I agree.... I just have this nagging question as to why
the prosecution has taken it this far.
On Thursday, October 16, 2003, at 11:03 AM, Charles wrote:
On the Bryant case.
�
The prosecution's witness testified that the victim first didn't respond to the question of whether she told him no or not.
�
The prosecution's witness testified that the victim later said she said no and the defendant stopped.
�
The prosecution's witness testified that the fluids found in the rape examination belonged to someone other than the defendant.
�
The prosecution's witness testified that pubic hairs found in the victim's panties during the rape examination belonged to a white male.
�
The prosecutions witness testified that he (the investigator) was dubious that rape occurred based on his experience as a law enforcement officer.
�
Seriously, don't these statements made by the *PROSECUTION* make it look bad for their case?� I seriously cannot see a rape case being made unless the victim gets on the stand and says the detective is lying.� The only way I can see them even making a case with this is by claiming she didn't know what she was saying in the interviews.� That, then, would sound to me like making the facts fit the case instead of making the case fit the facts.
�
So unless the prosecutor's own witness is lying I just can't see him being guilty.
�
Guilty of adultery, you bet.� But not of rape.
�
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
�
�
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
