http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/04/22/henry-rayhons-acquitted-sexual-abuse/26105699/
“There was no eyewitness to the alleged sex act.
Donna Rayhons’ roommate, who tearfully complained that night about hearing something improper going on behind a curtain, never specifically told staff members the sounds were sexual. The defense lawyer called the 86-year-old woman to the stand last week. When he asked her whether the sounds were sexual, she replied: “I really can’t say.”
An exam done on Donna Rayhons that night found no sign of injury. Also, lab tests done on swabs from that exam found no conclusive evidence she’d recently had sex. Although an expert testified that the lack of evidence didn’t necessarily mean no sex occurred, there was no physical proof it did occur.
During a secretly taped two-hour interview a few weeks later, a DCI agent got Henry Rayhons to admit he’d tried to have sex with his wife. But Rayhons sounded confused at times on the recording played in court, and his lawyer contended the agent badgered the elderly man into agreeing to a false statement.”
WTH are sexual sounds and can an 86 year old be credible to knowing what she heard?
There’s a reason she’s in a home
Is her hearing impaired?
Is her judgement imlaired?
Can she believe her lying ears?
There was no evidence whatsoever she and he engaged in any sexual act.
There was no evidence she was injured in any way.
How in the San Hill was this allowed to be prosecuted?
How in the hell was it allowed to even get to preliminary
Lastly, how was it allowed to proceed past discovery?
The judges, police and prosecutors were hoping he’d self incriminate?
FU Bozos....
Had I been on the jury and heard this coupled with the other testimony and evidence, I would have cast a "Not Guilty" and petitioned the judge to censure the prosecution for wasting not only my time, but the judicial system's time for this kind of crap.
Absolute stupidity on the part of the prosecution.
“An exam done on Donna Rayhons that night found no sign of injury. Also, lab tests done on swabs from that exam found no conclusive evidence she’d recently had sex.”
How was this not abusive? How was she supposed to understand this violation? Poor woman.
Utterly absurd. No physical evidence and barely any circumstantial evidence. On what would they base the charge? Republicanism?