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

To: RecallMoran
Congratulations to this thread. It was right on the mark. The only thing not surmised was the "extra" semen.

We thought that because in the first defense DNA press conference they stated that the report indicated there was no DNA in or on her body from anyone to indicate any sex had taken place, period....

779 posted on 05/12/2006 6:16:56 PM PDT by darbymcgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies ]


To: darbymcgill

Of course. Threads cannot not be held responsible for absent or badly "dis-semen-inated" information.


797 posted on 05/12/2006 6:21:17 PM PDT by RecallMoran (Recall Brodhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies ]

To: darbymcgill
At the same time there'd already been announced that more thorough DNA tests would be done.

Teach you to pay too much attention to press conferences. The "newsies" down there already thought the DNA was going to ID a third attacker ~ that's because they, too, listened too closely to the press conference evidentiary hearings (by both the defense and the prosecution).

Be interesting to see what these tests actually demonstrate when they, themselves, are made public. What we have here, so far, is yet another press conference held by a defense lawyer.

1,115 posted on 05/12/2006 9:08:28 PM PDT by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | 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