Posted by:
lakhe July 7, 2009
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
I hope the comments posted below will help to see the truth.
Juror: IF ANYONE LISTENED TO THE PRETEXT TELEPHONE CALL BETWEEN THE VICTIM AND DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE THEY WOULD KNOW THE DEFENDANT WAS GUILTY. HE ADMITTED ON A TAPED CONVERSATION HE HAD SEX WITH THE VICTIM, NOT ONLY ONCE BUT TWICE. THAT IS HARD TO DISPUTE AND IS A FACT!!!!
Sueme: He attempted to pressure her to keep this a secret, even travelled to Nepal to accomplish it.
To be convicted...well there has to overwhelming circustantial evidence backed by few concrete facts.
Money talks. And if you hold a prominent position in society well that's a double whammy. I'm sure he was thinking he's invincible. Is it coincident that she got detained in Nepal for falsified information on her passport?
I'm sure she is one of MANY who have falsified information on passport. But its ironic that she would be held back in Nepal during her visit. Who would have the passport information anyway...parental figure? Who would report this...well, it might be someone who wants her quieted, or shed bad light on her character so he would come out smelling like a rose.
I'm sure these sort of rapes/molestations are going on throughout his friends' groups. May be that should be looked into as well.
Wanet: There were many, many statements in the call where Dev admitted or did not deny the victim's statement that he had molested her since the age of 15.
juror: Please believe me when I tell you that we tried every way possible to come up with an innocent interpretation of the statement. Because the very next statement from his mouth was "
that means you gave me consent", any other interpretations did not make sense at all. Like I sais before, the entire defense was that no sexual
relationship EVER happened. With that one statement, the entire defense strategy was shot.
If he did nothing wrong why was his family so afraid of her getting back here and why did he want her to go to Canada for her education (which he would pay for)? HMMMM, statute of limitations possibly????
