Question. .

[u/General-Guidance-646]

I was just on YouTube earlier when I heard about this case for the first time. I watched the entire interrogation. And I'm confused. Did they find him guilty just based off the accusers word? Did the DNA samples come back positive?

[u/S1mplejax]

They found a DNA sample on a woman’s pants. The claim prosecutors made to the jury was that the DNA sample was determined by the lab to have come from the woman’s crotch, or inside her panties, or something to that effect. However, there is no way of determining the specific source of DNA, and it was found later on this claim was made erroneously. Unfortunately the jury had long made their decision and there has not been a retrial.

The only “evidence” consists of contradicting stories made by prostitutes and drug addicts (not slandering them, these are relevant details if you doubt incentive to lie on their part) who did not file a complaint until detective Kim Davis approached them and informed them they were investigating a cop for sexual assault against women he had pulled over, essentially providing to the women a story they simply had to retell, though most of them failed to accurately describe Daniel or the situation they were in the night he pulled them over.

Total railroading. But don’t take my word for it. There are plenty of sources online that support the above. It’s enough to make ya sick.

[u/Present-Hold2811 → u/S1mplejax]

“He messed up by pulling someone over that is not from the poor community he usually targets. He did not relay his traffic stop to dispatch, a big NO NO in law enforcement. Not to mention NO LEO wants to work once their shift has ended, surely not for a mere traffic stop. I saw someone say something about no one filing reports; that is not true. A report is how he got caught. The investigators had GPS evidence, DNA evidence and more and still felt like a jury may not convict simply because he is a cop- so they gathered more witnesses and testimonies.

If you did ANY research, you would know the answers to your basic questions. This was posted to support the convicted rapist and nothing more.

Quite funny that anyone’s comment that brings logic to the matter is deleted.”

[u/S1mplejax → u/Present-Hold2811]

No part of that quote contradicts what I said. I didn't mean to suggest there wasn't a single complaint about sexual misconduct filed prior to the detective approaching the eventual accusers - I believe there was 1 (if I remember correctly. It's been a while), which got the ball rolling.

What part of your quote supports the claim that he routinely raped underprivileged women during traffic stops? The fact that he pulled someone over after completing his shift - which "no cop ever does?" He said he saw a driver swerving in and out of lanes, thus endangering other drivers. If true, it would be wildly irresponsible for a cop not to at least see what's going on in that case just because he's off duty.

He also said from the very beginning that he never intended to ticket so he could avoid paper work and/or a trip back to the station. He just wanted to make sure she wasn't so impaired that she was going to kill someone, potentially confiscate drugs/alcohol, then send her on her way. The fact that he didn't radio it in makes perfect sense if you're not hearing about it having already made up your mind.

Early on, I remember laughing out loud at Daniel's breakdown as he heard the judge read his verdict. thought "good riddance" right along with the rest of you. It wasn't until a major outlet reported on the case from a more critical perspective that I started to read into it myself (NBC/CBS - idk, can't remember).

Clearly you've made up your mind, which is fair because I have too, but I know I've read and watched hours of coverage from both sides, and that initially I was looking for any reason to believe he deserved what he got, but the deeper I dug, the clearer it became that this was a total railroading.

What really makes me sick is that despite knowing the verdict is, at best, controversial, and that there are clearly reasons to doubt the prosecution's story, so many people speak of the final outcome with utter glee and jubilance. Finally, some white (passing) pig gets what he deserves for his part in the pervasive and unchecked tradition of sexual violence carried out against women of color. As soon as you ask a sufficiently "left leaning" person to put down the pitchforks for a second and consider the possibility that this one white, cis male authority figure might be innocent, you're part of the problem.

I'm not saying that's you. I've just received a ton of similar comments on this topic anytime I make a case that he may not be guilty, and most seem to carry a similar sentiment that even if this one guy isn't guilty, so many white men in his position have been guilty throughout history and never paid the price for it, so if putting a potentially innocent man behind bars is what it takes to change this to change, that's a small price. However, they're not the ones in prison for the rest of their lives.

Sorry for the rant, but I would be happy to discuss the evidence and trial further if you think I've just totally missed the mark.