe is unjust….”[/i]
[b]David[/b]: “[i]I wrote it, I don’t know that’s their motivation it was just my wording as a lead in.[/i]”[/quote]This is troubling. As we read your reports, how are we to sort out what’s accurate, what you [u]think[/u] is accurate and what’s just “wording as a lead in,” the accuracy of which doesn’t concern you? I don’t think it takes many inaccurate rhetorical devices to make a report (or a reporter) untrustworthy from a reader’s standpoint.”[i][quote]After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, ‘Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man’.”[/quote][/i]I wasn’t able to locate the juror’s full comments on-line, but here’s another juror view reacting to the Supr. Rexroad you’re so aggressively trashing here:[quote][i]I just read your blog on the Ajay Dev trial. I was a juror on that trial and I wanted to let you know that your synopsis is pretty much dead on. I will tell you that the most telling part of that phone call is in the first few minutes. Granted it has been 2 years since I have heard it so I may not be spot on in the quoting here. In the first few minutes, the victim calls Dev to tell him that she had been to see a school counselor. The counselor wants to know about her sex life and her abortions. She asks Dev “What should I tell him about us Daddy?” His response is “Why did you go to counselor?” and “Good girls dont talk about this kind of thing.” If he is truly innocent as his family contends, why wasnt his first reponse What are you talking about? What about us? Something?????
While I will never come out publicly as a juror (that family scares the hell out of me), I do appreciate your efforts.[[/i]/quote]
I want to address one issue that JustSaying raises:
[quote]Raising a number of probabilities, among them:
1.) David requires a very low standard of proof–your basic gut feeling of what motivates the family’s continuing support for the criminal will do fine–to decide a person is innocent in spite having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
2.) David may have gotten way too close to this case even though the family he’s been supporting for so long refuses to give him access to the “central point” of evidence in Mr. Dev’s trial–an odd stand since David has spent two years on the case at their request. [/quote]
This is not a fair statement. It is also an accurate statement. The transcript issue is not the decision of the family but rather the advise of the attorney that would prefer this matter not out in the public arena. For me, I don’t see the harm, but it is again not my call.
Second, do I require a low standard of proof? No. I have seen quite a bit that leads me to question the verdict in terms of the contradictions and falsehoods both in the testimony of the accuser as well as the case that the DA has laid out. Enough that I think we should all have pause about it.
Third, I sat in the courtroom perhaps two months ago as Judge Fall made a very strong effort to prevent the record to be clarified as to whether the Jury had access to a critical piece of evidence. Apparently this point is so strong that the case may be reversible on this alone.
Fourth, and this is largely conjecture, but in my experience, people do not put forth this kind of effort unless there is something that they truly believe is an injustice.
I can generally find out from defense attorneys if their client’s case is worth my time. I’ll give you an example, got a letter the other day from an inmate maintaining his innocence, I talked to his attorney and he gave me the straight scoop. Needless to say, I will not be following up on that case. This is not an isolated incident.
I do want to see the full transcript, I want to get an independent translation and I want to read the whole thing for myself and then and only then will I determine in the final score whether he should have been acquitted. But based on what I see now, there are a lot of very troubling aspects of this case and I do think they need to be thrown into the public realm not just because of this case but because they expose problems in our system itself.
It is outrageous that the moderator warns someone who is insulted by Rifkin once again injecting race and bigotry into his writings yet allow Rifkin to write about someone he calls “Mumia”, and disparage black leaders Sharpton and Jackson as if doing so is somehow relevant. While Rifkin has a point to make about sleeping arrangements his depictions of people having sex behind a door leaves one to wonder about how he has such intimate knowledge of these affairs?
Over the years I have responded to many of the racist remarks of Rich Rifkin on this blog, all of them denied by Rifkin, as I expect he will deny these. What is most troubling is that while this blog now has an expectation of civility it tolerates the most disgusting, biased. irrelevant remarks of Rich Rifkin. Why is that Mr. Moderator?
Mr. Toad, Rich says a lot of ridiculous things that deserve the woodshed approach. We’ve tried to tame some of this down, but it works imperfectly at best. Think about it as the one child hits another situation, the child who hits back is the one who invariably gets yelled at.
[i][quote]”This is not a fair statement. It is also (not) an accurate statement. The transcript issue is not the decision of the family but rather the advise of the attorney that would prefer this matter not out in the public arena. For me, I don’t see the harm, but it is again not my call.”[/quote][/i] Well, I think both are fair statements. You’ve repeatedly pointed to the “mis-translated” pretext call as the key to this misguided conviction. Yet, you “don’t see the harm” that you have little basis to report on this part of the case.
Rexroad should “keep his nose out of this,” you shout–somehow ignoring that the massive email dump which you support calls for his response–even though his followup appears to make him much more an authority on the case than you are.
