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
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
