Posted on 04/27/2006 10:59:19 AM PDT by PghBaldy
Was she intoxicated when she arrived a half hour late? Oh, I'm just positive that woman go around dancing with one shoe on. snicker
Do you know precisely which camera took the pictures and who it belonged to?
Wonder what his/her deposition looks like ~ that defense lawyer with the pictures is probably keeping that part quite confidential at the moment.
I doubt it. And you've now made it clear you never saw the pictures. And that the watch in those pictures clearly confirms the timeframe. As do phone calls, a taxi cab driver and originally the other whore, oops, I mean stripper.
Turns out that was one of the first things out in this story ~ on March 29 in fact.
Guess that means daddy wasn't first. So who was? Do you know? I posted the URL for the Freeper thread with the full text and all.
Don't blame me for that story.
BTW, somewhere in my files I have a real photograph of Pope John Paul with his hand on Hillary Clinton's fat butt.
Got a time and date stamp too ~ can hardly tell it was photoshopped.
Huh? I haven't even commented on who was out first with that story. But keep deflecting attention away from the fact that she's a liar. Twice now, in fact.
Those stockings, which weren't ripped, and the garter belt, which was done up neatly, while she was smiling as she left does her in, as do a host of other little inconvenient (to you) facts.
Oh, and get this. Not too many women who had been brutally raped would then try to get back in the house to retrieve a shoe. A shoe. LOL. The truth hurts.
Let's see the full deposition. A claim by a defense attorney is meaningless at this point ~ just the facts ~ sworn to.
You really can't handle the fact that two news organizations hired document forensics experts who confirmed the photographs are real. I doubt they'd do that with your little photo of the Pope and Her Shrillness.
A claim by a defense attorney is a heck of a lot more interesting to me than this (second) claim by the whore.
Whether or not the woman is a liar, the topic is "Broomstick".
On the other hand, if they'll but provide Buckhead and myself with the "originals" and the camera I bet we could find some interesting stuff.
Looking at that first story again it looks like the "broomstick" claim was, like, uh, the FIRST CLAIM.
Hey, do you know the difference between sheer dancing tights and ordinary pantyhose (other than the price I mean)?
Have we had a statement from the Prosecutor concerning the nature of her panties anyway?
Your posts are increasingly bizarre. Believe it or not, most of us can read the title of a thread without your help.
And you still haven't answered my question about why you asked me which date rape drug I use. But I know it's difficult for you to answer your unsubstantiated charges.
I doubt it. Are you really putting yourself out there as a document forensics expert? As I said, your posts are getting increasingly bizarre.
You can see her stockings in the pictures. You need to take a break if you don't understand the difference in a post about stocking and panties.
I'm commenting on a story referenced in the article at the top of this thread. It's the "Broomstick" story. Some folks argue that it's a new claim yet I found it in one of the first stories from March 29, so it's an old claim.
Is that a personal attack?
BTW, did you take a good look at the predicatory commentary your little buddy was putting into his accusations?
Why don't you give him a call (you know the number don't you) and tell him to be polite. I was being polite.
You were being polite when you accused me of using date rape drugs? You're more ignorant than I originally thought.
Then, refer back to that March 29 story that Howlin so helpfully posted for us back then.
Explaining my attitude toward your further posts, understand that after you've been hand fed the truth that it's really an old story you persist in asking why the stripper didn't happen to mention a broomstick.
Obviously she did, or somebody did, way back when.
It's a quite fair assumption on my part that your interest is not in debating the facts of the case (as reported to us) but in questioning integrity as a means of discovering truth.
You didn't even stop at arguing the "law" but ran all the way to the ad hominum attack.
We also have reports of the woman being heavily intoxicated, and/or unconscious. You questioned my thought that it could be GBH as though you were some sort of expert in the matter.
Makes you fair game for an accusatory question. Same sort of thing you do.
And, finally, concerning document forensics, I have had much more than my fair share of that sort of thing ~ even had to write regulations about documents, characteristics of print, that sort of thing. I don't know that it makes me an expert, but it definitely puts me up there with the top hundred or so.
#1. The rape happened 3/14. There is no mention of a broomstick in the arrest warrant or in her complaint. Her complaint can be read online. You HAVE read it haven't you? Although with your reading comprehension problems, maybe you didn't quite get that she never mentioned a broomstick.
#2. I've been hand fed a story? How about Nafing's 70 interviews? And her story is hand feeding you and I see you're buying the whore's story hook line and sinker.
Why is the dysfunctional family lying every time they give an interview if the truth is so clear?
#3. I didn't run to an ad hominum attack until you accused me of using date rape drugs. Care to back that particular stupidity of yours up? I didn't think so.
#4. You think you're in the top 100 of forensics experts? LOL. Sure. And I was born last night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.