You seem convinced you should carry on a campaign to free Mr. Dev based on facts limited to family and friend second-hand reports that you don’t care to confirm with public court documents.
When I said “I don’t see the harm” I meant I do not see the harm in releasing the full transcript for people to scrutinize.
Rexroad is a public official who is going to receive correspondence from people. He has the right to respond however he wishes, however I think he would have been wiser to have simply said this is a matter for the courts and I have no authority over them.
“You seem convinced you should carry on a campaign to free Mr. Dev based on facts limited to family and friend second-hand reports that you don’t care to confirm with public court documents. “
What I have done is report what has happened and to the best of my knowledge the facts as they are currently known to me, while at the same time I have been very honest about what I do not know.
David, has been to speak to many people involved in the lives of Mr. Dev as evidenced by his articles. More than any of us. While one might say the Dev supporters are biased. We don’t truly know. I am seeing that the DA is appearing equally biased to me. Perhaps more so. I have not seen people 2 years after a guilty verdict for this kind of crime support someone they believe is guilty or are just trying to protect them. You have to wonder what is driving these people to come out in public in support. Perhaps they know more than any of us are willing to allow.
Ridiculous things are one thing David but racist things are quite another. You have tolerated and allowed his bigotry to go on for years without adequate control. I have tried relentlessly to call him out while you and your moderated have sat by passively while attacking, threatening or deleting the posts of those who respond to his bigotry. When are you going to act to control his use of your blog for his racist rants?
I have gone back are re-read Rich Rifkin’s comments that you are referring to, and frankly don’t see them meriting the adjectives you’ve used here. He is provocative, and it was barely on-topic. But my main concern is the interaction of blog participants with each other. I prefer that participants not use language about public figures that is demeaning, but up to a point they are fair game since they are public figures. You could explain to me why his comments in this thread (and others) are racist, but you would have to do that off-forum by emailing me at donshor@gmail.com. The same goes for any response from Rich Rifkin. I always preserve anonymity and do not reveal contents of private conversations.
Rifkin “A great number of radical black Muslims as well as a smaller number of radical leftwingers and a few phonies like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who make money off of such protests regularly hold “Free Mumia” marches. “
Besides the obvious racism to calling Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton phonies. What does this have to do with this case.
Betcha is offended about rifkins remarks about third world sleeping arrangements and makes some remarks and you warn betcha.
Don Shor claims not to see any racism in Rifkins remarks. Obviously David you need a monitor who knows racism when they read it.
Hilarious. You delete being called on your inability or unwillingness to confront a blatant racist on this blog. Delete this you asshole. I hope David saw my post that directly challenged your ability to function as a moderator begor you through it away.
correction: before you through it away
And I might add my post was in response to your post asking for specifics about Rifkins racism which I had to lay out for you.
Although parts of the response from the Advocates for Ajay have been discussed in this article, people have asked to have the entire response that was sent to Matt Rexroad. Here it is.
Thank you Mr. Rexroad for taking an interest in the case of Ajay Dev. Advocates for Ajay have been requesting, for two years now, that those with oversight of the Yolo Co DA’s office look into what happened in his case. Unfortunately, we have not received one response from your office. We learned of your post on the website through a comment on the Davis Vanguard. It is also unfortunate that your response is exclusively based on information from the District Attorney’s office and that you did not talk to us. You point to the numerous investigative agencies that handled this case; however, these agencies failed to investigate the most obvious contradictions in the woman’s accusations. In fact, the Court refused to allow the written FBI report into evidence because it was so obviously biased. Our hope is that you will look at both sides of this story.
This is important because these allegations have been made by someone who has a pattern of not being credible.
After questioning the accuser at the preliminary trial, Michael Rothschilds asked for all the charges to be dropped—due to the lack of credibility of the accuser. Rothchilds explained that he rarely makes a request like this—maybe once a decade. He explained that everything in the case was based on the accuser’s credibility, and she had demonstrated that she was not credible. In response the DDA, in a highly theatrical rebuttal broke down in tears, pleading with the judge to maintain the charges.
After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”
The accuser was convicted in Nepal for passport fraud and perjury. She was found guilty of lying in court at the age of 22.
The accuser contradicted herself many times. There are differences in her story when you compare the police report, her interview with the detective, her sworn testimony in the preliminary hearing and her sworn testimony throughout the trial. Her testimony is also countered by both prosecution and defense witnesses.
