Posted on 01/14/2007 4:25:09 PM PST by Howlin
Comments here!
I think DNA Securities is out of business. Don't forget this bozo also got his own DNA mixed into the analysis. What prosecutor or defence team would want to use his lab, knowing prior shoddy practices (and ethical lapses) will come up again and again?
Then the parents, and the alums, need to take Brodhead out. I mean not only take his job, but go after him personally for every single cent he has.
LOL! You are awesome! ;*)
I hear you. I think I'm going back to my news black out too.
Hey! LOL!
LOL!
How do you know Nifong did not interview her? Why would you believe a thing he says?
Do you seriously entertain the idea that Nifong or his office did not after the state lab found no Duke player DNA on her go to her and demand, explain this Ms. "They Did Not Wear Condums!" Do you seriously entertain the idea that Nifong or his office did not after the state lab found DNA from four to seven other men on her and demand, explain this Ms. "No Sex for a Week before the Party." Nifong probably personally and the DPD and his investigator at his direction most certainly asked her about all these problems with the evidence.
He was trying to win an election not commit professional suicide. He has lied to the press. He has lied in open court. Why would you believe it just because he says he did not interview her. He said that because he does not want to be arrested for this frame job. But it is just one more lie in this hoax.
If you want to reach conservatives go on fox. If you want to reach left leaning moderates and liberals, go on Sixty minutes.
The Repubican base is at most 36 percent of the voters. Bush needs to convert about 1 in 4 of the 60 minutes viewers to gain in the polls.
Refusing to go on 60 minutes like refusing to go into battle because that is where the enemy is.
If he is a law professor at Duke, I think that he has been speaking out about this case almost from the beginning.
The most interesting part of the 60-Minutes presentation was the question of whether any of the kids were going back to Duke; the one father as much as said no way in the world and I can't imagine any parent in his right mind wanting to send a kid to ANY school in or around Durham NC at this point. Aside from every other problem Duke has, they need to move.
Yep that is the Duke law professor who was on Ed Bradley's segment, may Mr. Bradley RIP.
Was she talking about Precious?? What men have abused her? This is her 2nd go around on falsely crying rape. She screwed around on her husband. I'm just not seeing any abuse done TO her. She isn't anyones victim. She's a willing participant in this hoax. In my humble opinion...
They have both reaped the whirlwind.
This is the guy who made the statement that Nifong was "mooning the system" with this latest version of the ho's story. I believe he teaches law at Duke.
This makes my blood boil. I don't recall the lefty media calling ex42 MISTER Clinton. They still think that the word after President is Clinton.
"Nifong will probably get a serious reprimand from the state bar, with perhaps even a suspension of his license to practice for some period of time."
Although it's hard to say, I think you're right on that one.
"I still think a private lawsuit by the defendants against Nifong or the City of Durham has little chance of succeeding, although the agreement by Nifong with the DNA lab not to share the exculpatory portions of the DNA report makes it a much closer call on a motion to dismiss a Section 1983 claim. I think in order to succeed, the defendants would need a smoking gun as to improper motive by Nifong (e.g., a statement by Nifong to a police detective or someone that he wants to 'get' these boys in order to win re-election)."
I must disagree. First, the results of the disciplinary proceedings would be fully admissible in such a lawsuit, and could be devastating. Second, the DNA suppression alone would be more than enough evidence of an intentional act to deprive the defendants of their constitutional rights to defeat a motion for dismissal, and could, in and of itself, be sufficient to support a plaintiff's verdict. Third, such a lawsuit could very well succeed even without "smoking gun"-type evidence of improper motive, because I've seen plaintiffs win cases on the basis of circumstantial evidence much weaker than that present here.
http://www.depakoteer.com/
DEPAKOTE (divalproex sodium* delayed release tablets) is approved for three uses.
DEPAKOTE is approved for the treatment of manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. A manic episode is a distinct period of abnormally and persistent elevated and irritable mood that may also involve aggressive behavior.
DEPAKOTE is also approved to help people with epilepsy manage their seizures. DEPAKOTE is an epilepsy drug for adults and children over 10 years old. It is approved to treat the following types of epileptic seizures: Complex partial seizures in adults and children down to the age of 10, and simple and complex absence seizures.
Additionally, DEPAKOTE is prescribed for the prevention of migraine headaches.
Thanks for posting that. Haven't watched any political TV today.
I just watched the first few minutes and the commentator mentioned that he doesn't use a headset.
Oooooops, my bad! Sorry. That is what I get for jumping on a thread and not reading all the way through.
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.