Reply With Quote
The charges don't matter. It's what can be proved.
I think you still don't know what the charges are.
The charges don't matter. It's what can be proved.
uhhh...that they were married? That she was his daughter and he fathered a child with her?
The black and white of the law says they musty know they are related. "Know" has a specific definition. They are claiming there was no certainty, and that they might be. Can the law prove they "knew" they were related?
I'm not saying it isn't wrong. I'm saying there may be no viable case.
Well, you never know. This guys lawyer is claiming that making it against the law for his client to have sex with doodles the donkey is uncons utional.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2Evhp0P25
Throwing out more stuff for the authorities to have to deal with, and so are you. Off on a tangent.
How does that pertain to proving the black and white of the state law was violated?
The state doesn't have to prove charges that aren't made.
So yeah, the charges are pertty important when it comes to proving charges.
wc may have more personal experience with this than he's letting on.
Always the punk that has to say stupid , Aren't you clamboy.
He did mention he had daughters before, no?
Three charges, all hinging on the third-degree sexual assault. Or am I wrong?
i wasn't talking to you.
yes, but if interrogated, he'll claim he didn't know.He did mention he had daughters before, no?
I know, but you are nothing but a talking punk. Here you are making unfounded personal attack allegations, like always.
I don't have all the information needed, but my default answer to this question is yes, you are wrong.
me thinks he doth protest too much
LOL...
That is always your default MO. Someone is always wrong, but never you.
Have you even looked at the specific charges, past the media allegations? have you looked at the letter of the law? Perhaps you should do so.
porking your own daughters....you sick bas , WC, you......
Just playing the odds in this case.
Are you serious? You didn't even read the article until I ridiculed you into it. You can't reverse the whip after that kind of laziness.Have you even looked at the specific charges, past the media allegations? have you looked at the letter of the law? Perhaps you should do so.
Idiot.
I read the article. I just didn't look anything up till I pointed out the law Blake quoted didn't apply. Now I do credit your words to making me find the pertinent information outside the link. Did you? Do you even know what you are arguing about, or are you just being a stupid chump like always?
Oh, so you just didn't understand anything you read.
OK.There was no reason to do so for my purposes. I also don't google earth the homes of female acquaintances in an attempt to impress them. Such things are not necessary.Now I do credit your words to making me find the pertinent information outside the link. Did you?Yeah, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I also know you are trying to salvage yet another one of your ups.Do you even know what you are arguing about, or are you just being a stupid chump like always?
Where did I say that? I was commenting on how much she looks like him. She could have been his niece and not his daughter - but I never claimed that made it OK.
Should have posted in blue.
WC, the whole point of the trial will be to determine whether or not they knew they were father/daughter or not, I'm guessing. Given they look very similar, and that they possibly lied to the police, I'm guessing that the judge/jury probably won't believe them.
WC is gold in every thread in this forum. I'm almost considering becoming a democrat just so I'm no longer associated with this clown.....thank god this site is anonymous.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions