Former UC-Santa Barbara soccer player Eric Frimpong, now serving time for an alleged rape, has lost another round in court. Bill Archer has reacted angrily, dropping giant tomes of evidence suggesting that Frimpong is a long-suffering victim of a misguided prosecution, a hapless defense lawyer, and a judge with his hands over his ears and eyes. This is on top of an exhaustive ESPN piece that summed up quite a few questions about the case.

Fake Sigi, in the final bit of proof that he is not Bill Archer (in case anyone was still clinging to that theory after Fake Sigi offered up his real name and met many of us in the soccer media), disagreed with the call for a new trial.

Fake Sigi pointed out a pretty good flaw among Frimpong’s defenders. The avalanche of words can sometimes lead to a rather cluttered argument. And in the case of the “bite mark” dispute, it might not be relevant. (That said, the investigator cited in Bill’s second post — James Clemente — makes you wonder why any of this made it into court in the first place, and he reopens the issue about whether the third person in this case may in fact have left such a bite.)

I’d suggest refocusing along the following questions:

1. The DNA evidence. There was none of his on her. Her DNA was on his genitals. The Frimpong defense is that she put her hand there. (Some BigSoccer commenters accuse Archer and others of “ignoring” the DNA evidence, which is why we don’t take those commenters seriously.)

2. Dirt vs. sand. Joel Engel, who has written extensively on Frimpong’s behalf, cites a soil expert who said in the habeas corpus (which I have not found online and probably wouldn’t have time to read in its entirety this week) that the dirt on the victim was not sand and therefore not from the beach where the rape allegedly occurred.

3. Frimpong’s defense. The lawyer called just one witness, a strategy that could be classified somewhere between “backfired” and “negligent.”

4. The underwear. Mind if I skip the details here? They’re in Bill’s second post, citing Clemente. Let’s just we already know plenty of people have questions about the victim’s ex.

5. The tide charts. In this case, Clemente is either completely misinformed or the legal work here is shocking. Clemente claims, reading tide charts and visiting the crime scene, that the victim could not have gone where she claimed she went without getting wet. See point 6 of Clemente’s evisceration of Frimpong’s defense lawyer.

6. The alibi. Clemente (point 15) says three people could place Frimpong somewhere other than the crime scene.

7. The victim’s recollection. She may have had an alcohol-related blackout, but was her story otherwise consistent? Is that possible?

8. The lack of evidence on Frimpong (again, other than the DNA for which Frimpong has a plausible explanation). That’s emphasized in the ESPN piece.

For points 9, 10 and 11, read the two paragraphs in the ESPN piece starting “On Jan. 31, 2008”:

9. Dentist shopping. Why was the prosecution allowed to do this?

10. The jurors’ questions after the fact. The jury asked for information it did not receive, and the juror says she felt they rushed to be done by Christmas.

11. Why did Judge Hill dismiss the motion on the dentistry?

There’s more. Some of it is nonsensical — Clemente implies that Frimpong was such a celebrity in Santa Barbara that he would’ve been recognized. Frimpong isn’t Messi, and Santa Barbara isn’t Argentina. Again, that’s why some of these points should simply be discarded if you’re arguing in public. (In a court of law, throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks is apparently more common. Trust me on this.)

Other points — whether or not racism was a factor, how often rape accusations prove false — really obscure the issues.

And then here’s the real issue: Can these 11 questions be answered so well that we don’t think a new trial is necessary? If so, please have at it. Comments are open. Just be respectful.