JUANITA BROADDRICK FLUNKS LIE DETECTOR TEST
Mark S. Bilk
>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
There is nothing mystical about these voice frequency variations.
The fundamental frequency of the voice is generated by the opening
and closing of the vocal folds, at a rate which depends on their
mass, tension, and the pressure underneath them generated by the
diaphraghm and rib-cage muscles. The frequency ranges from 50 to
300 Hz (pulses per second), depending on the size and gender of
the person and the aforementioned parameters. The voice usually
sounds like it has a higher pitch than that because the throat,
mouth, and nose act as a filter that favors the higher harmonics
of the vocal fold sound.
The voice frequency variations are not changed by the transmission
of the voice through telephone, radio, TV, or tape sound systems,
so a VSA test can be done on the sound signal of a TV show just
as well as with the person speaking into a microphone that's
connected directly to the analyzer.
>Hell, physically connected lie detector tests are not allowed in a court of
>law "as proof". Please go on and on about how they are.
Polygraph and VSA tests are not total proof of veracity, but they
provide strong evidence of relative stress. Since Broaddrick
presents no actual evidence whatsoever that a rape by Clinton
occurred, the estimate of her veracity depends entirely on the
degree to which her vocal delivery sounds sincere. It is
therefore very appropriate to analyse her voice for stress.
<LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/story-00001.html
Lie Detector Reveals. . .Clinton Rape Charge Is A LIE
Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in an Arkansas hotel
room 21 years ago is a LIE!
She did have sex with Clinton that day -- but it wasn't forced.
That's the conclusion of veteran Palm Beach investigator Jack Harwood, who
analyzed Broaddrick's statements with the Verimetrics Instrument, a
high-tech truth machine that measures stress in a person's voice.
"Broaddrick is telling the truth that she had sex with Clinton in the hotel
room," said Harwood.
"During her telling of the sexual encounter, she has low stress in her
voice, which shows she is being truthful. But she's lying when she couches
it as an unwanted assault or attack by Clinton."
The ENQUIRER asked Harwood to use the Verimetrics machine to measure stress
in Broaddrick's voice during her interview on TV's "Dateline" on February
24, when she told about her 1978 encounter with then Arkansas attorney
general Clinton.
The TV interviewer asked Broaddrick: "Is there any way at all that Bill
Clinton could have thought that this was consensual?"
Broaddrick replied: "No, not with what I told him, and with how I tried to
push him away. It was not consensual."
The Verimetrics machine clearly shows that statement is not true, said
Harwood. "There is a great deal of stress in her voice which registers on
the computerized machine. With the words 'It was not consensual,' the
machine blew off the charts."
Broaddrick was asked about her rendezvous with Clinton in her Little Rock
hotel room: "So you thought this was going to be a business meeting?" She
replied, "Yes I did. I really did."
Said Harwood: "The graph spikes up to the top when she answers this
question. She definitely knew this was going to be more than a business
meeting with Clinton. She isn't telling the truth to 'Dateline.'"
After Broaddrick said Clinton bit her lip and had sex with her against her
will, the interviewer asked her: "And there is no doubt in your mind that
that's what happened?"
She replied: "No doubt whatsoever."
"Broaddrick is not being truthful in this answer either," Harwood explained.
"She has tremendous stress in her voice which shows she is lying."
The investigator's machine is a computerized version of the Psychological
Stress Evaluator and is used by law enforcement agencies around the world.
M Holmes
: In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
: the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
FoFP
Robert Sheaffer
>In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>
>A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>the voice, which are inaudible to the ear.
Right. There is NO scientifically-valid evidence of the validity of this
so-called test. Why do you expect anyone to accept this?
This kind of junk is widely used by promoters of the paranormal to "prove"
that some encounter with UFO aliens or Bigfoot is supposedly real. No court
anywhere allows this as "evidence" of anything.
>http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/story-00001.html
>
>Lie Detector Reveals. . .Clinton Rape Charge Is A LIE
>
>Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in an Arkansas hotel
>room 21 years ago is a LIE!
>
>She did have sex with Clinton that day -- but it wasn't forced.
