|
Post by stagetec on Jul 16, 2003 11:54:42 GMT -5
----- what more do you want,iv listed all the charger,luster was found guilty of.Put up a lonk to the laws in california for all to read.For one i think Luster is guilty,and all you have to do is read the laws.BTW i know of at lease 12 people who would take my side.
|
|
|
Post by Stupid on Jul 16, 2003 11:54:56 GMT -5
Are you trying to tell me something?
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 16, 2003 12:04:41 GMT -5
I am on no ones side, there are two different camps here. Just wanted a debate. For Instance, is it true that Tonija said in the tape 'is the camera on' then claimed on stand she didn't know she was being filmed?
Stupid, just telling you I love ya and want you back home... lol
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 16, 2003 12:08:12 GMT -5
----- do you need the link to all the laws?
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 16, 2003 12:18:04 GMT -5
Tonjia was proven to be lying in a Perry Mason moment in open court. The D.A. admitted to the judge that she lied and the jury found him not guilty on the charge as a result of her admitting she took the ghb knowing what it was because Drew told her. She indeed looked into the camera and asked if it was on and how her hair looked. The judge would not allow the tape to be shown to the jury because he forbade the defense to argue consent. The judge would not even allow the jury to be informed of her perjury or take any action against her for it. It stinks on ice.
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 16, 2003 12:18:10 GMT -5
No, don't need them. Laws can put the innocenct in jail, not saying Luster is, and I no Luster Lubber. www.innocenceproject.org/
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 16, 2003 12:22:47 GMT -5
-----, he doesn't want an honest debate. If he is capable enough to find the charges, he has surely seen Mr. Diamond's statements regarding these events in various articles on the net. He selects only what supports his b.s. and deliberate misconstruing of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 16, 2003 12:25:42 GMT -5
truth how about luster on camera??? It starts with luster sitting,on the bed,with a passed out woman.Lets see now what did luster say,oh yes,wow a passed out woman,and i can do anything i want to her.Then he rolls her over and sticks it up the WAAAZOOOOOOOO!!!!! and pounds one home. think the jury got a clue EH?
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 16, 2003 12:27:09 GMT -5
Regarding law, it is my understanding that technicaly he was guilty of rape but whether they consented or not and that the D.A. had to allow the girls to lie or the Jury would have thrown it out. Is this true?
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 16, 2003 12:29:55 GMT -5
I don't think they did ST. Everything they were shown was just what the D.A. wanted them to see. Nobody ever said the sex didn't happen. Whether or not they were acting is the only question. See the Globe article. Luster was an amateur porn producer, and being so close to L.A., the porn production capital of the world, and given that the setting was the club scene and he was a good looking guy and thought to be loaded, he had no shortage of willing "victims".
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 16, 2003 12:32:29 GMT -5
ST, do a search for fetish porn on the web and then come back and tell me that you find it hard to believe that these women would participate in something as mild as simple sex while they were unconcious. Drive down any city block in L.A. and tell me that only men go to those shops or buy those things. Hi -----
|
|
|
Post by ----- on Jul 16, 2003 12:33:37 GMT -5
See Stagetec,
When you start drilling this down, it becomes interesting, eh?
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 16, 2003 12:37:14 GMT -5
sherry how can anyone act when they are passed out,and be a willing victim? Oh yes im in L.A. all the time,and see the shops and know of the life stile.
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 16, 2003 12:44:35 GMT -5
The D.A. knew these women were lying. Their stories were so weak and implausible that no experienced investigator could claim to have not seen the inconsistencies. They suborned perjury. They had to because the jury would never have convicted him if they couldn't play to the emotions of the jury with "victims". He was guilty of violating the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law and they knew it. Who would convict a guy for having sex with a woman who truly was passed out or just pretending to be, if they knew she gave him permission to do just that? Who would ruin the man's life, his children and family's lives, and put him in maximum security prison with the scarlet letter of rapist if they knew the women took the ghb willingly and knowingly participated? The D.A. knew this. The judge knew this. That's why the judge would not allow the defense to show them the tape proving it was consensual. They would be allowed to bring a charge of rape whether it was consensual or not under CA. law simply because the woman was unconcious. It says that the woman has no right to decide for herself, so technically they could've charged him with rape if all 3 of the women had come to court to defend him instead of as accusers, but no fairminded or decent member of a jury would've gone along. Why the witchhunt of Andrew Luster, is a question I can't answer. There were plenty of cases where the perp really did do it against the woman's will, so why choose this man to try to set their precedent?
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 16, 2003 12:44:49 GMT -5
----- yes it is,but iv run into this .Know someone that use to live with the manson gang,and took off when things got wired.But to this day he will take the side that manson was not guilty of murder.
|
|