[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In a message dated 98-03-20 18:50:23 EST, you write:
>
><<If "sexual aversion," whatever the hell that is, can be refuted by Jones'
> sex life it is pertinent.
>
> Got any ideas how that would be done? Think even Masters and Johnson could
> do that? >>
>Actually that shouldn't be too hard. If I claim that last month's rainstorm
>left me with an aversion to vodka, you need only show that my intake of vodka
>is unchanged from or greater than that of previous months to cast doubt on my
>claim of a sudden aversion.
>Doc
Hell, Doc, I have doubt about this ridiculous claim without the slightest
bit of evidence.
But aversion to sex and partaking of it wouldn't seem to be the same thing.
Maybe she did a lot more, trying to overcome the problem? :-}
Frankly I suspect it is a ruse to overcome the weakness in proving
intimidation. The intimidation is obvious but getting a jury to buy it
against Our Beloved President is going to be tough.
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
