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

To: Ken H

I read that.

I just don't see the players, their families, or representatives agreeing to that deal. There seems to be holes in the case wide enough to drive trucks through and innocent people aren't inclined to plead guilty to anything.

The players really have acted innocently. The no-sex of any kind stance was highly unusual for a rape defense. Remember, how many talking heads said the Defense was making a mistake by boxing themselves in with their story. One Defense lawyer was picked for Stupid Guy of the week or something because they said the Defense was talking too much. Nancy Grace encouraged them to keep talking because they were going to get their clients convicted.

So, it could be a trial balloon, but I don't see the point for the players to take that deal.


46 posted on 05/28/2006 7:51:11 PM PDT by Mike Nifong (Any likeness to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Mike Nifong

I agree with your take on the "settlement". I'ts far too vague and open to tons of interpretations. I think the defense would insist that she admit she made it all up and their clients are innocent. They've been talking tough and I doubt they'd go for anything this vague.


208 posted on 05/30/2006 9:18:24 PM PDT by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

To: Mike Nifong

I agree. There's not enough there for the lax defendants.


229 posted on 05/31/2006 1:43:18 AM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | 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