Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JLS
I believe only part of the SANE report was issued to the defense. If the DA is going to come out with NEW evidence, then I'd consider the possibility of it being "tampered" with. The fact that NiFong went personally to pick up the second set of results really, really bothers me because it gives me the impression that he's interferring with "detective" work and possibly chain of custody and that makes things smell "dirty".

SANE in training gets me. It also gives me the impression that someone else was overseeing her AT THE TIME OF THE EXAMINATION.

31 posted on 06/04/2006 3:35:42 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: Sacajaweau
I believe only part of the SANE report was issued to the defense. If the DA is going to come out with NEW evidence, then I'd consider the possibility of it being "tampered" with.

It is past the date discovery was due. Nifong will have to explain anything new he wants in. So I think any tampered evidence was in the original discovery.

I think before Nifong figure out what he had gotten himself into, he might have tried to tamper with evidence. I think he would not dare risk it now as he knows he might end up in prison. These families are not to be messed with.

SANE in training gets me. It also gives me the impression that someone else was overseeing her AT THE TIME OF THE EXAMINATION.

There was an MD there. But I think the SANE in training [SIT] aids the defense. Consider this cross:

Q: You believe you saw injuries to Mangum's privates?
A: Yes.

Q: You are "in training?"
A: Yes.

Q: How many other alledged rape victims have you examined.
A: She will give some numer maybe zero.

Q: How many women who were not raped have you examined that allows you to compare to someone who was raped with slight to no injuries.
A: She will give some number maybe zero.

Q: Could Ms. Magnum have had swelling and tender breast without being raped.
A: Yes.

Q: So while you said that Ms. Mangum had injuries consistent with rape, you equally could have said Ms. Mangum's condition was consistent with not having been raped?
A: Yes.

Q: Did Ms. Mangum admit to having consensual sex within the prior 72 hours?
A: Yes or no depending on what Mangum said.

Q: Was Ms. Mangum's condition equally consistent with recent consensual sex.
A: Yes.

This could go on and on like this with the SANE becoming bascially a defense witness.

34 posted on 06/04/2006 3:56:36 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson