In June, a jury convicted Dev of 76 felony counts including 23 counts of forcible rape; 23 counts of forcible sexual assault; 27 counts of lewd acts with a minor; and 3 counts of attempting to dissuade a witness. The jury hung on three of the counts and returned not guilty verdicts on 13 others.
Last week, Vanguard Radio concluded it’s second interview on the Dev Trial.
Click here to listen to the audio of the interviews:
In what follows are just a few of the issues that have been raised that remained troubling, this is by no means intended as an exhaustive account of all the issues involved in this case.
The first issue is the utter lack of physical evidence that was presented in the courtroom. There was no DNA, no medical reports, that indicated that this individual had been assaulted by Mr. Dev.
We know a little bit of what the jury used to make their decision since several of them have chosen to post on blogs, including this one. A key piece of evidence appears to be a pretext call. The pretext call was placed by the victim to Mr. Dev at the behest of Davis Police Detect Mark Hermann.
According to those familiar with the case however, the pretext call was rather complex, a 50 minute winding conversation that alternated between English and Napalese and hinged in part on translation into English. The Vanguard has been unsuccessful at obtaining a transcript of this conversation. Family members claim that during the course of conversation Mr. Dev repeatedly denied any such sexual assault.
However, one segment proved decisive as a blog entry from a juror attests.
Juror Blog: “Yes, her testimony was difficult to swallow. If for her testimony alone, he would be a free man. The phone call is what put him where he is now. I am confident that we made the correct decision.”
Juror Blog: In the pretext call, Ajay admitted to having sex with the victim after she was 18. The exact quote is “You f$#*ed me after age 18, that means you gave consent”. The entire defense was that no sexual relationship occurred and that it was a story made up by the victim. With his admission, that defense was completely disregarded.
The family strongly disputes this interpretation, suggesting that it was a hypothetical statement by Mr. Dev and taken out of context as a sort of confession and admission of guilt.
“The DA’s interpretation of what Ajay was saying to the accuser… was totally and completely false. Any misunderstanding is due to language and cultural issues which are often times lost in the translation process. Ajay was trying to explain to the accuser how our legal system works demonstrating that if a statement like this was made it could possibly ruin both her life and his. He was NOT admitting to rape.”
The jurors who have posted and this board claim that they were allowed to listen to the entire recording and believe that the statement is an admission of guilt.
From my perspective, it is troubling to see the jury confess that the witness was not credible in her testimony and yet rely on what seems at least to this observer to be a rather ambiguous form of evidence to convict and send someone to prison for 378 years.
Some have suggested that there was corroborating evidence such as motel receipts for nearby motels. However, the jury did not convict on the alleged rape at the motel. Family members have argued that the motel receipts are innocuous, and that he stormed off to a motel a couple of times when he was upset or needed time by himself and his family members came to meet him and talk into returning to home. This is difficult to evaluate as corroborative evidence.
Less difficult perhaps were charges of child pornography on Mr. Dev’s computers. The child pornography was a huge piece of evidence originally to establish that the victim was telling the truth as it corroborated her story. But it turns out that the forensic evidence showed that the files were not on his computer at the time of the alleged assaults and may have been placed there by the victim herself. Mr. Dev was exonerated of those charges.
The family also points to the lack of signs of trauma. This is difficult to evaluate because there are so many stories of spouses that have apparently turned a blind eye to abuse under their own noses. However, logic dictates that forcible rape would have left some sort of evidence. Particularly since the victim argued that she was raped 3 three times a week for a period of five years, which amounts to more than 750 rapes.
Yet during this time, doctors apparently evaluated her and testified that they saw no signs of abuse. On Wednesday one of the guests on the show said that some of the rapes allegedly occurred in the wife’s bed with her in the bed while she slept. She testified to this with very specific information–such as the wife was just six inches away sleeping. There are many explanations that perhaps could be used to explain away some of this, but it seems unlikely that one could commit hundreds of acts of rape without visible signs of abuse.
Family and friend also attest that the family appeared to be loving and close-knit with the adoptive daughter being overtly affectionate. Again, psychologically those messages may be mixed, but taken together, there is enough to at least begin to question what exactly occurred.
So how much corroborative evidence was there in this case? Enough apparently that the jury was willing to convict. Family members however, argue that considerable evidence was not allowed into the courtroom that would have exonerated Mr. Dev.
Still, I remain perplexed by one thing–if the victim is making this up, what is the motivation. When I met with the Dev family in July shortly after the verdict, they presented a case of escalating family strife, where the adoptive daughter was increasingly heading off in a path they did not approve of in terms of not attending college and certain boyfriends.
There was also apparently immigration problems. She had returned to Nepal and it was discovered that there were forgeries on her passport that led to her being arrested and convicted of the forgery. According to the family, she was only allowed to come back as the result of a deal reached with the police detective in exchange for her testimony. However, the judge would not allow the trial transcript into the case, presumably because of the lack of ability to authenticate.
This is from the families website:
“The judge denied the admission of the documents on the basis that the words “correct copy” were not used in the attestation, but the words “true translation” were used instead. It was explained to the judge that the documents translated into English by the government of Nepal were original documents not copies, hence the attestation did not need to say “correct copy.” The attestation verified that the translation was a true copy of the “certified copy” from the court written in Nepali, the official language of Nepal . All official documents from Nepal are written in Nepali. All official government court documents translated into English are done by the Ministry of Justice. The certified copy written in Nepali was also provided to the judge, along with the original English translation certified from the court level, to the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Ministry and finally the Nepal Embassy in Washington DC . This was all explained to the judge along with a declaration from a Nepali certified law attorney and a declaration from the Nepal Embassy. Still the judge denied the admission of the evidence.”
The family argues that goes to the heart of her motivation and also shows a lack of credibility of her testimony since she is shown to have been dishonest.
Still, as I said on the radio show last week, it would seem to be that a reasonable person who had testified in an effort to remain in the country would feel some sort of remorse at the thought that their actions had led to a sentence of 378. Perhaps that might occur in the future. But that remains a reason for a bit of skepticism.
