Posted on 04/09/2005 6:44:15 PM PDT by Enterprise
Nice first post, and welcome to FR.
Larry, should we cue up Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" yet or wait a bit more?
I got a rambling Freepmail from someone who signed up today that pointed me back to this. I'm deciding whether it's a waste of bandwidth to post it here.
LOL!
Rambling freepmails from probable trolls tend to be fair game in my eyes.
Go for it - I would like to read it, before I move back to LC, tomorrow.
Excuse the formatting. I just cut and pasted (but did throw in a couple paragraph breaks). There may be a nugget of useful information in this Freepmail from our newest Freeper:
Re: Ex-Woodlake officer facing sex-abuse charges
From tulareman | 07/09/2005 9:04:58 AM EDT read
Larry,
I think you a to quick to accuse an innocent man! In fact here is a direct quote from the Judge, "I don't find [Williams] touching any part, whether skin-on-skin or through clothing," based on testimony from the women, so he dropped the sexual battery charges. Additionally, I think you will find that the reporter on this case s biased!! I support that by this email (copy) I am compelled to ask you a few questions concerning the recent
article posted in the Thursday June 16th edition of the Visalia Times Delta
- Illegal Strip Search alleged. I attended at both hearings, thus giving me the opportunity to witness the entire proceedings. I find it interesting that you mentioned the girls involved in the traffic stop
being fondled. If you review the court transcripts, you will find that none of the girls testified as being touched in any sexual manner, let alone fondled. In fact the Judge asked each girl after there testimony if they had been touched in any sexual manner or intimate areas, resulting in a negative response from each. The Penal Code clearly states that in order to be convicted of sexual battery a person must touch an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal,
sexual gratification, or sexual abuse , and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose.
The penal
code further defines intimate parts as meaning the sexual organ, anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, and the breast of a female. Additionally, I find it rather alarming that you did not mention that the woman
who claims to be strip-searched had her drug case dismissed, even after she admitted to being under the influence of drugs (which was confirmed
by a toxicology report).
In fact, she stated, > "> The DA agreed to drop my case in exchange for my statement.> "> This statement sent gasps throughout the courtroom, yet you printed nothing about it? The same woman testified that she had filed complaints of misconduct against other officers in the past in order to get charges dismissed. I noted that in an earlier article concerning this case you took time to mention
questionable tactics utilized by the District Attorney> '> s Office.
I had hoped that you would continue to cover this case impartially. Have
you pondered on the possibility that the DA has taken the case to a vindictive prosecution by increasing the severity of the charges in order to bolster his case? The public needs to be presented with news that is
factual, unbiased and prudent. Personally, after reading this article and knowing what I heard> ...> I have lost confidence in the media.
Reporters response - Sir, Not all details of a court hearing can be included in a story. For example, a many specific details of Ms. V's account of the alleged action were not included in the story. By the same token, not all aspects of the cross examination were included. On the other hand, the defense lawyer did have the opportunity to say that she thought the witness was a liar that in her opinion the prosecution didn't prove the elements of the charges. When the transcript of the hearing becomes available I will look at the statements of the other witnesses.
So I have to ask... is this guy stil a creep or a victim of circumstance? Or a junkie trying to get rich quick?
Wow.
That is about as undetendable as one can get.
*snicker*
I dunno - either is plausible.
No, the word is "undetandable." I think it relates to the US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Detander or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Either that or it's a reference to "Forcible Entry and Detander" in landlord-tenant law.
I was wondering if they were trying to refer to 'defensible.'
But I'm not sure.
Wow, Larry, you must be getting famous, with folks signing up to FM you! Probably planning to sell the reply for big bucks...
That's the first place I'd look for crack....
Thanks for pinging me back to this thread with the new info. It tends to confirm what I said in post #3, if the source is credible.
I think "detander" is someone who never goes out in the sun.
Thanks for a great update Larry.
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.