You really are the idiot that everyone says you are. You don't need DNA evidence in a case like this. Think about it. Or try to think about it. If the light bulb comes on, then return here and say "Oh, I get it. Never mind my comment about DNA evidence."
Instead of insulting me please give me one corrobative evidence that is non-testimony. No insults - just evidence of you can hang with that. One insult and you are out of here forever.
Go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Instead of insulting me please give me one corrobative evidence that is non-testimony. No insults - just evidence of you can hang with that. One insult and you are out of here forever.
Go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Please give 1 iota of non-allegatory evidence. Just one!
Go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Please give 1 iota of non-allegatory evidence. Just one!
Again, go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what "non-allegatory" and/or corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Please give 1 iota of non-allegatory evidence. Just one!
Again, go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what "non-allegatory" and/or corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
No ... I am not reading anything. YOU show me one piece of evidence that was not 20-yr-old allegations. Thanks on advance.
Instead of insulting me please give me one corrobative evidence that is non-testimony. No insults - just evidence of you can hang with that. One insult and you are out of here forever.
Go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Translation: there is no corroborative evidence. Got it!!!
Again, go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what "non-allegatory" and/or corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
No ... I am not reading anything. YOU show me one piece of evidence that was not 20-yr-old allegations. Thanks on advance.
I'm not sure what to make of admission, other than to point out that your refusal to read and inform yourself about topics that you post opinions about is very likely the reason you ask idiotic questions like "Was there DNA evidence?" in the first place.
No ... I am not reading anything. YOU show me one piece of evidence that was not 20-yr-old allegations. Thanks on advance.
I'm not sure what to make of admission, other than to point out that your refusal to read and inform yourself about topics that you post opinions about is very likely the reason you ask idiotic questions like "Was there DNA evidence?" in the first place.
Fo 20 pages - no evidence - give me some cooraborative evidence - if not please be quiet.
I'm not sure what to make of admission, other than to point out that your refusal to read and inform yourself about topics that you post opinions about is very likely the reason you ask idiotic questions like "Was there DNA evidence?" in the first place.
Fo 20 pages - no evidence - give me some cooraborative evidence - if not please be quiet.
You've been told where to find the evidence you are interested in. You refuse to read it. And now you are in here yet again asking where the evidence is. Doesn't make any sense. I'm beginning to understand why you stridently asked "Was there DNA evidence?" in a case where the defendant admitted to having sex with the accuser. You're full on barmy, mate.
Go read the trial transcripts if you want to figure out what corroborative evidence there is. But for now, just realize that asking about DNA evidence is idiotic in a cases like this. Have you figured out why yet? Let us know when it becomes clear to you, and then you can be taken seriously.
Translation: there is no corroborative evidence. Got it!!!
Okay. You can conclude I shot JFK while you're at it. Conclude anything you want from anything you see. But that's not how normal people reach conclusions. Normal people gather information, then run that information through a series of rules. You've stated that you won't do that.
Translation: there is no corroborative evidence. Got it!!!
Okay. You can conclude I shot JFK while you're at it. Conclude anything you want from anything you see. But that's not how normal people reach conclusions. Normal people gather information, then run that information through a series of rules. You've stated that you won't do that.
One piece of evidence - just one! He was convicted of multiple rapes - what was the non-allegatory evidence?
The main concern is that there is no evidence at all that a crime actually took place. If there was evidence that a crime took place then it would be reasonable to believe it was probably committed by Danny. But there is no evidence that any crime was committed by anyone, let alone by Mr. Masterson. This should have been the defenses main argument. As a juror, I would have had no trouble finding him not guilty since there was no evidence of a crime being committed.
I'm sorry that the raping rapist raper that you love so much is now going to get raped so very badly himself. It's so sad. What a charade.
Meanwhile you should probably consider why you bump old threads about a convicted rapist on a running message board when you should be in bed with your wife and kids.
Oh, wait. You're actually a bitter, lonely loser with no family.
I'm sorry that the raping rapist raper that you love so much is now going to get raped so very badly himself. It's so sad. What a charade.
Meanwhile you should probably consider why you bump old threads about a convicted rapist on a running message board when you should be in bed with your wife and kids.
Oh, wait. You're actually a bitter, lonely loser with no family.
Hahaha, me bitter? Now that is funny. A real hoot.
There's no way anyone, man or woman, should be convicted of anything without proof. This is a mockery of justice, let's not kid ourselves on that.
