1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Exonerated by DNA, prosecuter refuses to drop case

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by hbarcat, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. hbarcat

    hbarcat Supporting Member

    Aug 24, 2006
    Rochelle, Illinois
    2 months after rape case dropped, prosecutors still insist Bennie Starks battered victim

    Two months ago, Lake County prosecutors dropped rape charges against Bennie Starks, clearing him of a crime that sent him to prison for 20 years before DNA suggested his innocence.

    Yet prosecutors continue to fight to hold him responsible for battering the same woman during the same incident.


    This is outrageous. Starks has been freed, yet he wants to clear his name and remove the felony conviction from his record. The prosecuter is refusing to drop the assault charges even though recent DNA evidence showed Starks was not the person responsible for the rape or assault.

    Does anybody think this is the right thing for the prosecutor to do?
  2. the prosecutor is an @$$. Part of me wants to say that Starks should count his blessings let it go. Just because he did not rape does not mean he did not beat her. or he could be completely innocent.
  3. Bass_Thumper


    Oct 20, 2009
    Madison, MS
    Prosecutors don't take being beat very well. I don't think it even matters if the party is guilty or not, they just want to notch in their belt and they'll do whatever it takes to keep it there.

    Now to be fair, the article doesn't give us any information as to what they have on him that would indicate that he did in fact beat her. Just because he didn't rape her doesn't mean they can't prove that he beat her.
  4. Relic

    Relic Cow are you?

    Sep 12, 2006
    Robbinsville, NJ
    You pretty much nailed what I was going to post.
  5. Me too.
  6. hbarcat

    hbarcat Supporting Member

    Aug 24, 2006
    Rochelle, Illinois

    The information is there, it's just in several parts.

    1) DNA test determined genetic material on the victim's underwear was from another man and could not have come from Starks.

    2) The victim testified she had not had consensual sex with anyone else in the weeks previous to the rape.

    3) The victim testified that the beating and rape happened at the same time and the attacker was a single person.

    Logically, if 1, 2, and 3 are true, then Starks could not have been the one who assaulted the victim.

    Here's additional information from a previous article:
    After 20 years in prison, man cleared in '86 Waukegan rape

    It seems the prosecutors are ignoring logic and using this reasoning:
    Prosecutors argued that the DNA did not clear Starks because the woman could have had consensual sex with someone else, although she said at trial she had not had sex in the weeks before the attack.

Share This Page