[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
[-]
>This is another case where I think the truth is somewhere in between...
[-]
I never saw any of the trial so I can't offer an opinion...
>Bill
Hi Bill,
This is the problem that women reporting sexual attacks always face. The
stark truth is typically met with stories based on nothing but pure
speculation based only on a unwillingness to believe.
There has not been a single refutation of any of Clinton's accusers stories.
If there have been I have yet to hear them. They have had supporting
information even from their detractors. Clinton, unlike them, has been
shown to be a notorious liar and his motives are undeniable. (I realize
this was about McKinney's trial and acquittal but I am not as familiar with
the case as a whole. The resemblance is unmistakable and has hardly passed
notice.)
Yet we get the line that "the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween."
Such cynicism is worthless in divining the truth. It is not akin to a
healthy skepticism which looks for truth without prejudging matters.
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
