The title of a recently released ABC News article is “Rutgers Trial Summation Fireworks as Case Heads to Jury” (Web-site/URL: http://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-summations-prosecution-calls-innocent-kid-defense-false/story?id=15909241#.T2AQ5OodP-c.twitter).
“(Prosecutor Judy) McClure referenced text messages and conversations Ravi had in which he talked about the spying and said he was “set up” to spy via webcam again”.
“She also dismissed Ravi’s claim that he peeked at his roommate’s date because he feared the “CREEPY” guest would steal his iPad”. “creepy” suggests that Ravi HAD/HAS NEGATIVE FEELINGS about LGBT people which goes AGAINST Ravi.
“In addition, she noted that Ravi’s first reaction after tracking the name of his new roommate was to write to a friend, “F…my life. HE’S GAY“. That’s another negative/derogatory/inflammatory remark and another STRIKE AGAINST Ravi.
“Three weeks into the semester and (Clementi) finds out that his sexual orientation has been broadcast to the defendant’s twitter followers” and ANYONE ELSE WHO HAPPENED TO BE INTERESTED. “His PRIVATE sexual activities have been EXPOSED. What do you think he’s thinking? ‘If Molly saw it, did Cassie see it? Did people in the hall see it? Did people in Davidson C see it?’ You don’t think that he was INTIMIDATED by learning that information? FEARFUL, EMBARRASSED? He’d been EXPOSED“. The key word here is clearly “intimidated” and the jury has to/must believe the prosecution’s version of events in order to confirm the charge of BIAS INTIMIDATION, which could be a challenge.
“Ravi’s attorney, Steven Altman,…told the jury, claiming that Ravi reacted “immaturely” to what he saw on the screen” “Why we’re here is because on Sept. 19 and Sept. 21, 2010, an 18-year-old BOY, a KID, a COLLEGE FRESHMAN, HAD AN EXPERIENCE, HAD AN ENCOUNTER THAT HE WASN’T READY FOR“. IF we can believe the prosecutor (Judy McClure), we can dismiss the notion that “he (Ravi) activated his webcam for two to five seconds to keep an eye on his belongings“, but this IS NOT a guarantee.
“Altman advised the jury that it was up to them to decide whether Ravi was “HATEFULand he was BIASED and UGLY and ANTI-GAY and he HATED his roommate“, or whether he was instead “STUPID, he’s IGNORANT, MAYBE IMMATURE and a typical 18–year-old KID. Or is his reaction CRIMINAL“. EVEN IF Ravi’s actions are/were “stupid…, ignorant…immature”, that’s certainly NOT something to be proud of.
“Ravi’s lawyer went after the credibility of key witness Lokesh Ohja, a fellow Rutgers student. Ohja testified that Ravi asked (for) his help in aiming his webcam at Clementi’s bed, and that Ravi encouraged him and others to activate the webcam during Clementi’s second date on Sept. 21 (2010) with a man identified only as M.B. During questioning, Ohja admitted to LYING TO POLICE during the Ravi investigation and was at times SULKY during his testimony”. “sulky” is a DEFENSIVE gesture (Web-site/URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgnAY_eXYbI), a fundamental characteristic of “Difficult People”, while “lying to police” SERIOUSLY undermines a person’s CREDIBILITY. “Lokesh Ohja, remember how he was, SLINKING DOWN IN THAT CHAIR, becoming DEFIANT and DISRESPECTFUL? OVER AND OVER AGAIN WOULDN’T give me an answer. So you’ve got to see WHETHER OR NOT THEY’VE GOT ANYTHING TO HIDE, ANY MOTIVE in the testimony. He himself said he was SCARED, when he gave statements on Oct. 29 (2010) and Nov. 18 (2010) and what he was scared of was DESTROYING HIS COLLEGE EDUCATION because HE KNEW HE LIED UNDER OATH“.
The jury has to consider THREE things here: Tyler Clementi’s HORRIFYING death (the HORRIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES), DHARUN RAVI’s REFUSAL TO TESTIFY, MOLLY WEI‘s testimony AGAINST Ravi (part of a deal struck with prosecutors to avoid jail time) and the questionable testimony of LOKESH OHJA. This is THE FIRST case of its kind so THE JURY WILL HAVE ITS HANDS FULL/HAS A TOUGH TASK AHEAD OF THEM.