There is little doubt that this case is extremely complex and that this has only scratched the surface of it. I would be very interested in talking with some of the jurors either on or off the record if they are interested. To me there are just a number of troubling aspects of this case, enough to keep the issue alive.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The recording and transcript were admitted into evidence, so they should be available.
If the defense was Dev never had sex with the woman, and he says on the recording that he did, well … he is toast. Next subject on the Blog.
The hotel receipts are pretty damning, actually. Of course his wife is going to lie to try and save the father of her children and the family from the shame of a conviction.
And it sounds like the family is in total denial, if Dev said on the tape he had sex with her.
Why are we retrying this case in a blog? The jury spoke. They were privy to the evidence, and made the decision. To second guess motives, etc. after the fact seems to me to be a waste of time and energy. If you had something substantive to go on, that might be a different story. But all you have really suggested is a lot of conjecture.
Secondly, the lawyer for the defendant had the opportunity to present an alternative translation of the telephone call you refer to. The lawyer may have done just that. Do you know?
This reminds me of when Hollywood celebreties take up the cause of some convicted killer on death row, usually someone of ethnic minority, and claim years after the fact that the killer was not given a fair trial. When actor Mike Farrell was asked about his support for a cop killer – in front of the murder victim’s wife – and whether he truly believed the guy was innocent, Mike Farrell said he had no idea if the killer was guilty of the crime but he was sure the killer did not get a fair trial.
At what point do you have some finality in the justice system? Even the Innocence Project only takes cases where DNA evidence could exonerate the convicted. Yes, our justice system is not perfect. Yes, innocent people are convicted. And yes, some are probably executed who did not commit the crime. So fight for elimination of the death penalty, and more fairness in the justice system. But this Monday morning quarterbacking with vague suspicions and no solid evidence to the contrary is just plain silly.
I find it funny that you admit the system is not perfect and that innocent people are convicted and spend time in prison and then you go on to say bringing this issue up for discussion is just plain silly. What is silly is the fact that if you were the one in prison and were innocent you would not find it so silly to have information reviewed. I have read about this case in the paper and on this blog think that more information needs to be reviewed. I’m not saying he’s innocent or guilty just that there are a lot of unanswered questions. If it was your life in prison you would want the information to be reviewed.
I’m deeply disturbed by the flippant tone of Why Are We Retrying This Case?, who seems to suggest that it’s OK to have innocent people sentenced to life in prison as long as they aren’t subject to the death penalty.
I think there is sufficient reason to retry this case, particularly if documents from Nepal that demonstrate a pattern of lying on behalf of the accuser were excluded due to a technicality, or if the judge forbade the presentation of additional evidence that may have caused the jury to have a reasonable doubt about the accuser’s integrity and Ajay’s guilt. The family’s website–which, yes, I understand needs to be taken with a grain of salt because the defenders are family–provides a very interesting, and frankly hair-raising, interpretation of what happened in and out of the courtroom. I hope the family finds the resources to appeal this case, and that the case is retried.
If Ajay admitted to having sex with this girl, I don’t understand why the disbelief of his conviction.
Lack of physical evidence is no reason to completely throw out a case. You cant expect a person that has been raped so many times to “keep” physical evidence – and a serial rapist would not leave evidence lying around.
I frankly find the constant attack on the young ladies character a gross exaggeration and the reason why people will not be convinced. Her character is constantly being attacked–serial liar, etc. While on the other had Ajay dev’s character is raised to an almost saintly status by the family. Of course the family will fight for Ajay, regardless of what he may have done. But it is this one side manner, on radio and on the website that worries me.
The years he got are ridiculous. But so is the image in which the family is portraying the daughter; a liar, interested in legal citizenship.
This young girl lived with the Dev family for some years. If she turned out like this (how people are portraying her) we cant deny that maybe her environment influenced her. What if she’s a pathological liar because Ajay was?
The point is, they shouldn’t destroy her character evidence so ruthlessly. In the end, it can probably be reworked back to the family.
“If Ajay admitted to having sex with this girl, I don’t understand why the disbelief of his conviction.”
I have never heard that he has admitted to having sex with the girl, so I’m not sure where that comes from other than the pretext call where at least according to the family he was posing a hypothetical to explain the law to her not admitting guilt.
“I frankly find the constant attack on the young ladies character a gross exaggeration and the reason why people will not be convinced.”
There is a reason why I have never posted her name here and that is in part to protect her identity while evaluating the case. I don’t think it is inappropriate to as questions because as an observer who was skeptical from day one of the family’s claims of his innocence, I find there to be a number of puzzling inconsistencies that have not yet been cleared. If you have information then I would be all ears.
I can understand that the jury did not get to hear the debate in court on the translation of critical statement below, so the translation was viewed by jurors as accurate and uncontested.
Here is what I don’t get.
For the sake of argument assume that everything is exactly as those posting claiming to be jurors say it is. Dev thought he was speaking only the accuser and was admitting everything because it was just a private conversation between he and her.
In this context he says:
You f$#*ed me after age 18, that means you gave consent”.
If this were the correct translation, he would be admitting to an affair with her after she was 18. The purpose to the statement to her would be to contrast what really happened with what she was claiming in court happened.
If you believe the statement to be a private admission that they had an affair, he would be lying to the court, but so then would she. Otherwise his statement makes no sense for him to make.
This would then mean he is innocent of the statuary rape charges, but that they both lied about an affair they while she was living in the Dev household after she was 18.
I don’t see a context where this statement would not be proof in innocence, rather than proof of guilt. Much less, proof on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
For their own purposes, both sides in this case are pursuing an illogical all-or-nothing mentality of guilt and justice. Unfortunately today’s article also plays to that mentality. At this point, it is somewhat understandable since it could be the only practical way to ever get Dev out of prison. Nonetheless, the all-or-nothing approach seems like a desperate way to defend the accused.
The evidence that has been publicized suggests that the jury made a pretty dramatic leap of logic. In a juror’s account, they took the step-daughter’s story as an all-or-nothing bundle, which they didn’t particularly believe until they heard the recorded phone call and saw the hotel receipts. After that they believed all of it, including the numerous accusations of forcible rape and forcible sexual assault.
However, hotel receipts aren’t evidence of forcible rape. The phone call also isn’t evidence of forcible rape, even accepting the prosecution’s translation and interpretation of the call. What is the evidence of forcible rape other than in the step-daughter’s version of events?
It isn’t as simple as that the accuser might have a “pattern of lying”. Again, that plays into the all-or-nothing mentality that one side is completely correct and the other side is completely wrong. It very often happens that genuine crime victims exaggerate what happened to them.
Unfortunately, even the counts of statutory rape are enough to keep Dev in prison for a very long time. So it would hardly help him at this point to concede that he did X and insist that he didn’t do Y. But society’s sense of blame and punishment for sex with minors has risen to an insane, astronomical level. People have sexual relations that could lead to decades in prison in California, but that are outright legal in Minnesota because of a lower age of consent.
Of course, you have to draw the line somewhere with age of consent and California isn’t necessarily wrong to put it at 18 years. What is wrong is not criminalization of sex before then, but an absolutist mentality.
From what I understand the claimant forged documents (passport?) to come to the US before she ever came here (before Ajay and she met), taking somebody’s place who rightfully deserved it. Thus saying she may be a pathological liar because Ajay may be one is silly. Forging documents at the age of 14 or 15 indicates a serious character flaw and makes her entire testimony doubtful. Basing the jury judgement on one statement of which the meaning of the translation is highly questionable is pathetic. Assuming motel receipts are damning is hilarious – are there anywhere close to 750 of them!? What about the lack of physical evidence – the physical exams she had should have found evidence of rape if it had occurred – 750 RAPES would leave a mark or twelve don’t you think? His wife has been denied a free appellate attorney twice for Ajay to appeal and cannot pay her bills (including attorney bills from the trial) while raising an infant. So now Ajay may spend his life in prison for crimes he has about 99.99% chance of NOT committing while his bankrupt wife tries to raise an infant. American justice – makes me want to move to a country with a better justice system (Canada, most of Europe, etc.). Anybody reading this feels the same way about this being an injustice may want to consider donating $ at the family website so Ajay can appeal. I plan to very soon.
[quote]There is a reason why I have never posted her name here and that is in part to protect her identity while evaluating the case. I don’t think it is inappropriate to as questions because as an observer who was skeptical from day one of the family’s claims of his innocence, I find there to be a number of puzzling inconsistencies that have not yet been cleared. If you have information then I would be all ears.[/quote]
I’ve seen the website for the advocates of the convicted. I dont know much about campaigns, but putting photos of a person while attacking her character, seems like a smear campaign to me.
I was not referring to this article. I think a public smear campaign against the girl to destroy her legitimacy is taking place.(see the advocated for ajay website).
But I agree with Kuperberg. This trial is being managed like a zero sum game, for both sides.
[quote]Thus saying she may be a pathological liar because Ajay may be one is silly. Forging documents at the age of 14 or 15 indicates a serious character flaw and makes her entire testimony doubtful. Basing the jury judgement on one statement of which the meaning of the translation is highly questionable is pathetic[/quote]
I think we should stay away from smearing campaigns. Forging documents does not “indicate” a serious character flaw; I remember forging my parents signature in Jr. High, its not as sinister as you are falsely portraying it to be.
Question: I heard that the young girl was detained or had a court hearing in her home county. I think it was about fraud? But who filed that case?
The zero sum analogy promulgated by one of the bloggers attendant to the People v. Dev is an egregious, pseudo-intellectual, distorted, mis-appropriation of the concept.
Specifically, the construct corresponds to game + economic theory, and therefore should not be invoked as as a juridic template to analogize the adversarial nature of our legal system.
Conversely, Mr. Kuperberg would be well-advised to abandon his zero sum analogy and investigate the following legal theories:
Natural Law
Legal Positivism
Legal Realism
This will provide a proper foundation for Mr. Kuperberg to engage in an informed, coherent explication, regarding the legal machinations endemic to the Dev case.
Why would a legitimate victim of sustained acts of sexual abuse be compelled to lie under oath about her actual date of birth?
Why would a legitimate victim of sustained acts of sexual abuse be compelled to forge the name of the accused on a medical document?
Why would a legitimate victim of sustained acts of sexual abuse be compelled to lie about being impregnated by the accused?
Why would jury choose to abjectly ignore the accuser’s lack of credibility and convict a man of crimes, where no physical, medical or forensic evidence was ever produced to confirm said allegations?
Why did the jury choose to ignore the accuser’s 57 direct + indirect denials of engaging in sexual abuse in a pretext call?
Why did the D.D.A. refuse to formally interview/interrogate the accused?
Why was the accuser never evaluated by a forensic psychologist to objectively evaluate for the following:
1. The veracity of her accusations?
2. The presence of trauma?
To Outrages:
A zero sum game, just because it is openly used in Game theory, does not mean it should be forbidden from use in the legal realm? What makes you think that? You obviously lack an impartial opinion, to call someone pseudo-intellectual–when you yourself are undeniably biased.
The point of the phrase has obviously passed right over your head. Zero sum means that both sides are playing “all or nothing”.
The D.A wants ajay dev in for 300+, and the Dev people are saying dev was a saint and the young lady was “flawed, a liar, etc”.
Maybe dev is only guilty of statutory rape. Maybe the young lady did lie about some of the rape reports.
[quote]Conversely, Mr. Kuperberg would be well-advised to abandon his zero sum analogy and investigate the following legal theories:
Natural Law
Legal Positivism
Legal Realism [/quote]
The very humorous thing is that i doubt you understand those philosophical “theories” you are proposing people research.
Let’s not make this personal, ok. Unless your plan is to purposely shift attention from the merits of the “bloggers” comments–to your loose interpretation of complex notions.
Don’t think you can smear comments with belligerent “outrages”; Like the young lady is being smeared.
Smear campaign…
ABChe
When did a substantive list of interrogatories, including the definitive repudiation of lies + falsehoods in defense of an innocent man equate to a smear campaign?
For your edification, I did not proffer a list of philosophical theories. They are LEGAL theories with philosophical implications.
The only “smear campaign” was perpetrated by the accuser when she vehemently and persistently lied under oath.
