Watch a movie sometime, then stop it in midframe. The "expression" caught at that particular instant, might look a lot different than the expression that was actually being conveyed- or at least, that's what the prosecution might argue. Or, they could argue she was drugged and didn't know what was going on- then again, how is she able to remember what happened and identify her assailants? It's complicated.
Something tells me (if I know hormonal young men) there is VIDEO of this "show". That would put everything in proper context. Heck, my cameraphone takes video. We'll see in the days to come.
"It's complicated."
So, in other words, reasonable doubt.
"Watch a movie sometime, then stop it in midframe. The "expression" caught at that particular instant, might look a lot different than the expression that was actually being conveyed- or at least, that's what the prosecution might argue."
In a trial, he who sets the agenda wins. In a criminal trial, there is a tipping point where the prosecutor has to spend so much trial time and effort to rebut defense arguments and theories that the jury will not convict. I am not talking about the B.S. unwitnessed alibi or the the police set-me up argument that can be responded to with a roll of the eyes. When, as a prosecutor, you have to start arguing to a jury and perhaps present expert testimony that a smile in a photo isn't really a smile (and somebody could have used the accused's ATM card, cell phone and dorm card and a person might call for a cab and, while he is waiting for the cab, decide to and then rape the victim and not keep the cab waiting) you are in trouble.
The more pertinent photos are the ones that show the girls dancing at 12:01, and walking out the door at 12:04. Seligmann's first cell phone call was at 12:07, followed by three other calls, the last of which was at 12:14, to call a cab. He was in the cab by 12:19. He could not have been involved in a rape, even if there was a rape.