Replies

Hey, question: if this girl had told the DA she had been raped with a broom, wouldn't they have looked for the broom at the house?

I didn't see it on the search warrant. Wonder why.

Hey, question: if this girl had told the DA she had been raped with a broom, wouldn't they have looked for the broom at the house?

I didn't see it on the search warrant. Wonder why.
______________________________________________

My guess is that:

1. They found "DNA" on her, as she knew they would.

2. She did not know that "DNA" could be matched to a particular person.

Since one of the attendees at the event make a crude remark about an broomstick like object he was holding, that became her supporters fallback position when there was no DNA match.

Absolutely!

Plus lot's of boiler plate language such as "brooms, blunt end objects consistent with size... shape...", plus language such as 'rags, cleaning materials/or similar objects', plus such terms as 'body fluids' which would allow using a lazer/black light.
Basically, the search warrant tries to say what is to be seized vs. a 'fishing expedition' which will get it kicked on appeal.

I think Nifong's biggest error was thinking nobody would lie to him. He was confident there would be DNA. There was three subjects, a fresh examine ...?
Heck that stuff is every where, just ask Bill Clinton lol. When it wasn't 'referenced' in the first affidavit, he looks like he's painted himself into a corner. (I'm beginning to think he's smoking wacky tabbacy and watching "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for inspiration points.)