[i]Conversely, Mr. Kuperberg would be well-advised to abandon his zero sum analogy and investigate the following legal theories[/i]
That’s easy for me to do, since it wasn’t my analogy in the first place.
All I have to say about it is this: An absolutist mentality with regard to sex with teenagers makes the law much more dangerous. That isn’t an analogy and it isn’t a “zero sum game”. I did say that both sides have taken an all-or-nothing positions, but the phrase “zero sum” doesn’t fit that either.
THe things being looked at here sound the same as the CHP shooting in 2005 where the D.A.’s key witness had a very bad criminal record too, consisting of robbery, child endangerment, drugs,FTA’s and numerous other felonies, yet They convicted Zielesch the same way. On a liar and criminally active person’s word. Why is the D.A. doing these harsh actions to these families and more importantly, these individuals? When the judge refused to allow ‘the intended victims’ testimony to be heard by the jury as well as the ‘actual killers’ testimony to be heard by the jury, I was never so confused in my life. Wouldn’t their testimonys that would have cleared Zielesch been important?
I think a “zero sum” fits. It does not take a genius to see the basic facts.
The D.A wants dev in for a long time, the family wants him out of jail. I sincerely doubt either one of them would really want to compromise on their wishes….100 years vs 300? (zero sum)
It was not my intention to be insensitive, if I was I apologize. But it is hard to have a forum on this matter when some comments are clearly biased.
We could have a conversation about political and jurisprudence theory all we want, but i doubt anyone will be convinced of adopting a new point of view.
[quote]The only “smear campaign” was perpetrated by the accuser when she vehemently and persistently lied under oath. [/quote]
That’s not fair. Take a look at the advocate’s website–many, many photos of the young lady. Just ponder for a second how that looks on the part of the advocates…
Look at the list of questionable items that can cause doubt in this case.
1. No physical evidence.
2. The judge not allowing the Nepali documents that illustrate the accuser’s motive and show that she has lied in a court of law as an adult (character).
3. Lack of investigation by detective and DA. The defendant was never questioned nor was any the family. The scenes of the alleged crimes were not investigated.
4. Lack of any evidence that she had ever been raped.
5. Ajay took a lie detector test that showed he was telling the truth.
6. Doctor and psychologist found no signs of trauma–remember she claimed 750 rapes–trauma should be evident.
7. Family, friends and teachers saw no signs of trauma.
8. A pretext phone call where the defendant denied the allegations 27 times directly and 25 times indirectly (52 times in a 50 minute phone call)was the sole source of his conviction.
9. Only one line from a pretext call that was a literal translation from Nepali not an interpretation was used to convict him. The difference is very important. An interpretation has meaning that comes from tone and how it is related to the previous convesation. When you take this one line and relate it to the entire conversation, it becomes apparent that Ajay is giving the accuser a hypothetical situation.
10. If the meaning of this one line in the pretext phone call was clearly an admission of guilt like the DA says, then why did the DA not arrest Ajay in 2004 when the pretext phone call was done? Why did he wait two years?
11. Why did the accuser ask to drop the charges a few months after making them? She was not living with Mr. Dev and was not under his influence.
12. When the accuser could not get back into the country because she lost her passport because she had committed passport fraud, why did she contact the Davis Detective? Was it because she needed his help to get back into the country? Is this why she decided to re-open the case?
13. The jurors commented in blogs that they did not believe the accuser’s testimony. It was also shown in court that the accuser forged Mr. Dev’s signature on papers so as to frame him for an abortion she had. She admitted in court that maybe it was her writing on the signature.
14. The accuser never asked for a restraining order even when the suggestion was made by the detective. Did she know she didn’t need one?
15. Over 50 letters were written to Judge Fall from people that are leaders in their communities and are citizens in good standing. They all supported Ajay and not the accuser. Why would all these people be questioning this verdict? The DA will say that it is only family, but Ajay’s family is not that large, and Ajay is not such a charismatic person that he can have fooled the few hundred people that are questioning this trial.
A verdict of guilty means beyond a shadow of doubt. There is quite a bit of doubt in this case, and the public should be aware of it.
[quote]The years he got are ridiculous. But so is the image in which the family is portraying the daughter; a liar, interested in legal citizenship. [/quote]
I think its fair to say the girl was interested in legal citizenship. She lied about her age in Nepal to meet the requirements of US immigration law. The adoption needed to be complete before her 16th birthday if she was to be able to become a US citizen as a result of the adoption process.
This was a big deal to both to her and her family. As I understand the law once she had final US citizenship she could petition to bring into the US her brothers, sisters and biological parents. Once her true age came out there was no viable route to citizenship but to seek a conviction for sex crimes against her.
As for calling her a liar, she obviously made a number of serious personal allegations against Ajay Dev. Honestly, had she accused me of a crime that I had not committed I would call her worse things than a liar.
I think the core problem here is that we are letting people get citizenship for undertaking what is in effect the equivalent of a foreign exchange student program. If anything goes wrong in the adoption process the only way to get back on a citizenship track is to allege a sex crime. Look at the position this girl was in. She either got Ajay Dev convicted or would massively lower her and her family’s standard of living for life.
I don’t agree with what this girl did, but I can see why she did it. We have not seen the last of this kind of case the perverse incentives are just too strong.
I agree with There is Doubt.
Also in regards to the pre-text call, I was in the court room when the tape was played. In this call I heard the accuser state that Mr. Dev was definitely not telling her anything she wanted to hear. So even the accuser admitted on the tape that she did not get the admission she was looking for. So I do not understand how the DDA interpreted this one line as an admission of guilt if the accuser herself did not. The only explanation is that the DDA took this one line out of context and made his own interpretation.
Also, if this pretext call had an admission of guilt in it, why did the detective testify that he discarded his notes. Wouldn’t he want to keep notes of something so significant?
I am a Nepali and was a attorney at law back in Nepal.I know our family structure and the discipline that the juniors have to maintain in the house. I read the articles about the matter in Nepalese online in Nepali Language as well. What I found was Ajay is not guilty. There are always subject to debate and you can go for days.In legal system there are some special procedures and that should be followed to make a right verdict. But here in this case some how they did not complete the procedure that supposed to be done like ”THERE ID DOUBT” mentioned. i do not want to question to the American judiciary system but this verdict is faulty. My only question is why they (Judge & DDA)team up for this very case ? Is there are really issues of color, race or ethnicity or something in this grate country in 21st century ? Anyway there should be a fair trial which will perform all the investigation and bring the justice to the people.
