Word For The Day, Wednesday, October 15, 2003: Vitiate

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary | 10/15/2003 | The Janitor

[Conspiracy Guy]

Everyone is mad that Jim Rob has been fleecing us.

[Conspiracy Guy]

see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1001628/posts

[Texan5]

Hiya! I just got here after cooking breakfast, seeing hubby off to work, and working on a flyer for my new business.

[hobbes1]

From what I saw in the article posted (not in all the related and linked articles) it appeared that the argument of the defense was that the indication that she engaged in sex with at least one other partner proved that the sex with Kobe was consensual.

As I pointed out, that is erroneous. All it proves is that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the 'tearing and bruising' of the girls equipment was caused by Bryant.

That is the Argument of the Defense.....

The prosecution already elicited testimony, that the physical state of the girls apparatus bore physical signs of NON Consensual sex. And they are trying to make the case that THOSE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS are the proof of the alleged Rape that takes this case beyond He said /she said.

Therefore, if (and consider which pair of underwear the blood was found in....) it can be shown that the bleeding occured well after the alleged rape, the testimony ALREADY presented by the prosecution is False, and probably intentionally deceptive.....

[Conspiracy Guy]

Flyer? I'm a pilot? Do you want me to write you a catchy little short poem?

Your home will look like it is new,
Call us because we're pros.
Every nook and cranny too,
With us the dirt just goes.
So call us soon and we'll be out,
To chase the dust away.
You'll love our work we are the best,
Don't wait call us today!

There..

[hobbes1]

But to characterize it as "compelling evidence" that he did not rape her is what I find disturbing. The only way to argue that it is "compelling evidence" that he did not rape her....

Vast I hate to keep flogging the deceased equine, but, the point of their statement is to hammer home the falsity of the prosecutions claim that the (and remember the prosecution leaked to the press way back, that these injuries were Horrendous and "Devastating" to Bryants case) so called injuries PROVE the allegation of rape.

Therefore, if the Prosecution can claim that the "injuries" prove rape, does it not follow that proof that the injuries were not a result of the encounter with Bryant, by extension prove his innocence? (according to the prosecutions stance...)

[hobbes1]

Was OJ innocent? Or simply found "Not Guilty"? Innocent. He did not do what they alleged he did. Period.

There are no Ifs ands Or Buts about it.

[VRWCmember]

does it not follow that proof that the injuries were not a result of the encounter with Bryant

The problem is that this "compelling evidence" does not prove that the injuries were not a result of the encounter with Bryant; it proves that the injuries MIGHT NOT BE a result of the encounter with Bryant. Do you see the distinction? Proclaim the doubt that it casts as much as you want and I have no problem with that. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly that it is devestating to the prosecution. But this is only because it raises huge doubts. It does not "prove" that the girl is lying and it does not "prove" that Bryant's encounter with the girl was consensual.

[hobbes1]

The problem is that this "compelling evidence" does not prove that the injuries were not a result of the encounter with Bryant;

Actually, one would have to say, that the blood evidence, existing in the next day panties, with someone elses dna, but NOT in the panties from the night of the rape, does tend to point in another direction. IF she was injured as a result of the encounter with Bryant, there should be blood in that underwear....

Definitively, Of Course not.....But more likely than not....And as I said, you have to keep in mind that this game was started by the prosecution, with the leaks of Horrendous injuries....(and deceptive testimony...)

[Texan5]

Hey, thanks! I like that, it's a keeper! I am going to try to use it on the flyer.

[Conspiracy Guy]

If I knew more I could tweak it. But since you didn't like my pressure wash / leaf blower idea, this is the best I can do right now.

[Texan5]

How is the weather where you are? It is 57 here, and the fog has closed down so tight I can't even see the opposite shore, which is less than a mile away. Perfect weather for Halloween-even my spooks are quieter than usual for morning. They must be sleeping in.

[Conspiracy Guy]

45 this morning, cobalt blue sky, 75 predicted high. I wish I was off I'd be in the boat somewhere.

[Texan5]

Wish I could do that, too-especially now that all the "summer people" who come here with their boats are gone for the year because the water is so cold now that it is beginning to "roll" already. I like it here much better in fall and winter when you can take your boat out and fish/ride without the fear of being run over by some idiot townie driving a boat for the first time, ever.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I hate the newrich and their toys. Alabama requires a test for boaters that at least gives them a concept of what is right and safe. I've been boating in some form or fashion since I could walk.

[Texan5]

I wish we had such a test here-we have one for motorcycles, for heaven's sake. But any licensed driver can just go buy a boat, register and license it, launch at the nearest marina and take off. The boating safety laws are available where you register the boat, and posted at every park on water and every marina, but I doubt that many people ever read them.