In fact, DDA Steve Mount in his closing statement makes excuses as to why the accuser has been caught in so many lies. He claims that the defense lawyer has asked her tricky questions saying, “She is clueless as to what she’s saying.” (RT 5122)
Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred. The accuser’s pediatrician who examined her every year for four years testified that there was no evidence of abuse and the social worker who privately interviewed her prior to her adoption reported that she was very happy with Ajay and Peggy and wanted them to adopt her. This interview took place one year after allegedly being raped 3 times a week. The scenario laid out in your blog is based exclusively on the story that Ajay’s accuser told about him—a story of someone who has shown herself to be unreliable.
The DDA told the jury the entire reason Ajay’s accuser finally went to the police department to expose the abuse was because Ajay threatened to kill her if she did not submit to sex. However, the police officer who took the accuser’s report testified that she never mentioned this threat to her and in fact this threat does not appear anywhere in her police report. She did not mention this threat to any of her friends following her report to the police yet this threat, according to the DDA, so terrified the victim that she ran to the police.
(Continued on next comment block–too long)
The accuser did testify that Ajay had sex with her from age 15 to age 20. The accuser testified that she never had sex with any man but Ajay while living in the Dev household. At trial one of her boyfriends testified that when the accuser was 19-20 years old, they had sex on a regular basis together (once per week). The accuser testified it was Ajay that caused her pregnancies when she was a few days shy of being 19 years old. She also testified that she had been having unprotected sex with Ajay since the age of 15 three times a week. The accuser’s friend and her adoptive mother both testified that she was dating a man right before she had her first pregnancy and while she became pregnant the second time. The jury did not convict Ajay for either of the pregnancies. The Jury also did not convict Ajay of any charges related to Motel 6. The jury did not convict Ajay of threatening the accuser. So these should not be stated as a fact. The jury was not convinced and there is evidence to the contrary.
The accuser told the investigating officer, when she first reported that she was sexually abused, that she never had oral sex with Ajay. She said in a recorded interview “No… Because I just thought it was disgusting to do — put his thing in. I never — I mean, it’s disgusting to put that thing in my mouth. .. I wouldn’t do it.” She testified at trial that she had oral sex with Ajay approximately 50 times.
The accuser testified that she could not wait to move out of the Dev house to get away from the abuse. Yet in the midst of this alleged abuse, the accuser flew home to Nepal when she was 20 years old and visited her biological family for 1 month. She insisted on flying back to the United States with Ajay even though her ticket home was not scheduled to leave for another month.
Evidence at trial included private text messages and emails sent by the accuser to Ajay that demonstrated that the accuser was happy at home.
•A text message sent 3 days after moving out stated: “Dad, please call me, i miss u very much! I love u”
•Another text message sent 9 days after moving out stated: “Hi dad I am sorry but I really miss u, I love you – your Daughter”
Contrary to the DDA’s claim that Ajay could not bear to be away from his accuser and needed her sexual attentions, for a year prior to the accuser’s accusations, Ajay repeatedly e-mailed her biological father in Nepal asking him to request that she move back to Nepal for at least six months as her behavior was out of control and he and Peggy could no longer effectively parent her.
As for the “you f*!&d me…” exchange from the pretext call – Ajay was not speaking English. He was speaking Nepali. The prosecutor and the defense attorney did agree that the word “F*!&d” was used. However, and most importantly, they did not agree on the meaning or context in which that word was spoken.
This very controversial issue was the primary issue the DDA rested his case on, claiming Ajay “admitted” to the sexual assault and rape by this sentence and was able to obtain a conviction and a 378 year sentence based on this so called “admission”. Although the DA argued to the jury that this telephone call was the most “honest” communication between the parties, the detective testified that he scripted the accuser’s part of the conversation and that he threw away his notes before trial. The DDA completely ignored the 52 times Ajay directly and indirectly denied the accusations in English and Nepali. The accuser herself during the call acknowledges that Ajay is not admitting anything.
This rebuttal to your statement could go on and on. We hope after you read this, you will take the time to talk with those of us that know Ajay is innocent and that he did not obtain a fair trial. Thank you for your time.
Advocates for Ajay
http://www.AdvocatesForAjay.com
People have asked for the entire response to Matt Rexroad’s posting. Here it is.
Thank you Mr. Rexroad for taking an interest in the case of Ajay Dev. Advocates for Ajay have been requesting, for two years now, that those with oversight of the Yolo Co DA’s office look into what happened in his case. Unfortunately, we have not received one response from your office. We learned of your post on the website through a comment on the Davis Vanguard. It is also unfortunate that your response is exclusively based on information from the District Attorney’s office and that you did not talk to us. You point to the numerous investigative agencies that handled this case; however, these agencies failed to investigate the most obvious contradictions in the woman’s accusations. In fact, the Court refused to allow the written FBI report into evidence because it was so obviously biased. Our hope is that you will look at both sides of this story.
This is important because these allegations have been made by someone who has a pattern of not being credible.
