[Sacajaweau]

Avoiding the issue!!

NiFong has already said that there have been many rape convictions without evidence of DNA and I'm sure that is true.

What he hasn't said is what we should be looking at: "No one has ever been convicted of rape if they weren't in the room with the victim at the time of the rape".

When the two boys left after calling for a cab, they became the alibi for the third. The third boy doesn't even need an alibi. There were three boys with all their hands on her at the same time according to Crystal. No one was talking on the phone.

NiFong and the "biased" media have been avoiding the time element like the plague. Fortunately, we have become privy to some of the data but not all of it. The time frame will be so narrow, that the physical possibility of rape becomes impossible.

Looks like Crystal gave the DA a freebie!!

[bjc]

"NiFong has already said that there have been many rape convictions without evidence of DNA and I'm sure that is true."

This may be true, especially if there is a condom used or that there is a delay in reporting the crime or the accuser has taken some action that destroys the evidence. In this case, however, the presented facts clearly dictate that there should be DNA evidence and its absence says a lot about the viability of the case and the veracity of the AV. Therefore, Nifong statement and its repetition by others is totally spurious given the facts of this case.

[JLS]

Avoiding the issue!!

You are correct. Unless they claim injuries to sexual parts which I highly doubt based on swelling her sex with three other guys that night will not come in during a trial. It likely means the SANE report will not come in either.

The issue in this case is litterally going to be the testimony of Mangum v. the alibis of the students v. her own past claims. I am beginning to think the case will look like:

1. Mangum testifies she was raped and IDs the three players unless the ID is thrown out by the trial judge or on appeal.

2. The police who conducted the search of the house authenticating the press-on nail from the trash can.

3. A DNA expert talking about a partial match to one player.

4. The prosecution rests.

You might ask:

A. What about the SANE or the MD Nifong noticed the defense? What can either say? If either mentions injuries, that brings in all the other men. There is no DNA the SANE collected to discuss. There is apparently no tox report to discuss. Mabye these two witnesses will talk about her physical injuries, ie bruises and cuts?

B. What about Roberts? She has terrible credibility problems. She would have to testify about not being in the room with Mangum. etc.

Any witness I am missing? It sounds like if this ever goes to trial the prosecution case may be a very short one.