Posted on 05/15/2006 7:14:12 AM PDT by pissant
He should have been in Midnight In The Garden of Good and Evil.
Thanks - I hand't caught up yet. Wow, more fuel on the fire.
Judge Nap's book disappointed me and sometimes he is sloppy in his statements. He knows that if a prosecutor took a 90% ID to a Grand Jury and told them that was good enough, they would indicted 99% of the time.
The whole chain of evidence on the finger nail is laughable.
Too late: I was quite graphic in a post some time back, illustrating how impossible it would be for 3 guys to do what FA says they did and within the established time-frame. Yeah, it was an "ewwww" post..
In all fairness, I doubt Napolitano has seen a "Nifong" before. I haven't, except for Les Miserables.
Napolitano hasn't been right about a single case that I can remember.
IF the DNA is a distraction, why did NIFONG claim is was going to be "conclusive" in his court filing. and still, not a single talking head has identified one instance in which an extended assault resulted in no transfer of dna.
LOL
You warned me about him before....what a tool he is!
Thanks. Sounds like piling on to make it sound like he has more than we think.
I bet there's not a bruise on her.
Remember we all heard that Kate Farber had "bruises" and "vaginal tearing."
The bruise turned out to be half the size of a dime on the side of her face and it was WEEKS old.
And the "vaginal trauma" was there from having sex about six times in five days with four people.
This is something I don't know:
Of course, prosecutors can get a warrant and pull phone records. Can defense attourneys also compel telcoms to present phone records? If they can show she was on the phone during the extremely short timeline they're left with, isn't that exculpatory?
When did Nifong drop the earlier Robbery charge?
Wonder if she had bruises on her neck from being choked? I hate to be this graphic but, ewww gross, how would you perform oral sex while being choked? I guess it wasn't at the same time? (b/c it never happened)
-------
You forgot the most important detail--he came up from behind her. So she was forced to perform oral sex on a man standing behind her while said man was choking her.
Put yourself on a Grand Jury, what are you going to do. The DA says the woman IDed this person. The DA says he found DNA consistent with this person on the nails. You indict. A Grand Jury is only legally allowed to consider what is presented to them.
I know that, but do they just sit there and read some stuff and the GJ just say Yes?
3 hours is 180 minutes; how many minutes per case if you indict 66?
Exactly but I bet he left out the DNA info. He knows that less than 13 is a "No Match".
Good question.
And there is no sodomy, so no broomstick!
BUMP!
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.