Based on some of the stories they have run earlier, and based upon the fact
that the National Enquirer and Bill Clinton share the same law firm, some
people have concluded that Clinton is using the National Enquirer as a
'back-door' means of getting HIS SIDE of the story out. The publication
of this article strongly supports that conjecture. If so, that gives
additional credibility to some of their earlier stories that have a pro-Bill,
anti-Hillary slant. Such as "Hillary Beats up Bill", and stories suggesting
that Bill wants out of their marriage, but Hillary is essentially blackmailing
him into staying (she knows ALL his dirty little secrets).
--
Robert Sheaffer - rob...@patriarchy.com - Skeptical to the Max!
Visit my Home Page - http://www.patriarchy.com/~sheaffer
Skeptical Resources Debunking All Manner of Bogus Claims
Also: Opera / Astronomy / Mens Issues / more
Mark S. Bilk
>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>
>: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>
>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
This Right-wing liar is using the propaganda technique of
willful ignorance, claiming that the facts presented by
the opposition are just too hard for his poor widdle brain
to understand, and therefore can't be true, whereupon he
smears them as being akin to superstition.
However, for those who would like to know more rather than
less, and prefer to reason from facts to conclusions rather
than the reverse, here is a bibliography on stress evaluation
by VSA and polygraph, furnished by a company that sells VSA
equipment. Note: Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) is an
alternate term for Voice Stress Analyzer (VSA).
http://www.diogenesgroup.com/read.htm
http://www.diogenesgroup.com
1. The Assassination Tapes. An electronic probe into the Murder of
John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup. George O'Toole. Penthouse
Press Ltd. New York 1975.
2. Audio Stress Analysis.A Validation and Reliability Study of The
Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE). Heisse, John W. Jr., M.D.,
Self, Burlington, Vermont, 1976.
3. Body Language. Fast, J. M. Evans and Company, New York, 1970.
4. Color Test. Luscher, Dr. Max. Pocket Books, (Simon & Schuster,
Inc,) New York, 1969.
5. A Comparison of the Psychological Stress Evaluator and the
Polygraph. Kriete, R. and Stanley, R. Presented at the First
Annual Seminar of the International Society of Stress Analysts,
Chicago, 1974.
6. Criminal Interrogations and Confessions. Inbau, Fred E. And John
E. Reid. The Williams and Ailkins Co., Baltimore, Maryland, 1967.
7. Current Evidence for the Existence of Laryngeal Macrotremor and
Microtremor.Thomas Schipp, PhD., and Kryzysztof, Izdebski. Jornal
of Forensic Sciences, 1980.
8. The Defense Never Rests. Bailey, F. Lee, and H. Aronson. Signet,
New York 1972.
9. For the Defense. Bailey, F. Lee. The New American Library, INC.
New York 1976.
10. Detecting Deception:The Promise and the Reality of Voice Stress
Analysis. Frank Horvath, PhD. Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFSCA,
Vol 27, No. 2, 1982. pp. 340-351.
11. The Forgotten Language. Fromm, Erich. Grove Press, INC. New York,
1951.
12. The 14 Question Modified Zone of Comparison Test. Heisse, John W.
Jr. Stressing Comments, International Society of Stress Analysts,
Vol 3, No 7, June 1975. pp 1-4.
13. Games People Play.Berne, Eric, M.D., Grove Press, INC. 1964.
14. How to Read a Person Like a Book. Nierenberger, gerald I. And
Calero. Cornerstone Library, New York, 1971.
15. Hypnosis in Criminal Investigation. Arons, Harry. Charles C.
Thomas, Illinois: 1967.
16. My Life on Trial. Belli, Melvin. Popular Library, New York 1977.
17. Never Say Lie-How to Beat the Machines, the Interviews, the
Chemical Tests. Scott French and Paul Van Houten, PhD. Palladin
Press, Boulder, Colorado. 1987.
18. Physiological Tremor. Lippold, O. Scientific American. Vol. 224,
No. 3, pp 65-73, 1971.
19. Presumed Guilty. Roffman, Howard. A.S. Barnes and Company, Inc.
New York, 1976.
20. Principles of Psychophysiology. An Introductory Text and Readings.
Academic Press, New York, 1966.
21. Report of the Special Hearing Officer of the Secretary of State of
Florida Regarding Public Hearings of the Department of State of
Florida (concerning the) Psychological Stress Evaluator. Florida.
O'Neill, W.C. Secretary of State, Tallahassee, Florida, 1974.