I like the comment of possibly inviting the Jury members to respond to all of us who have questions about how they came to their conclusions. I think it would be good for people to listen to both the Vanguard radio interviews. People are still talking about the alleged pregnancy, the motel, neither of these things were something Jury was convinced of and thus did not convict Mr. Dev on. The Jury blogs state over and over again that they believed the the pretext “You f*d me after you turned 18”-spoken in Nepali to mean his admittance. Jury members state that they stopped listening to defense arguments from there on.
Where can I read the jury blogs? Do they exist, or are they a metaphor?
This case is a travesty that keeps me up at night. The use of the pretext phone call is a clear violation of the procedural liberties. When will the Supreme Court step in and rule against the use of this policing tactic? It seems as though the system wants us to live in fear of one another because as this case illustrates, any one of us can be the victim of false accusations and illegitmate policing. In the meantime, don’t try to help anyone because they will turn on you.
Bottom line: Ajay is innocent. Those who know this will continue to fight on his behalf. Ajay has worked for women’s rights, children’s rights, immigrant rights, and human rights throughout his life. Social justice is the issue here. Those of us who have dedicated our lives to such fights must not be discouraged. The side of righteousness will prevail.
Free this man.
To The Transcript and Audio Recording Person:
Are you the same juror who posted something to near duplicate a while back? If so, you and your fellow jurors need to stop trying to convince yourselves and to the public that you made the right decision. You were able to convict Ajay with certainty(?) but that certainty was only an emotion, not FACT!
You don’t even deserve an explanation regarding hotel receipts as he was not convicted with any wrongdoing regarding the topic. Nevertheless, there were only 2 occasions when he checked himself at Motel 6. He drove to the outside of Motel 6, parked his car and took the bus to work in Sacramento everyday just like many people do. Are you saying that you have never gone away simply to be alone when times are tough? You obviously cannot imagine the tough times Ajay was enduring. What is wrong with him not wanting to come home those two evenings when he simply wanted to get away? Besides, the wife and accuser were both looking for him and were worried to death, until Ajay called and said that he just needed to be alone. Stop saying that there was damning evidence.
This case was not supposed to have been about EMOTION but it really did become so. Because of you twelve jurors who fell in the trap of the DDA and his crocodile tears and with mindset of never question authority, Ajay, his family, his friends, and many community members are suffering and there are more than 300 people fighting for his release because they believe in his innocence, not based on EMOTION but FACTS!
I have known Ajay for a long time from work, but I am not a family member. I have not been a close friend, but based on the interaction I had with him, I found him to be a very gentle and polite. I understand that these qualities does not prove guilt or innocence.
I have been following this case on and off. For a while I heard that an admission of guilt over the phone was the main reason Ajay was found guilty. Although I found this hard to believe, but I felt then the jury must have done the right thing.
However, after reading this article, and seeing the statement representing the admission of guilt was:
“You f$#*ed me after age 18, that means you gave consent”.
Think about it. If you put the word “IF” right before it, then the statement takes a whole new meaning. It’s like you say “You drive drunk, you will go to prison”. Of course I like to hear the whole conversation.
Based on this and other things I have read here, I have more reason to believe, that he may not be guilty after all. Even if there is a 10% chance that he is not guilty, he deserves a second trial.
I have known Ajay for a long time from work, but I am not a family member. I have not been a close friend, but based on the interaction I had with him, I found him to be a very gentle and polite. I understand that these qualities does not prove guilt or innocence.
I have been following this case on and off. For a while I heard that an admission of guilt over the phone was the main reason Ajay was found guilty. Although I found this hard to believe, but I felt then the jury must have done the right thing.
However, after reading this article, and seeing the statement representing the admission of guilt was:
“You f$#*ed me after age 18, that means you gave consent”.
Think about it. If you put the word “IF” right before it, then the statement takes a whole new meaning. It’s like you say “You drive drunk, you will go to prison”. Of course I like to hear the whole conversation.
Based on this and other things I have read here, I have more reason to believe, that he may not be guilty after all. Even if there is a 10% chance that he is not guilty, he deserves a second trial.
A juror said in Daily Democrat: We (Women) will never lie of rape.
Watch this:
http://foreignwomenonly.blogspot.com/2009/08/witness-says-accuser-is-lying-ben.html
I have been reading the various articles, blogs and so forth about this case since the verdict was handed down. As far as I can see there is AMPLE evidence that plenty more than a “reasonable doubt” exists as to the veracity of the accuser’s claims and Ajay’s alleged guilt.
I truly hope that Mr. Dev is able to get an appellate attorney, as there seems far too many extant questions regarding the so-called “justice” of his conviction and sentence. Also, 378 YEARS???? One might expect such a sentence for a serial killer or someone found guilty of orchestrating the mass slaughter of a group of people, but even if the man was proven guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, 378 years in the Dev case seems WAY over the top! I’m sure glad I don’t live in Yolo County!
[i]378 years in the Dev case seems WAY over the top![/i]
Yes, a lot of people are saying that, including me.
[i]I’m sure glad I don’t live in Yolo County![/i]
If you live anywhere in California, you’re in the same soup.
The accuser was in Nepal with Ajay six months before the allegation. There, Ajay had left her with her natural parents and siblings. He was not with them as he was visiting other relatives. In that time, the accuser did not even give a hint to her family of any wrongdoing, in fact quite the contrary. She spoke so highly of her adoptive parents and how much she loved every minute of her time in the US. Not to mention, the accuser’s sisters was corresponding with Ajay both before and after their trip of how happy they all were with the way Ajay and his wife were raising their sister. Even her natural parents were corresponding with the same sentiment.
Here is something very few non-nepali person will understand. I am a Nepali. I came here at age 16. I lived with my parents until I was 21. The reason I moved out was to go to college far away. When I had a girlfriend at age 19, I wanted to move out so I could spend most of my time with her. Moving out was not an option because of CULTURE. So I accused my parents of hitting me when I was young and that I was very unhappy at home. It was my way of justifying in order to move out. The truth is, my parents disciplined me, not hit me, but slapped me for causing lots of trouble. You see children geting slapped many times in public in Nepal. If it were the same scenario here in the US, without a doubt someone would call the authorities. In fact it has happened quite a bit. You can look at many such complains recorded at the Davis police department. This is a cultural issue. Us Americans are highly sensitive when it comes to issues regarding children and the disicipline factor.
My point being, the accuser wanted to move out because she wanted to spend time with boys and stay out late. In Nepali culture, no parents will allow their daughter to go through this. The discipline factor is even stricter for girls than for boys. Arranged marriage is practiced and purity of the girl and even the boy is valued.
So the big lies begin for the accuser. She lies to her natural parents about being hit to justify moving out, but then afterwords says that she was only slapped. The neighbors catch her with a boy on a daily basis at home while both Ajay and his wife are at work. Keep in mind that she has been caught with many lies the minute she arrives from Nepal when she is 16. Even her first cousins will testify that she used to do the same thing even when she was in Nepal before the age of 16.
Then there is the big issue about how Ajay was a catalyst in breaking her relationship with the new guy that she was VERY interested in. Americans will think this act as an obsessed father whereas the Nepalese will think this act as an honorable one.
Then there is a HUGE issue regarding the change of will where the accuser loses most part as a beneficiary.
Then there is the ultimate. When her cousins and relatives are tired of her lies and manipulative behaviour, one of them exposes to the government about her lies and her falsifying official documents. The government prosecutes her and she is convicted. Just like in the US, you have every right to report a crime, Nepal also follows the same protocol. When her passport is confiscated, the only way for her to come to US would be to to report a crime against Ajay. She obtains a fake passport. In fact she has a fake passport to this day. The Davis police helps her by influencing the US embassy. And she comes to Davis to testify. If it were really true about the abuse, she would not be telling so many lies under oath.
My belief is that she did not know what she was really getting into. Americans will never understand the degree to what Nepali person may go through just to get into the US. Why is she not recanting her story? She can’t. She will lose her status here and could be deported. The only possibility now remains is that the appelate judges look at this case very carefully and do the right thing. Ajay Dev is innocent.
“Why are we retrying this case in a blog? The jury spoke. They were privy to the evidence, and made the decision. To second guess motives, etc. after the fact seems to me to be a waste of time and energy. If you had something substantive to go on, that might be a different story. But all you have really suggested is a lot of conjecture.”
What purpose is going to be served by all this hand wringing, questioning of motives of both plaintiff and defendant, suppositions on what might have been meant, etc. It is beyond silly. How many cases do you want to do this for? Every case to be second guessed? When you come up with something SUBSTANTIVE in the AJ Dev case, CONTACT HIS APPELLATE ATTORNEY. Otherwise, you are shouting into the wind…to no good purpose.
Anon,
From what I can gather, Mr. Dev and his supporters do not have nearly the funds necessary to hire an appellate attorney. He does not have one.
I know the girl very well she is a gredy she makinng phool everybody.She used to talk all the time as a rough.I knew she is lying
Can someone please write down the “juror blog” link? I hear it used a lot.
Would someone please tell me how does a girl get raped for over 700 times over a period of 5 years? Why did she not tell somebody when it first happened, like a friend, school teacher or advisor, or even police. She was not locked up and was moving around freely in the society. She had to wait 5 years before going to police! WHY???? Folks, it never really happened. Pure and simple. Every one knows about our faulty and imperfect justice system. To cite an example, O. J. Simpson was found ‘not-guilty’ in one trial and found ‘guilty’ of the same crime in another trial. How can he be both? Are you really proud of such a justice system? I’m not. So imperfect and yet authorized to play with people’s lives!If one person was wrongly convicted, that is one too many and worth shutting down the courts. Once again, this case proves that in today’s society no good deed is going to go unpunsihed.
Amen Anon!
I wish the jury members could be invited to a forum and be asked to answer questions by the public as to how they arrived at their decision to convict this man. I know many community members would be interested in such and opportunity. As I read above, Vanguard wold be more than happy to facilitate such a forum.
If these people are so confident in their decision in taking a man’s life, I wish they would present their position in a public forum collectively and make themselves available for public questioning. Anything less would only point to a shame of not wanting to be accountable for their decision in taking a man’s life and that would be shameful. In my opinion, in a fair and just society, members of a community owe it other members explanations for their actions, especially if their action have severe impact in some one else life–as is the case here.
I dont buy it. Someone with a expensive defense team has a fair chance in Yolo County. Those unfair conviction, in Yolo County, usually are against those without the resources to stop the lacking district attorney legal team.
If the girl was raped 700 times, imagine the psychological damage that would have done. Confidence would have become submission.
But lets just say, it was consensual statutory intercourse. That is still punishable by the law, jail time included.
We have countless people claiming they knew the offender and that he was a good man, that he would have never done anything like that. Obviously, those supporters and friends of the offender will say that. Character evidence does not hold substance in court. I mean, do first time offenders get of the hook because they have never done anything like that before? I dont think so.
The 300 years is exaggerated. But I am not convinced he didnt do anything.
PROXY
You talk about the defense team. You talk about the psychological damage. you talk about the consentual sex. And you talk about the character evidence. What you fail to talk about is THE REAL EVIDENCE and on what basis the jury convicted Ajay. Unfortunately, people like you become the jurors who don’t think analytically. Read http://www.advocatesforajay.com before commenting your theory on this matter.
Justnfair says
“If these people are so confident in their decision in taking a man’s life, I wish they would present their position in a public forum collectively and make themselves available for public questioning. Anything less would only point to a shame of not wanting to be accountable for their decision in taking a man’s life and that would be shameful. In my opinion, in a fair and just society, members of a community owe it other members explanations for their actions, especially if their action have severe impact in some one else life–as is the case here.”
YOU TOOK THE WORD RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH. Thank you.
