Letters | DECONSTRUCTING THE MARSALIS VERDICT

L

AST WEEK, we asked for your opinion on the verdict that found Jeffrey Marsalis not guilty of the rapes he was charged with.

Jeffrey Marsalis was acquitted of rape because the jury thought these women had alcohol and everyone knows the minute you have alcohol, sex crimes take on a veneer of reasonable doubt.

The testimony indicated he probably drugged these women and did what he wanted with them. I don't think all of the victims just decided to press charges against him.

Because of defense lawyers who portray people as willing particapnts just because they had a few drinks, he got off on the rape charges. (How do defense lawyers look themselves in the mirror every day anyway?)

Just because a woman agrees to meet a man and have drinks with him doesn't give the guy the right to attack her and get away with it because she blacked out - possibly from a drug.

But it is obvious this is the road we are going down when a case like this comes up.

Charlie Gagliardi

Philadelphia

Jeffrey Marsalis most certainly was a liar, and possibly a rapist.

But I have a question for all the women who continued to see him again after the incidents: Why?

Especially if you can't seem to recall how you ended up naked in his bed.

I'm not blaming those women, but they sure did help him in court to escape the rape charges.

Niko Chan, Philadelphia

I couldn't believe he was found not guilty.

As is the law in Pennsylvania, the jury couldn't be told about other charges against him. But the consistency of the victims' stories was so solid, it was hard to understand how the jury could come up with a not-guilty verdict. I hope Judge Geroff sentences this creep to the maximum.

Kate McShane

Philadelphia