"purpleFavreEaters" wrote:
A Sap???? F off dude! If you followed the case at all then you would know Cullpeppers story changed not once , not twice, but three times. If you remember correctly his 1st story was he was not even there, then he was there but did not know there where ladies present , then he was there but was not in the same room with the ladies but on another level playing Dominos. Funny thing is it takes more than one person to play Dominos, and I did not hear one person come forward and step up for Pep saying they where playing Dominos with him. The man is guilty you know it and I know it and everybody else knows, he is rich, he is a celeberty, and he was able to get good lawyers. Pure and simple thats the only reason this case was thrown out. Coincidently another post on here talk about a guy whos case was thrown out in court. His name was Mark Chmura, you remember him? He is the guy who sexual molested a 14 year old girl who happened to be his babysitter. That case was also thrown out of court. Would you like to stand up for him now as well???
No, I don't know that he is guilty. I have my suspicions, but neither I, nor you, know anything. You claim that the only reason the case was thrown out is because he is a celebrity. I maintain that the only reason he was charged in the first place is because he is a celebrity. There is probably some validity to both. I am sure that good lawyers did indeed make a difference for him. If it was just his celebrity status or his money than got the case thrown out, why are there still three Vikings facing trial?

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Daunte, despite your personal feelings, is innocent until proven guilty. You claim that nobody else came forward to back up Daunte's story? How exactly do you know that? Do you have an inside line to the defense? Were you at the proceedings? Or are you just making assumptions based on what you read in the paper :roll:? How many people were willing to come forward and say that Daunte got a lap dance? Apparently less than were willing to say that he didn't, because the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Burke wrote Culpepper's version of events would clear him if true, and since the prosecutor offered nothing to rebut it, he found no probable cause.
Also, trying to prove your arguement by relating the case to Chmura is really weak.