Nope. She’s remembering accurately as far as Bricker is concerned. But one thing can’t be contested: never once did our dear lawyer scold anyone for jumping to conclusions during that case. It doesn’t matter that the stripper was a liar. No one knew this while this investigation was occurring. But that didn’t stop Bricker and his merry cast of crazies from calling the woman a “lying whore” from almost the very beginning. And using crime statistics to justify their skepticism. Here we have a story that sounds fishy on its face, and yet the same people who were quick with the “lying whore” accusation find it 100% plausible, breaking their backs to explain the weakest areas of the story. Like the missing bandage (Oh, he took it off! That’s what macho guys do, even when their hands are cuffed and they are supposedly demanding urgent medical care!)
But a woman who says a group of drunken frat guys raped her is automatically a lying whore, because she’s black and they’re white, and white guys don’t dig the coloreds.
Just do a google search on “Lying Whore” and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
I am talking specifically about Bricker. His silly “what if” refrain and insistence that we don’t know enough to reach any conclusions about Zimmermans guilt, very noticeably were absent in the Duke case. Then, he was a vocal advocate for letting spurious info (like race) influence the way he assessed the accuser’s claims. Then, he showed no restraint in making judgements about the investigators involved, even though his information sources came from the media…just the same as this case.
But now, all of a sudden, we must engage in all kinds of creative mental gymnastics just so we can accept the possibility that Zimmman acted lawfully.
You are, I think, reading my posts through some heavily tinted glasses – glasses tinted with your own bias.
I am happily proposing all sorts of theories. I notice you don’t mind (or, perhaps, even notice) when I do the same thing with theories that don’t help Zimmerman. Merely proposing a theory is intended to unseat you, and the people who are firmly in the “Zimmerman is innocent” camp, from their perches. Because I have said, and continue to say, that without Zimmerman’s statement, the autopsy report, the eyewitness statements – all of them – and the EMT report, any attempt to craft a story and say, “This is certainly what happened!” are ludicrous.
So if you say, “This is certainly what happened,” my response is to craft a hypothetical and ask you why it couldn’t be true.
Of course, your response to such challenges is to simply insist, over and over, that it couldn’t, no matter what evidence might support it.
To answer your first question:
My first post to the thread titled “Lying Whore,” was #182. It responded to another poster’s statement that false rape allegations were rare:
My post went on to reply to another comment by the same poster, who expressed outrage that there was victim blaming going on; she said she had a friend who had been raped and was seeing a similar pattern. I replied:
So my initial post to that thread showed that my disbelief at that point had to do with contradictory factual elements in her story, and had nothing to do with her race.
Why not? You keep asserting this, but I still don’t understand why it’s true.
If 8% of all rape allegations are false, it seems obvious to me that if we know nothing else about a particular rape allegation, there’s an 8% chance it’s false. Why is that wrong?
I don’t know who argued what in another thread; I’m not even willing to wade back through this one to find out how each and every individual stands on each and every aspect of this case.
What I do know is that you all continue to wander off the topic of arguing about the case and what we know about it, and start attacking one another’s opinions based on biases, either real or perceived.
Argue this all you like. Question one another’s beliefs. But stay away from direct attacks on the person (“you only think X because you’re Y”). Otherwise I’m going to have to shut down the thread if all it has become is three or four people going around and around the same old bush. Maybe a new thread with a new premise would give people a fresh perspective? I’m open to ideas.
But I’ve never said anything remotely like “This is certainly what happened”. If you’re going to create strawman, please be slicker than this.
The main people in this thread posting absolute statements are those who, very conveniently, you’re not hounding. Like treis who has repeatedly made matter-of-fact declarations like “There wasn’t any medical reason for him to go to the hospital.” He didn’t even bother putting an “if” clause in there, and yet instead of challenging him on this you attack me me when I dismissed his sureity sarcastically.
This doesn’t answer my question. What information did you have to support your belief that the accuser was lying, other than her race and misinterpreted crime statistics? What evidence that saw the light of day supported your view that the lacrosse players were innocent? Medical records? Witness statements? A history of making false reports? What?
You certainly don’t want to go down the road of copying and pasting posts from that trainwreck (and its spin offs), if you want folks to keep on seeing you as a legal expert who is adept at analyzing facts in a logical and fair-minded way. I was actually being kind to you by not posting any links to that thread, and then here you go and did it yourself. Oh well. Hope that works out well for you.
Looks like Zimmerman’s attorneys are moving the judge be removed. I think that’s a pretty good move in this case, the judge probably should have just gone ahead and recused herself. Her husband is taking money to talk about the case on national TV, there is too much potential impropriety in such a scenario. If the judge talks about confidential case details to her husband, she basically can directly enrich herself (through his earnings) by doing so, and that’s not a situation I want any judge being in–even if the judge’s integrity is itself unquestioned.
Your cite says that Zimmerman’s attorney made that claim. Was this the same attorney that no longer works for Zimmerman? Is that who you meant when you said “He claims?” The “he” in that sentence was the attorney, not Zimmerman?
ETA: you did say “supposedly,” which I appreciate. I’m not being censorious, just clarifying.
Bricker didn’t hound me. I took that to mean that my postulation while speculative, fit with the known facts and was reasonably plausible.
You tend to be more dramatic and bombastic in your posts. It makes it hard for anyone on either side of the issue to engage you in any manner. Anything short of complete agreement with your speculation is meet with dismissal, derision, or condemnation.
I think you and I are on the same side, yet you have treated me almost the same as you have treated Bricker when I questioned the likelihood of something you postulated.
It seems you are intent to make this case (and this thread) into something more than justice being served. :rolleyes: