Something stinks about this whole thing!
Ok this Michael McClish guy was convicted of rape so let’s look at the few available details of the case. First: the “victims” well documented history of lying about rape was not taken into account. Her protracted relationship AFTER the alleged rape occurred was also not allowed as evidence either. Second, the prosecution paraded in front of the jury a crew of this guy’s ex sexual partners who apparently didn’t have very many nice things to say about this guy (I have a lot of ex girlfriends that don’t have a lot of nice things to say about me but that doesn’t make me a rapist) but none of those things amounted to anything criminal. Is that fair? No!
And there is this murder case thing involving a pregnant woman. There are no details about the case but from the Google searches that I have done it is questionable whether there is even any physical evidence against this guy. Ahh, but how convenient for the prosecutor to have an already convicted rapist to accuse. This man is 38 years old, my age, and he has never been in trouble before and I have a hard time believing that someone who is capable of raping one person and killing a pregnant woman within a period of a few months wouldn’t have some type of felonious record.
It is a well known fact that prosecutors as a group are amongst the most cynical people in the world and in fact do not give a shit about justice. Here is a real opportunity for a prosecutor to get a rape and double murder conviction hung on his wall. Success in this case will surely put him in line for attorney general if not the Governor’s seat.
This is a case to watch and one that serves as an example (even if in the unlikely event that he is guilty) for how men are routinely railroaded in our courts when it comes to sex crimes. Note, this man is currently serving an eighteen year prison sentence.
Story here:

Appellate court hears Michael McClish's sex crimes case but decision will take weeks

By Jennifer Squires - Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted: 09/01/2009 08:07:51 PM PDT
Updated: 09/01/2009 08:08:17 PM PDT




SAN JOSE - The appellate attorney for a convicted rapist who also is accused of murder told a three-judge panel Tuesday that key evidence in his client's favor was excluded from the trial of former Ben Lomond resident Michael McClish.
Mark Greenberg, McClish's attorney for the appeal, said that the woman McClish was convicted of raping and sodomizing had made false accusations of assault in the past and used the term "rape" casually in conversations with other women, but that those details were kept out of McClish's 2007 sex crimes trial.
A jury convicted him of all charges and he was sentenced to 18 years in state prison.
"You simply cannot exclude evidence like this," Greenberg said, referencing the victim's past during McClish's appellate case, which was heard in the 6th District Court of Appeals in downtown San Jose.
A contingent of McClish's family and friends packed the small courtroom, located on the 10th floor of the Comerica Bank building. Before court started, they passed around a greeting card for McClish, who is serving his sentence at Salinas Valley State Prison in Soledad.
McClish, who is also facing murder charges in Santa Cruz for allegedly beating and strangling Joanna "Asha" Veil, a pregnant Polish immigrant, in September 2006, was not in court Tuesday. He has pleaded not guilty in the homicide case.
During the oral arguments, Greenberg also said the parade of women allowed to testify about McClish's sexual past was simply to cast a poor light on his client and that McClish's interactions with them didn't constitute any illegal acts.

In an attempt to show a pattern of behavior during the trial, the District Attorney's Office had characterized the experiences as times when McClish allegedly intended to commit sex crimes. Four women, including the victim, testified about their experiences with McClish over two decades although the D.A.'s Office had attempted to call as many as 11 women as witnesses during the trial.
He was only charged with crimes against one woman, a former co-worker with whom he'd had an affair. She is not being named because she was the victim of a sex crime.
Brent Wilner, a deputy attorney general on the case, said the local court didn't "open the floodgates" to McClish's sexual past but that all of the women who testified shared pertinent evidence.
"It's something that shows the defendant had a motive to commit these types of offenses," Wilner said.
But Greenberg argued that the victim's testimony was not credible because she waited about a year to report the crimes while continuing her relationship with McClish through much of that time. He also continually pointed to her alleged history of making false claims.
Wilner pointed out that McClish, who testified in his own defense, also was not credible because he had a history of lying and even convinced his then-wife to lie for him when contacted by sheriff's deputies.
Greenberg took the critique in stride.
"He lied about all sorts of things," the attorney said, adding that so did the victim.
The oral arguments in the case, one of four heard Tuesday afternoon, took about 30 minutes.
The judges will issues a ruling within 90 days, which could have an affect on McClish's pending double-murder case. The preliminary hearing for that case is set for Jan. 25.
If McClish's conviction is overturned, decision could be challenged by the state Attorney General's Office, the case could return to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court for a new trial or the charges may be dropped. If his appeal is unsuccessful, McClish could take the case to the state Supreme Court or even to the federal level, his attorney said.