Posted on 10/21/2005 2:18:09 PM PDT by doug from upland
No, she says she made the statement immediately. Perhaps she did but just reading where she claimed that means nothing.
We also just have her word that she was believed. The fact that no one was ever caught doesn't help.
As I recall, Ms. Broaddrick's contemporaneous statements to her friends and relatives were much closer in time than "a few days" later, and there were also the direct, contemporaneous observations of those people of her physical injuries.
I'm not at all convinced these statements would be excluded as hearsay, and, although I would have to go back and look at the facts more closely, my initial reaction is that these statements would indeed be admissible as evidence against Clinton.
Huh?
Oh, come on. I may only have a copy of her memoriors, true. The police reports, however, are out there.
Broaddrick has no such paper trail.
You're grasping at straws.
When you have a copy of that police report then you can quote from it, just repeating Estrich's statements means very little.
The only hearsay exception I can think of that would allow her friends' statements (which were not contemporaneous, as I recall) is the excited utterence exception - but it would be hard to demonstrate that Broaddrick was "excited" much more than 12 hrs. or so after the event.
To: jude24
So basically, all you have is her statement, probably made years after the alleged event with no corroboration by anyone else.
99 posted on 10/21/2005 4:21:01 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I was referring to Estrich's statement not Juanita's.
Doh, now I really, really apologize. You were talking about Estrich's rape. Sorry.
I finally got it. I'm going to my room now.
We should enmasse request that Hannity provide Juanita equal time on the show to rebut Estrich's perverted liar charges and the character assasination of Juanita by Estrich and to demand an apology. Estrich is not interested in hearing the truth according to her two word e-mail to you, the exact words "not interested". Hannity's audience fairly needs to hear that after Hannity allowed Estrich to say those horrible things on his show.
IIRC I think it was that very evening she made statements to her friends and/or relatives, and when they observed her physical condition.
If you wanted to look into it some of the old articles describing what and when she reportedly said and to whom, they are probably in the FR archives.
This might make an interesting case to consider the application of the "excited utterance" exception with your evidence professor and your friends.
I put it on Hannity's blog. I don't know that Juanita wants to go on Sean's show again.
It would have been on either O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, with the latter being more likely I think. I don't think it was a Sunday show.
She can call Juanita liar but that doesnt change the fact Susan is plug-ugly.
I used my words carefully. She did not say liar. But that is what we were to conclude if she believed Bill Clinton was telling the truth. Juanita must be lying if her friend Bill was telling the truth.
I have seen pictures of Estrich when she was young and she wasn't that bad looking. She certainly did not age well tho.
She doesn't want to know the truth? Or is it that she does know the truth but would prefer to cover up for Bill and Hill?
I don't believe her for a second. Not one bloody second. Liars readily believe other liars.......there's a hint for you, Doug.
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.