[quote]You talk about the defense team. You talk about the psychological damage. you talk about the consentual sex. And you talk about the character evidence. What you fail to talk about is THE REAL EVIDENCE and on what basis the jury convicted Ajay.[/quote]
We’ll, I’m not saying “real” evidence should be ignored..but what about the other aspects. You want everyone to ignore the defense team.
Say she was raped 700 times, Do you really think she would fight ever single time. The Psychological damage, intense submission and hopelessness–what about that “possibility”. Please, explain to be how that would not be possible. I’m hear to get informed.
[quote] Unfortunately, people like you become the jurors who don’t think analytically.[/quote]
Really? So every juror thinks analytical only if they agree with you?
[quote]If these people are so confident in their decision in taking a man’s life, I wish they would present their position in a public forum collectively and make themselves available for public questioning.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but your mind is in the wrong century. Do you think jurors who have convicted mobsters should have “presented” their position in a public forum? Please re-think what you are saying.
“Say she was raped 700 times, Do you really think she would fight ever single time. The Psychological damage, intense submission and hopelessness–what about that “possibility”. Please, explain to be how that would not be possible. I’m hear to get informed.”
“Really? So every juror thinks analytical only if they agree with”
TRUE INDEED THAT THE POSSIBILITY EXIST ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE, INTENSE SUBMISSION, AND HOPELESSNESS BUT YOU DO NOT CONVICT SOMEONE ON THE “POSSIBILITY” FACTOR. EVEN THE DOCTORS RULED THIS OUT. YOU CONVICT SOMEONE ON FACTS. BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE A SINGLE INSIGHT ON ANY OF THE INCIDENT. NOT EVEN HER FIRST TIME. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN RAPED 700 TIMES WILL NOT REMEMBER A SINGLE INCIDENT AND LIE LEFT AND RIGHT ON STAND? IS THIS YOUR THEORY? WERE YOU THERE TO LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY? DID YOU EVEN READ THE WEBSITE TO GET MORE INSIGHT? THE DDA TRIED THIS TACTICS IN COURT TO GAIN EMOTION OUT OF THE JURORS. THE JURORS FAILED TO LOOK AT FACTS AND WENT WITH EMOTION. THEY DISREGARDED THE ENTIRE DEFENSE SINCE THEY WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT AJAY ADMITTED ON TAPE ALREADY. NOT TO MENTION THAT THE PRE-TEXT IS OLD NEWS BY NOW REGARDING AJAY NEVER ADMITTING INSTEAD DENYING IT VIGOROSLY AT LEAST 50 TIMES. THIS IS WHY THE JURORS FAILED TO LOOK AT THIS CASE ANALYTICALLY.
“I’m sorry, but your mind is in the wrong century. Do you think jurors who have convicted mobsters should have “presented” their position in a public forum? “
YOUR QUESTION IS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT RIDICULOUS. WHEN PEOPLE FEEL THAT INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE AND THERE IS AN OUTCRY TO THIS MAGNITUDE, THEN YES, THE JURORS SHOULD FEEL A MORAL OBLIGATION TO VOLUNTEER THEIR POSITION, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY ARE THE ONE SAYING THAT AJAY WAS CONVICTED ON HIS STAND ALONE STATEMENT ON TAPE, AND IF IT WERE NOT FOR THIS AJAY WOULD BE A FREE MAN. THE STATEMENT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT BY THE DDA FOR HIS ADVANTAGE AT HIS FINAL CLOSING KNOWING THAT THE DEFENSE WILL NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO DEFEND IT. AFTER THE DDA’S CLOSING, THE JURY WOULD BE DELIBERATING.
The jurors have been on these blogs including the Daily Democrat forum. Those were removed after the Dev family and friends decided to post the victims name. Jurors have stated their reasoning and opinions many times. In one previous Vanguard forum, they were basically threatened and verbally ridiculed. Why would any of them choose to continue this? Mr. Greenwald chose to protect the “Dev supporters” and let the “non Dev supporters” know that they would be 86’d from the site. I have no doubt that Mr. Greenwald is a supporter as he continues to allow his link on the one-sided website and bring the Dev case back form the dead since the public has basically forgotten about it and moved on…
To Just a Person: I am undecided on the issue of guilt-innocence. At this point, I don’t know enough about the case. I do think there are questions that ought to be raised. I do think it’s important to keep in the public light. I have attempted to contact people on the other side of the issue, but thus far no one has been willing to talk with me. All of that said, regardless of what happened, I think 378 years is ridiculous for a non-capital crime with no physical evidence.
To Just a Person: you are kidding me. Dev family has never posted the accuser’s name. It was actually Cassandra, the accuser’s best friend, exposing not only her name but saying all ugly things about another witness. When she posted the accusers name, woodland daily democrat pulled the blogs for few days. They probably realized that since the accuser mentions her real name in the court of law, her name is public knowledge, therefore it is only in poor taste to mention the accuser’s name. Cassandra continued to threaten other bloggers here when she sided with one of the jurors’ blog here on vanguard. David had warned her several times before and finally asked her to stop blogging on this website when she did not stop and continued attacking not just Ajay but his family and even with their names. Cassandra is the one along with one other juror who decided that they had enough with this website. David wants to make sure that all bloggers respect the rules on his website. So please stop attacking Dev’s family and friends.
I HAVE THE WEBSITE LISTED BELOW FOR THE BLOGS THAT WERE POSTED. LISTING VERY FEW ONES HERE TO PROVE MY CASE.
pleased
08/26/09 – 06:16 PM…
No one from the jury “hung out” with anyone from the case. After everything was done, a jury member may have chatted with the DA or the Investigator. No foul there.
I assure you, you NEVER saw me (or anyone from the jury) eating lunch with the DA or Investigator.
If you are trying to intimidate or threaten me, you really need to come right out and say it…..
