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

To: Jezebelle

Well madam investigator, Nifong has:

1. Admitted proximity, ie Mangum, Evans, Finerty and Seligmann were all at the same location.

2. Mangums allegation

3. A rape exam not inconsistent with rape. I am not saying consistent with rape, but the rape exam did not prove she was not raped.

Other than that, he has no physical evidence that I know of? He has claims of racial taunts back and forth which are not evidence and I doubt could be admitted in court.

Am I missing anything and are 1-3 enough to make a prima facie case?


501 posted on 10/13/2006 10:09:26 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies ]


To: JLS

Yea but,

1. Were Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans all there at the relevant time, together in the bathroom with Precious?

2. Mangum's allegation - which allegation? She's told a dozen stories and none of them have any basis in fact. They aren't credible.

3. Diffuse edema can be caused by consensual sex. As for the rape exam proving there WASN'T a rape, that's theoretically imposssible. You can't prove a negative.


505 posted on 10/13/2006 10:17:49 PM PDT by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies ]

To: JLS

No, they're not. He has to have evidence that a crime was committed before he can go forward with a prosecution. The medical evidence must show there was a rape, not MAYBE there was a rape. The fact that Mangum was in male company, no matter whose, is certainly not proof a crime occurred. Mangum's stories contradict each other and conflict with other substantiated facts and witness statements, so her allegation cannot stand as OBJECTIVE evidence of a crime. Prosecutors and cops can investigate when they think a crime may have been committed, and should, but they cannot prosecute without objective and adequate evidence that a crime occurred. The only way Liefong moved this forward was by avoiding a real investigation and ramming through the indictments, which wasn't all that hard given NC's system, and since NC doesn't have a probable cause hearing process beyond that, Liefong has gotten to sustain the prosecution without having any sort of legally provable case. His case does not meet the legal standards for prosecution, but NC law permits him to go forward without examination of the elements of the crime and probable cause before a court.


506 posted on 10/13/2006 10:23:42 PM PDT by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | 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