Cpl. Daniel Smith GUILTY

[BlueBimmer]

Is Nicole really a Hooker? a degree holder hooker?
As a person, doesn't she have the right to go to a bar, drink and get drunk? So when you see a drunk woman you rape them because they deserve it? is that it?


we all know the atrocities these american soldiers do wherever they go. Even in iraq, several iraqi women were raped by them. There's even a teenager they raped and murdered. So i don't understand why even fellow filipinos defend these rats. Maybe colonial mentality still at work?

ito ang may sense

[rab]

madami made-deny sa US Embassy ngayon. hehehe.

[jerkky]

hmmm fact?
she is a hooker

hooker nga ba si nicole? na-prove ba ito sa court? 'di ba hearsay lang ito?

[alsosing]

the judgement was based on the ff: smith admission of *** w/ nicole; dna tests; nicole was drunk and smith had taken advantage of her drunkeness. however, smith admitted *** w/ nicole as it was consensual(defense); evidence is that there is no forcible ***... if the judge see it that there is no forced *** since nicole was drunk and weak, it is possible also that nicole is not certain whether it is a RAPE or CONSENSUAL (kasi lashing nga).

alam nyo naman na paglasing ang isang tao, naglu loose ang mind nya. Kung hindi cguro lasing si nicole, it was RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, otherwise there is a DOUBT.

malaki ang difference sa pag iisip ng isang lasing at hindi...

[judyang]

it was an easy decision for the judge. had he acquitted smith, mumurahin siya sa tv at dyaryo araw araw. this way, para pa siyang hero at bahala na supreme court sa appeal. then, by acquitting the other 3 marines, it somehow appeases the defense.

in the first place, inamin ni smith na nag*** sila. sa starex. with all those people there. di basta basta prosti ang pumapayag ng ganun. add to that, lasing si nicole. in short, palpak ang depensa nila. it was not merely a court battle but also media battle, pero talo na agad defense with their balbasarado lawyer. dapat kinuha nila lawyer mukhang birhen o santo. e lawyer nila mismo mukhang rapist.

then looking at the 4 marines, si smith ang pinakamaliit at mukhang uto uto tipong forrest gump. sa laki ng 3 other marines baka pinagtripan nila itong smith na makipag*** nga with nicole. at dahil mga marines nga na looked at as dumb gorillas, feeling siguro nila, may driver pa sila at servicecar na wala naman sa states, akala nila, hari sila sa pilipinas.

buti na lang di pumayag mga pulis makati na itakas ng embassy security si smith. matapang din talaga mga pulis at sundalo natin kahit gahigante mga kano.

[Hanren]

I hope this kind/brand of justice will be applicable to all .. hindi porket sensational (at nasa VFA) na dapat mabilis ang trial. Every victim (or suspect) or even those involved in cases such as this (Nicole's) also deserve a speedy trial....

[AnuVaYan]

Everybody knows sperm cells contain DNA. Without a condom, a rapist would just set himself for a future conviction. It'll just be a matter of time before you become a suspect and a DNA sample from you would match sperm DNA from the victims. On the other hand, if you don't want to use condoms, you can have a vasectomy. That way, even though you'll leave ejaculate behind, there won't be any sperm to get DNA.

Don't you watch CSI?

Nag condom yan dahil sa takot makapulot ng sakit.

Kasi ngayon sasabihin lang nila kung nakuhaan ng DNA thru sperm cell, ang reason lang ay, you can only prove that we had ***, but you cannot prove that it was rape. Pag sinabing merong signs of forced ***, sasabihin lang ay gusto kasi ng babae ay rough ***...

I think I watch too much CSI hehe, saka law and order.

[cutedoc]

dahil dito manunuod na ako ng CSI =)

if she were my sister, kung mali siya, mali siya, pero mamahalin ko pa din siya and stay by her side=)

lets just wait for a year or two and have a follow up on this case=) id be happy if nicole moved on and lived a life she deserve.

to uncle sam, continue supporting the philippines...

[theveed]

First of all, as with any court case, you MUST take your emotional judgment aside. What's the point of adding "colonial mentality" as reason?

While I agree with Horsepower et al that an intoxicated subject is not a "go signal" for anyone to be manipulated and abused. BUT...

There are a couple of things that must be clarified here (I don't have the answers nor details, I'm just asking)...

1) How intoxicated was she? If the argument of "hindi sya prosti lang ang pwede uminom at mag bar" is used, then you must ask yourself, since ANYONE can get drunk, how drunk should you be to lose your control in your environment? If she's really too drunk to move, make a coherent conversation and they ended up having *** while she's nearly unconscious, then that's an easy case to determine. But from what I've read, she's not that out of it to not do anything about it as well. Neither was there struggle evidences that points to a forced act.

2) It really doesn't matter whether the accused is a US marine or a pinoy kanto boy. Does it make any difference, really now. So instead of making this a "US SOLDIERS ARE EVIL *** MANIACS vs INNOCENT LOCAL WOMEN" thing, chill out and handle the CASE FACTS instead. Not only is it not supportive of any argument, it's hypocritical as well, especially when the Phil ALWAYS seek help from the US with aides and other political issues. Filipinos love doing this, bashing almost any foreign countries of pangangapi... China, US, Japanese, etc..

I guess only Filipinos have the right to manipulate, steal, use and abuse their fellow Filipinos, right? Grow up!

In a case like this, a victim's remorse isn't enough to be brought out as evidence... Otherwise, we won't be living in a democratic system.

The legal system currently relies on who has the best evidence to prove their stand, unless the "winning" side brings out something concrete, who really wins?

While I do believe that the victim is violated and the soldier(s) and the driver, are accountable to the crime, I find it shallow for all the side-comments and non-issue arguments that the media and internet are using as "evidences"..

[Flagg]

Yay sir theveed!

[chua_riwap]

Everybody knows sperm cells contain DNA. Without a condom, a rapist would just set himself for a future conviction. It'll just be a matter of time before you become a suspect and a DNA sample from you would match sperm DNA from the victims. On the other hand, if you don't want to use condoms, you can have a vasectomy. That way, even though you'll leave ejaculate behind, there won't be any sperm to get DNA.

Don't you watch CSI?

Kasi, I' do believe that what happened is consensual ***. Eh, kung rape yun at nanlalaban yung victim, makuha mo pa bang magsuot ng condom?

(Not unless na talagang lupaypay na si Nicole, and pwede ring hinawakan nung 3 marines yung victim, kaya, nagawa pa niyang magsuot ng condom.)

[MAXBUWAYA]

Even if she is a hooker, if she says no NO Rape pa din iyon!

Ang baba naman ng tingin ng iba sa hooker. They have the same right to us hhehehehehe


Puede ka nga idemanda ng sarili mong asawa ng RAPE d ba?


I think smith should be sent into our Jail. He deserves it

He did the crime here he should pay his debt here!

[judyang]

alam nyo naman na paglasing ang isang tao, naglu loose ang mind nya. Kung hindi cguro lasing si nicole, it was RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, otherwise there is a DOUBT.

malaki ang difference sa pag iisip ng isang lasing at hindi...

i think the judge ruled smith guilty of rape kasi he was convinced that nicole was drunk beyond reasonable doubt.

[FrankDrebin]

Even if she is a hooker, if she says no NO Rape pa din iyon!

Ang baba naman ng tingin ng iba sa hooker. They have the same right to us hhehehehehe

Yep!

[FrankDrebin]

i think the judge ruled smith guilty of rape kasi he was convinced that nicole was drunk beyond reasonable doubt.

Rape pa rin maski lasing yung girl kasi pinagsamantalahan yung pagiging lasing niya.

[tsupermario]

Kasi, I' do believe that what happened is consensual ***. Eh, kung rape yun at nanlalaban yung victim, makuha mo pa bang magsuot ng condom?

(Not unless na talagang lupaypay na si Nicole, and pwede ring hinawakan nung 3 marines yung victim, kaya, nagawa pa niyang magsuot ng condom.)

that's 1 way of looking at it. unless also he was wearing it even before doing the deed evident premeditation :bwahaha:

[usokpower]

I used to be a law student (ngayon hindi na) and I could very well remember that in adjudjing a criminal case the burden of proof lies with the accused. The proof required here is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It has been clear in all criminal cases with regards to rape, a woman will not subject herself to public humilitation by describing the details of the commission of the crime of rape before a trial court full of people. The woman's test of credibility will be dependent on her testimony that should be clear, spontaneous, consistent, natural and among others. Medico legal confirmation of an inflicted physical harm will definitely add weight to the plaintiff.

The defense should convince the judge by stating that the purported rape victim has a motive with ill intent against the accused. I forgot the others but I remeber that an alibi is inherently weak in terms of evidence unless it is proven.

I cannot really make any pre-conceived notions in this rape case.

But I do trust the judgement rendered by Mr. Pozon although I will not discount the possibility that he is human and susceptible to commit an error.

But the process is essential to administer justice, fairness, and equality for all and we should always or at all times give an objective assessment on things that we are not personally involved to.

[Isuzoom]

DOJ Sec. Gonzalez is the rapist of our justice system.

[Flagg]

...It has been clear in all criminal cases with regards to rape, a woman will not subject herself to public humilitation by describing the details of the commission of the crime of rape before a trial court full of people...

On national TV, sabi ni Kris may STD siya... :evillaugh

[nugundam93]

On national TV, sabi ni Kris may STD siya... :evillaugh

hehehehe exception yun.