ACTUALLY YOU ARE WRONG. WE DID CATCH THE DETECTIVE CHATTING AWAY WITH TWO JURORS WHILE THEY WERE HAVING LUNCH. THIS WAS BROUGHT UP EVEN IN COURT. ALSO SOME OF THE JURORS WERE SEEN HAVING LUNCH MANY TIMES IN THE CAFE RIGHT NEXT TO DA’S OFFICE WHERE THE STAFF AND DDAS FREQUENTLY VISITED. ALSO LOOK AT TODD’S RESPONSE TO JUROR KNOWN AS Pleased BELOW.
todd
08/26/09 – 09:09 PM…
Pleased,
Like I said, nothing personal, just telling it like it is. Why is it that you were not seen chatting away with Ajay’s lawyer? Because it would be wrong! Either way you had no moral justification for doing so….As I stated before you and a couple other jurors had an invested interest in the DA and the Detective. Call it a relationship, friends, or chatty pals. It was poor behavior by the jurors and showed proof to all that you had favored one over the other. Weak. It is just a matter of time until an innocent man will get a new trial with a REAL JUDGE and JURY. Think about how many lives have been affected by your brainwashed decision, how many tears have been shed….And you fall for the fake crocodile tears of the DA? See you around.
Cassandra
08/27/09 – 05:11 AM…
Oh, and one more thing. It is very very poor form to bring up the victim’s name in any public forum. And, you spelled her name incorrectly.
I THINK SHE IS TALKING ABOUT TODD. WHO IS HE? NOT OUR FAMILY, NOT OUR FRIEND. OTHERWISE HE SURELY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPELL HER NAME. THERE IS A NAME MENTIONED THAT COULD BE HER BUT NOT CLOSE. ARE YOU SURE HE DID NOT FIND YOUR BLOGS ON THE DAILY DEMOCRAT WHERE YOU MENTION HER NAME, AJAY’S WIFE’S NAME, YOUR EX-FRIEND WHO TESTIFIES AGAINST THE ACCUSER’S NAME. YOU WERE THE VERY FIRST PERSON THAT WROTE THE ACCUSER’S NAME. THE DAILY DEMOCRAT PULLED THE BLOGS FROM THE WEB FOR FEW DAYS BECAUSE OF YOU. SO THEY MUST HAVE CONTACTED YOU AND TOLD YOU THAT IT IS VERY VERY POOR FORM.
LOOK AT DAVID’S RESPONSE TO HER BELOW.
David Greenwald
08/27/09 – 05:12 AM…
Cassandra: I would just offer you one thing, in this country few things ever have nothing to do with race. I’m not saying this verdict was all about race, and again, I don’t know if he’s innocent or guilty, but I think it’s naive and blind to history to flat out state that anything has nothing to do with race.
There is an entire segment in academic literature that explores the issue of racial components in the charging and sentencing of crime.
David Greenwald
08/27/09 – 05:14 AM…
Cassandra: Also, if you continue to insult people, I’m going to start pulling your posts. I already had to edit one of your posts, I don’t have time to go through them. Calling people a moron is not acceptable. Please read the terms you agreed to.
To Just a Person: YOU ARE WRONG AND ACCUSATORY TOWARDS DEV FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THE DEV CASE IS NOT COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD. YOU WANT IT TO BE DEAD. YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT IT UNTIL HE IS FREE AND EVEN MORE. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE DEMANDING THE TRUTH AND ANSWERS.
THE ARTICLES AND BLOGS FROM THE PAST IS BELOW.
http://www.davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2939:dev-sentenced-to-378-years-in-prison&catid=74:law-enforcement&Itemid=100
http://www.davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2939:dev-sentenced-to-378-years-in-prison&catid=74:law-enforcement&Itemid=100
OH NO!!! You mean to tell me that the jurors actually ate lunch???? That IS a conspiracy!!!! Call the feds immediately.
What you are failing to mention is that that Cafe is directly across the street from the courthouse (walking distance). You are also not mentioning that Jurors actually ate at the same place as Dev himself and his Attorney. One Juror found themself eating at the same place as Dev supporters who were in the courtroom…. Give me a break!
I have no problem admitting that the punishment is severe. Lets say that he received 1 year for each guilty verdict. That would be 79 years. 80% of that would still be 63 years. He is in his 40’s so even 1 year per guilty is still life…..
it is interesting how first it was accusation towards the dev family and friends re. the accuser’s name. And the threats to the jurors as well. Once the proof shown otherwise, now the topic just shifts to lunches and Just a Person wants to argue that even ajay and his attorney were in the same place having lunches while jurors were present. I know of just two occasions in an eight week period. Actually, deducing to logic from your post, sounds like you are a juror yourself. Woodland being a small town and very few cafe’s within walking distance, without a doubt people could be eating at the same place. I know that Ajay, his attorney and his supporters clearly stayed out of every jurors’ way. BUT TWO JURORS WERE CAUGHT RED HANDED CHATTING WITH THE DETECTIVE OUTSIDE THE COURT HOUSE DURING LUNCH. JURORS WERE GIVEN STRICT ORDER NOT TO DO SO AND THE DETECTIVE OBVIOUSLY SHOULD KNOW THIS.
Can someone please direct me to where I can find what exactly was said in court? Court transcripts maybe? I think that will be the most objective material, for those who are skeptical.
This case represents a complete breakdown in communication. If people on both sides were using even the most basic critical thinking skills, there might have been a more sensible outcome. Over blown emotional reaction defined this trial. Why? Because there exists in this country an unhealthy obsession with sex!! That was why the DA showed the jurors porn; to incite a visceral reaction that would likely form images, in the minds of the jury, of the accused engaged in a similar manner to that of the molesters on the film. If this case, with its absence of concrete evidence, was about a murder, there would have been a nolle prosequi determination(essentially no grounds to prosecute). The defense attorney appears to have made a number of errors. He tried to vilify the accuser more than he attempted to show that the accused was innocent. He did not put the accused on the witness stand??? There is a possibility that something occurred in the Dev home, but nothing of a magnitude to imprison a man for nothing less than the remainder of his life. Rape is one of the most terrible crimes of VIOLENCE, but it is our obsession with the SEX act that prevented any wisdom being used in determining what actually occurred and what the appropriate punishment should be.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-01/how-young-is-too-young/
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437535&no=385704&rel_no=1
http://www.newkerala.com/news/fullnews-26628.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/sharon-tates-sister-sex-w_n_304042.html?page=6&show_comment_id=31956414
hypocricity much?