Posted on 04/27/2006 4:27:11 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Not to be skeptical or anything, but would you expect him to admit it? Especially if he didn't do it? Oh wait! It's a wall of silence.
The NC law is about SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, consentual!
Not previous claims of attacks, per a NC attorney.
We need to se a photo of Kim's car completely. There is a whisih spot on the side seen in the photo of Mangum being put in the car - with her leg hanging out. I wonder if the front of Kim's car has that light gray primer on it or maybe even some white or light blue or silver parts, like hood and fender(s), such that he thought it was white. It may also be a language problem. Some people who don't speak Spanish use the word "blanco" thinking it means black when it actually means white. The cabby is a foreigner with imperfect English. he may have his colors wrong.
Is this one going to be a black wall of silence? :-)
Abrams: NC law says that sexual behavior can't come into trial. Says this isn't sexual behavior.
Mark Edwards: When the law talks about sexual behavior, I think it's talking about consensual behavior so I think it is relevant.
Abrams: Will the '93 case come in?
Susan Filan: I'm not sure. DA will argue it doesn't come in. What if you're a juror and find out later? Sickening twist of law that protects the victim but could hurt the accused.
Abrams: This isn't behavior and rape shield law not designed to protect against this kind of thing.
Georgia Goslee: Purpose is to protect victim from sexual stereotyping and privacy issues.
Reporter says that one of the alleged attackers was 13 years old at the time and never knew until NOW that he was even named as an attacker. He also says he doesn't know who she is. He's never heard anything about this until now.
__________
OH SNAP!
His name is in the 1996 police report correct??
Abrams: Law to protect women so they aren't embarrassed with how many men they slept with. WHen you make other allegations of rape against 3 men, it's almost certainly relevant in this case.
Yale: You hit the legal issue on the head. This falls outside the rape shield statute. Defense isn't going to call her sexual conduct into question. Defense is going to say it never occurred and we have witnesses who say they never touched her.
Father said she was never sexually assaulted in '93. Prior inconsistent statement. Clearly relevant. Nothing to do with rape shield law.
This is true!
And the father is saying she was not raped, just held against her will?
Father said the boys held her against her will but she wasn't injured or raped.
Female black rape nazi willing to jump through hoops to make the stripper's prior allegations aren't relevant. These women are embarrassing.
Yes - father said she was held against her will but not injured or raped.
Dysfunctional family. Serious problems and society needs to be protected from THEM.
At this point, I don't think anyone should be protective about HER reputation. She's smeared the whole LAX team.
Abrams thinks this will lead stripper to pull out of case. commercial
I am doing everything I can to smear HER! I'm sitting here steaming mad.
My stack of OUTRAGES is reaching a dangerous height.
Me too. LOL
I'm going to go into withdrawal over the weekend when probably no new relevations will come out about the slut.
I think she also said the brother of the then 13 yr old was also named.
Said he was getting married and did not need this.
The whole broomhandle thing came from Mangum's father who picked up on it from Kim Roberts. The old man hears this and that that conflicts with his daughter's story, then he hears this or that and revises that to fill in the flaws in the case. No DNA? He said they used condoms. Then Kim is in the media running her mouth about everything that night, the old man hears it, and then puts out the broomstick claim. Next thing is we hear Wendy Murphy repeating it.
Kim never even said there was a broom. She said it was suggested when the women answered no to the guys' question as to whether or not they'd brought any sex toys. The whole thing with the broom started with Kim saying it was suggested (did not say there even was a broom), then the father picked it up to explain away no DNA, then the lawyers screaming on behalf of Mangum carried it from there. There is nothing in the police media report or the search warrant documents to suggest a broom was used. Yet the father said the other day that his daughter said a broom was used and then she was forced to orally copulate all three of them. Would a guy who just viciously brutalized a woman with a broom then put his organ into her mouth for her to clamp her teeth down on?
Nifong's full statement today and blog analysis:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1623395/posts
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.