To: summer
So she hid what she knew until he broke up with her?
Wouldn't that make HER an accomplice after the fact?
(O/T, but I bet it really frosted her that he dumped HER for a manicurist!)
7 posted on
01/03/2006 8:23:46 PM PST by
Howlin
(Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. - GWB, 12/18/05)
To: Howlin
10 posted on
01/03/2006 8:24:53 PM PST by
summer
To: Howlin
To: Howlin
16 posted on
01/03/2006 8:30:17 PM PST by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower)
To: Howlin
(O/T, but I bet it really frosted her that he dumped HER for a manicurist!)He obviously didn't like the way she did his nail, er nails. :-)
47 posted on
01/04/2006 6:30:02 AM PST by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
To: Howlin
Re your post #7 - I later realized this: if she had married him, she would not have to testify against him because of the wife/husband relationship. So, she either had to a) go public before marrying him (even though he allegedly ditched im), or b) live with it, since a spouse can not testify against their spouse. Or, I guess c) divorce him and then testify.
Maybe she was telling him to stop what he was doing and he wouldn't, and that was causing problems in the relationship, though I am just guessing here.
48 posted on
01/04/2006 8:00:42 AM PST by
summer
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson