The prosecution was so uncomfortable with the record made at the time that they didn't charge Mr. Allen with assault and stipulated that no one was home at the time of the breakin.
Do you have a problem accepting the state's judgement? If so, tell me why you prefer to believe the trooper rather than the D.A.? And why the State chose to reject the trooper's report?
Could it be that, as a practical matter, the Prosecution knew that the report of the assault would be considered by the Parole Board, which is the law in North Carolina? Since this was the case, there was no advantage to the State to presenting evidence of the assault. If this had not been the case, perhaps the Prosecution would have presented the evidence of the assault. This question is unknowable. But what the Parole Board does have is the record, which is what they are using.
I thought we went over this before?
Because the trooper was there? And the DA wasn't?
And why the State chose to reject the trooper's report?
They didn't necessarily reject his report. You are leaping to an enormous conclusion there. And with no basis in a public record.
You fail to understand some basic facts one which was to charge him with assault Lessie Johnson would have had to testify. If she did not want to do so then the best that they could do at that time would be to charge him with burglary.
Now days a simple DNA test likely could have proved without her showing up in court that he was there and assaulted her. But in 1970 there was no such thing. And I also am going on past history which states he already had committed assault in the past.