Reply #71: Read in my response below what it shown on the tape.

[Maddy McCall]

First of all, the guy who was acquitted was not shown on the tape having sex with the victim. He was on the tape, but not having sex.

Second of all, prosecutors describe the tape as the victim being unconscious, and people spitting on her and writing derogatory terms on her while she's naked and unconscious.

Of the two people shown having sex (raping?) with her on the tape, one is now being tried after fleeing the country, and the other is still at large after fleeing the country.

The person on trial now denied existence of the tape, until one of his friends gave a copy to the cops--therefore, not only is the alleged perp being charged with rape, but also with child porn, since the victim was 16 at the time of the rape, and the alleged perp was 20.

Becoming a little more clear, the more info we get, isn't it?

The only reason the first guy was acquitted is because he wasn't shown having sex with (raping?) the alleged victim on the tape. What's to come is the verdict of the guy who WAS shown (raping?) on the tape, and hopefully the other person who allegedly sexually assaulted the victim will be apprehended, so that he can face charges.