Posted on 04/18/2006 3:26:57 AM PDT by Mad-Margaret
Guess you don't believe in the old statement that "A good DA can get an indictment against a ham sandwich".
They are calling this case Bonfire of the Varsities.
I agree. This is what I was wondering also. IF she was the goody goody that some of her friends said, then she may have had to have a "booster" to get her started - sort of like a guy who can't dance but after a beer or 40 he can dance his @ss off.LOL
That was because they added words that I did not say.
Her friends are saying she was a goody goody? LOL
Maybe they didn't read the interview the accuser gave a few weeks ago to N&O where she admits she'd been giving one-on-ones for a few months.
I missed who will be giving the press conference.
"I'm sorry about your family member. But I don't think this is a waste of time; it's what we do on FR. Speculate and talk and tear apart stories that don't make sense."
That's the problem.
The story is never going to make sense - until the trial.
Trying to tear it apart now is futile, because I can guarantee that the police and the DA have 5 times the information than anyone here does.
Fantasizing about a black woman is illegal? Well, lock me up Jesse.
I have watched enough court TV that if I were an innocent person, I would be terrified of going before an American jury. If I were guilty, I would love it.
I heard that Wolfe reference early on in the 'case'.
Now, before anyone asks, the presence of spermicide would not preclude the presence of DNA. The spermicide kills the sperm, it does not destroy the cellular makeup of sperm and semen.
So, IOW there should have been DNA present since she did not bathe...that is why the DA was so confident at first that the DNA would give us the rapists...when the DNA came back neg the DNA changed his opinion and said that the absence of DNA means nothing.........which I don't buy for a minute..
"Guess you don't believe in the old statement that "A good DA can get an indictment against a ham sandwich"."
It's the system we have - love it or leave it.
He had to convince the Grand Jury, and the level of evidence is less stringent for a Grand Jury than it is for a trial.
That's the way it is.
I'll second that.
Then why did they lay this cloud of suspicion on the entire team for so long?
2 Duke Players Charged, DA Hopes For Third
WNCN-TV
9:43 a.m. EDT April 18, 2006
EXCERPT
"It had been my hope to charge all three of the assailants at the same time, but the evidence available to me at this moment does not permit that," District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "Investigation into the identity of the third assailant will continue in the hope that he can also be identified with certainty."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12369776/from/RS.1/
"I'm sorry about your family member."
Thank you for your kindness...but don't feel sorry for him.
Feel sorry for his poor wife and their young children.
"Fine, where's his DNA on the woman?"
I don't know, but it could be in the condom he used. I don't know about you, but in the unlikely event that I had intercourse with a stripper I didn't know, I'd be using a condom, drunk or sober.
I'm going to withhold all opinion on this case until after the trial and after reading all the evidence that's produced. It's way too early to draw conclusions in this one.
"At the sound of flushing, the group tensed, raised cameras and prepared. Nifong did not emerge with news"
Translation: Gaseous emmissions only; still constipated!
Has that been definitively reported? I've only heard "No DNA," and that the DA suggested the assailant could be wearing a condom.
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.