Posted on 06/16/2006 10:39:09 AM PDT by freespirited
LOL! In Fuster, ridiculous and obscene as it was, at least there was more than one "witness" not telling wildly changing stories. You didn't have mountains of exculpatory evidence, like stuff showing one defendant could not have been doing what he is accused of unless he is capable of beating, kicking, raping while simultaneously on his cell phone talking to his girlfriend and calling for a cab.
This accuser doesn't just have zero credibility. It's more like zero minus 50. The idea that anyone could be indicted based solely on her testimony, when it is contradicted by everything else, including the medical evidence, is outrageous.
She said no condoms were used. If there were no condoms, there should be DNA and/or traces of these boys--e.g. their body hair. There should have been fibers from their clothes. Three people can't come into contact with a person like that and leave not a trace of one of them behind.
Apologists for the DA keep saying the defense is only revealing what is favorable to it, but some reporters have read the entire file. Dan Abrams did and blasted Liefong.
Fuster's still in a Flori-duh slammer for **** which never happened and there, but for God's grace, go any of us. There has to be a solution. In the duck case, at some point, anything can be broken down and whatever supposedly protects this a$$hole nifong from reality is going to break down.
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.