|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 28, 2003 17:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TheTruth on Jul 28, 2003 18:32:30 GMT -5
First off, it's OLD news like everything else you post. I hope that they still have the tapes to use at the appeal. Obviously there was something exculpatory on them or Drew wouldn't have kept them or allowed his mother to give them to 48 hrs. Maybe the tape of Tonjia looking into the camera and asking how her hair looked was included? 48 hours was very selective in what they showed. Everything was edited out of context to make it look like something entirely different than it was. Anyone watching all the tapes would've known he was telling the truth when he said it was consensual.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 28, 2003 19:43:47 GMT -5
truth lol you to get your appeal rights back frist,whitch i hope luster dose.How can you violate the letter of the law,then wine when someone is found guilty of that law?
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 28, 2003 19:56:19 GMT -5
Maybe LIZ found and "chugged" some GHB before she handed them over. Wonder if it was "MUTUAL" consent
with the television producers?? Oh boy, here we go again.
Better call "truth"..... he'll probably know " EXACTLY " how it happened. The possibility's and "MAYBE'S" will
be countless.
Go ahead "girls"......the floor is "yours".
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 28, 2003 20:01:29 GMT -5
yak bet ya the producers got a hoot out of the tapes.wonder if they think it was consenual? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by RELENTLESSONE on Jul 28, 2003 22:47:47 GMT -5
Hey, Yuk: You failed to answer my ?s re: CONVICT/continued law breaker Duane. Hope you are finally doing your homework. One add'l item tho: Do you think everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial trial per our constitution???
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 30, 2003 22:28:36 GMT -5
ms anon, relentless one, and formerly ms anon;...........
answer MY question straight forward,...and"not to sherry", i will answer yours. No more sidestepping please. It does'nt make a difference if you know him or not. Would you "really" trust him??
And absolutely, yes,...i do believe luster deserves a "FAIL" and impartial trial according to our constitution. I've never disputed that with anyone on this board.
The problem here is our own personal feelings.
|
|
Yak
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by Yak on Jul 30, 2003 22:30:05 GMT -5
My mistake......."FAIR"
|
|
|
|
Post by Sherry on Jul 30, 2003 22:33:02 GMT -5
Personal feelings have NOTHING to do with it. Personal feelings are to be put aside. Justice is blind, remember? It's the rule of law and the constitution that says everyone deserves a fair trial. Andrew Luster is not serving LIFE in prison because he's not husband material or he won't commit or marry. You seem to have no ability to think of anything with any objectivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by stagetec on Jul 30, 2003 22:39:33 GMT -5
sherry Lusters is in prinson because he did't marry?That one's a little far fetch,?
|
|
