Allysma,

I said there are "probabilities alive" (meaning some chance) that jurors were too racist to believe worst about a man with different background. That is the general perception regarding white people living in inland America, and you can talk to any law school professor about it (It is pretty much statistically verified stuff. There is a rich literature about how home courts decide against alien firms/individuals in the USA.) I don't want to be seen defending Ajay--he might be the bastard-- but it is stretching my credulity to believe that a man is sent to jail for 70-250 years for  'one sentence' he made during a phone call (according to you). There is no semen test to prove rape, in fact, no trauma on victim or so I hear. In a lot of civil societies, a phone call, or statement made during the heated conversation, is inadmissible as an evidence. In any case, if you want to send someone to jail for such a long time, you really need something concrete. May be there is this schadenfreude, as Germans say, a satisfaction in "proving" a shocking crime-- you can tell your kids/friends about a man , a foreigner you convicted because he god damn raped his own daughter (oh what a decadent man! but at least he was not our type)-- and it is even better that he happened to be a son of a scientist, and an engineer in state agency.

Like all other educated Nepalese, I won't respond to the appeal by Ajay's families. There is no glory in associating yourself with a convict, and I am an egotistical person anyway. There is always a positive probability that Ajay might be what he is convicted of,so why take a risk? I haven't read all testimonies, nor do I have time. I am not like  Emilo Zola to take up the case for a convict Dreyfuss. But I see a distinct pattern in American jury system now more than ever, and this is something I will keep in mind: that these people are willing to believe anything said about a Nepali.

[PS: Just because a defense lawyer is satisfied doesn't mean it is all right. A significant fraction of people in this country are sentenced to jail or capital punishment partly because their lawyer is too incompetent. I am not familiar with the case or lawyer, and if you want to defend something, please don't make reference to him. I am approaching this case purely from outsider's point of view. Despite its democratic nature, jury system is not without flaw, composition of jury matters a lot and it is reasonable to start with that assumption, no?]