Posted on 05/18/2006 10:53:18 PM PDT by Dr. Richard Kimble
He's coming up with a "story" right at the beginning. HE KNEW. Besides you can feel the difference--duh.
"Did you happen to catch her reason for thinking so? I looked in vain but missed it. If you could cite me the post, I'd be much obliged."
I believe that we, who have been following the case closely, since day one, have the same opinion of him. You're behind on reading 1000+ posts of info on this lying excuse for a man. He has no conscience.
And you want me to cite you "the post?" Are you serious? Start reading.
What rape?
Apparently you are not familiar with the statistics about black on white versus white on black gang rape. The rate of white on black gang rape approximates zero.
You're probably not familiar with sexual mores on college campuses either. If a guy, any guy, can't get a squeeze for free on a college campus he is in trouble. Handsome lacrosse players - they have to beat them off with a stick. Pun intended.
I find it interesting that in the Kobe case they spoke frequently about all the different types of evidence they found inside the girl. It seems people are 'pussy footing' around that same question in the current case.
I guess the presence of athlete's foot would be telling... Yah I agree, they are playing word games with us... The defense is trying to put the best possible spin on their intrepretation of the evidence... Similar to the way the DA only leaked part of the 2nd DNA test to the press...
I learned to play these little word games years ago, but then again nobody's life or liberty is in jeopardy by my word games either
Oh dear, I hope not in your personal life.
Broom? Aren't they searching for a blow poker? Oops, wrong case.
LOL! Beat them off with a stick? Like a broom handle?
Right. Or a lacrosse stick. LOL
BUMP!
"You're probably not familiar with sexual mores on college campuses"
I think it's more a case of being too familiar ...
One, not all together uncommon, fantasy for guys is to rape a girl. I'm not saying lot's of guys do it or want to do it, or intend to do it. It's a fantasy, not a desire or intention. (It's a not all together uncommon fantasy for women too, and it doesn't mean they have a secret desire to be raped).
And lot's of rape fantasies involve hookers, students, secretaries, babysitters, etc etc. It's a fantasy about sexual dominance -- about being able to do what one wants with someone in no position to effectively say "No".
Now let's think about your main point:
"If a guy, any guy, can't get a squeeze for free on a college campus he is in trouble. Handsome lacrosse players - they have to beat them off with a stick."
I gave the example of Hugh Grant. He's handsome. And I bet he'd be so busy beating off prospective playmates with a stick he has several people on the payroll to do it for him.
Despite all that, what did Hugh do? He went out to find a cheap UGLY black hooker to get oral sex in his car.
It's not that he couldn't find someone who would do it for free. (Funny scene when he was released on bail -- lots of women were holding up signs saying 'Hugh, I would have done it for free!') And It's not like he couldn't find someone way better looking or someone way better at oral sex or someone as kinky as kinky wants. If that's what he wanted, he could have had it no problem.
But no. He had a very particular desire -- to get oral sex from an UGLY cheap black hooker.
You can't account for that.
I can.
So much the worse for your theory. So much the better for mine.
Now that we know having lots of attractive options doesn't mean a guy, or a group of guys, wouldn't be highly motivated to pursue one that, from an outsider's perspective looks decidedly inferior, let's think about this particular case.
For all either of us know, those boys from Duke might have had an itch analogous to Hugh Grant's. It's not that they couldn't find other girls. It's not that they couldn't find prettier girls or more willing girls or kinkier girls or whatever. But maybe that's not what they wanted most that particular night. Maybe they got turned on by the idea of gang raping a black stripper. Maybe they liked the idea of acting out a sexual fantasy of complete sexual dominance over someone they didn't regard as an equal. In fact, that might have been a major part of the turn on.
Given what we know based on the Hugh Grant example, it's lame to say "But, but, but there were lots of hot white girls at Duke who would have begged them for all the hot kinky sex they wanted. So there's no way they could have had an itch like that"
That might be true. But that might not be what they needed to scratch their itch that night.
Heh. If it's that hard to say for someone to give a reason, I'm thinking the odds are I'd be wasting my time.
Everybody has opinions. Few manage to distinguish between the opinions they hold and the reasons they hold them.
YMMV.
Exactly. He knew definitively that condoms were NOT used, according to his star witness.
Agree 100%, but I fear he was elected because he IS unethical. As long as it's a rich, white Dukey boy whose ox is being gored, Nifong is Da Man!
He knows what's on the phone because the cops told him verbally. Whatever is there is helpful to the defense or else he would have requested a written report of the contents, since all such reports are subject to discovery.
Yes, it seems to say that, but it also seems to say there was other semen that was mixed because the one that was matched is referred to as "single source." The statements SEEM to be saying that one male DNA was separate and others were mixed, otherwise the use of the term "single source" would seem unnecessary. Will Nifong try to argue this mixed semen was a mixture of the three boys? Semen can be dated somewhat by sperm motitlity and some other technical factors. I presume that testing for age of the semen is automatic in a rape kit test even in NC, lol! But I don't think it could possibly be the boys because they know if they ejaculated or there was a chance of any other form of DNA being left in or on her in an intimate location, they would never have said they didn't touch her. They would have said they had consensual or paid-for sex with her. So, if there is mixed semen in her in ADDITION to her boyfriend's, that creats and even bigger problem for Nifong. But I don't like the defense being coy with phrasing either. I would like for them to state categorically what all was found and what wasn't found.
Perhaps, and that seems likely but, on the other hand, he may have despised the little weasel.
"10 codes" are pretty universal, although some jurisdictions change them around or make up their own for whatever reason. You probably came across some list that wasn't quite the standard. No matter. :>
LOL! Looks like you can't stand being outed.
Don't sulk too long, though. I look forward to your irrational pronouncements founded on hot air and unique collection of personality disorders. But you really know how to lighten things up - bet you're the life of the party wherever you go, even if you're the only one listening to you.
Your logic escapes you.
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.