After questioning the accuser at the preliminary trial, Michael Rothschilds asked for all the charges to be dropped—due to the lack of credibility of the accuser. Rothchilds explained that he rarely makes a request like this—maybe once a decade. He explained that everything in the case was based on the accuser’s credibility, and she had demonstrated that she was not credible. In response the DDA, in a highly theatrical rebuttal broke down in tears, pleading with the judge to maintain the charges.
After the trial, one juror blogged in the Daily Democrat, “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man.”
The accuser was convicted in Nepal for passport fraud and perjury. She was found guilty of lying in court at the age of 22.
The accuser contradicted herself many times. There are differences in her story when you compare the police report, her interview with the detective, her sworn testimony in the preliminary hearing and her sworn testimony throughout the trial. Her testimony is also countered by both prosecution and defense witnesses.
In fact, DDA Steve Mount in his closing statement makes excuses as to why the accuser has been caught in so many lies. He claims that the defense lawyer has asked her tricky questions saying, “She is clueless as to what she’s saying.” (RT 5122)
Please understand that there was NO physical evidence to show that a crime even occurred. The accuser’s pediatrician who examined her every year for four years testified that there was no evidence of abuse and the social worker who privately interviewed her prior to her adoption reported that she was very happy with Ajay and Peggy and wanted them to adopt her. This interview took place one year after allegedly being raped 3 times a week. The scenario laid out in your blog is based exclusively on the story that Ajay’s accuser told about him—a story of someone who has shown herself to be unreliable.
The DDA told the jury the entire reason Ajay’s accuser finally went to the police department to expose the abuse was because Ajay threatened to kill her if she did not submit to sex. However, the police officer who took the accuser’s report testified that she never mentioned this threat to her and in fact this threat does not appear anywhere in her police report. She did not mention this threat to any of her friends following her report to the police yet this threat, according to the DDA, so terrified the victim that she ran to the police.
The accuser did testify that Ajay had sex with her from age 15 to age 20. The accuser testified that she never had sex with any man but Ajay while living in the Dev household. At trial one of her boyfriends testified that when the accuser was 19-20 years old, they had sex on a regular basis together (once per week). The accuser testified it was Ajay that caused her pregnancies when she was a few days shy of being 19 years old. She also testified that she had been having unprotected sex with Ajay since the age of 15 three times a week. The accuser’s friend and her adoptive mother both testified that she was dating a man right before she had her first pregnancy and while she became pregnant the second time. The jury did not convict Ajay for either of the pregnancies. The Jury also did not convict Ajay of any charges related to Motel 6. The jury did not convict Ajay of threatening the accuser. So these should not be stated as a fact. The jury was not convinced and there is evidence to the contrary.
(continued on next blog)
Some how this was posted twice. Sorry. The blog before is a repeat from above.
I am a resident of the Central Valley and a transplant from the East Coast. I have never lived in a place where there is such rampant manipulation of the criminal justice system and so many people railroaded into taking plea bargains out of fear when they are massively overcharged and prosecuted for crimes they did not commit. Anyone who is in a “marginalized group” (black or brown of skin, from a poor neighborhood, or is accused of a sex crime etc.) is guilty until proven innocent and juries are incredibly narrow minded and prejudiced and often convict based on bias and emotion and not on a case proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have spent a lot of time in court observing this cesspool and what I have seen has made me believe that ANYONE the all-powerful DAs choose to go after can end up being convicted. Guilt or innocence has very little to do with it. Throw out enough lies and outrageous accusations and these local juries will convict anyone without a shred of evidence.
You look at Casey Anthony’s case. You have a dead child and pictures with Mom partying having great time with bunch of guys after the death of her daughter. Yet, the Jury found her not guilty because there was lack of hard evidence that she killed her own daughter. Even though Jury probably believed she was guilty, they followed the procedure of only convicting if there were any hard evidence.
In Ajay Dev’s case, there was no evidence and even one translated conversation that convicted him was extremely questionable and manipulated to provoke Jury’s emotion.
Based on what evidence does Ajay Dev get convicted and for 378 YEARS? So, without any evidence, the Yolo County Court sytem just took the accuser’s word that it happened 3 times weekly, and that was used to justify a conviction and 378 YEARS sentence. That is a scary world we live in.
They had no clear evidence rape even occured,in fact there were so many things contradicting her claim. Yet, Ajay got convicted.
I am a woman and I know there are many opportunistic women and young girls who frame men because they know from history, people sympathesize with women.
In this case, Ajay is the actual victim.
The accuser tricked the Americal Legal System for her own benefit.
Yolo County Legal system exploited the situation for its own benefit such as CASH FOR CONVICTION at cost of hardworking innocent citizen, Ajay Dev’s freedom.