22. Simplified Chart Reading. Heisse, J.W., Jr. Burlington, Vt., 1974.
23. The Spymaster Unmasked. The Communist world's Most Successful
Espionage Chief Breaks His Silence for the First Time. U.S.News &
World Report, pp 38-46, April 12, 1993.
24. Truth and Deception: The Polygraph ("Lie Detector") Technique.
John E. Reid and Fred E. Inbau. The Williams and Wilking Company.
Baltimore 1966 (1969)
25. You Can Analyze Handwriting. Holder, R. Wilshire Book Company, No.
Hollywood, California, 1971.
26. The Use of Polygraph and Similar Devices by Federal Agencies.
Hearing, 93rd Congress, U.S. Congress House Committee on
Government Operations, Sub-committee of Truth and Deception in
Government. 2nd Session, June 4 and 5, 1974. Government Printing
Office, Washington, 1974.
27. The Verimetrics Computer System: A Reliability Study. Heisse, John
W. Jr., M.D. Self, Burlington, Vermont. 1992.
28. Voice Printing, How the Law Can Read The Voice Of Crime. Eugene B.
Block, David McKay Company, New York, 1975.
29. Veronica School District 47J, Petitioner v. WAYNE ACTON, et ux,
Guardians ad Litem for JAMES ACTON 515 US - -,132L Ed 2d 564, 115
S Ct -- |No 94-590| Argued March 28, 1995. Decided June 26, 1995.
US Supreme Court Reports, 132 L Ed (Drug Abuse Screening by
Urinalysis Decision.)
30. Winning Through Intimidation. Ringer, R.J. Fawcett Crest, Los
Angeles, 1973.
Mark S. Bilk
>In article <msbF7z...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>>
>>A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>>the voice, which are inaudible to the ear.
>
>so-called test. Why do you expect anyone to accept this?
The appended bibliography from a manufacturer of Voice Stress
Analysis equipment presumably contains such evidence. Some of
its references are to the scientific literature. (Of these,
one is particularly interesting to me, since I was employed
by the author in his speech science laboratory for several
years, during which he and his colleagues published numerous
peer-reviewed articles.)
>This kind of junk is widely used by promoters of the paranormal to "prove"
>that some encounter with UFO aliens or Bigfoot is supposedly real. No court
>anywhere allows this as "evidence" of anything.
Mr. Sheaffer is using smear tactics here. Polygraphs and
VSAs are used by numerous law enforcement agencies, including
the FBI. While the evidence that such machines provide is
not definitive (hence its inadmissibility in court), it is
nevertheless fairly accurate. Like weather reports and
opinion polls, such information comes with a probability
factor of less than 100% reliability, but far above random
chance. One would not want to stake one's life upon the
weather forecast being exactly accurate, yet airlines,
farmers, and many others whose business is affected by the
weather utilize those forecasts, taking into account the
associated probability of their accuracy.
It's interesting to note that Robert Sheaffer is an avowed
Male Supremacist, and maintains an extensive website of
justifications for men dominating and controlling women.
He hates lesbians and believes they are out to destroy
men. Of course it is precisely such bigotry that moti-
vates rapists.
>>http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/story-00001.html
>>
>>Lie Detector Reveals. . .Clinton Rape Charge Is A LIE
>>
>>Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in an Arkansas hotel
>>room 21 years ago is a LIE!
>>
>>She did have sex with Clinton that day -- but it wasn't forced.
>
>Based on some of the stories they have run earlier, and based upon the fact
>that the National Enquirer and Bill Clinton share the same law firm, some
>people have concluded that Clinton is using the National Enquirer as a
>'back-door' means of getting HIS SIDE of the story out. The publication
>of this article strongly supports that conjecture. If so, that gives
>additional credibility to some of their earlier stories that have a pro-Bill,
>anti-Hillary slant. Such as "Hillary Beats up Bill", and stories suggesting
>that Bill wants out of their marriage, but Hillary is essentially blackmailing
>him into staying (she knows ALL his dirty little secrets).
Note that when Sheaffer is attempting to justify his pre-
selected conclusions, he employs methods of pseudo-reasoning
that he would immediately condemn in his opponents. In this
case he claims that since the National Enquirer and Bill
Clinton use the same law firm, the factual data reported
by the NE is not valid.
However, in this case, anyone having access to a tape of
Broaddrick's NBC interview and a voice stress analyzer
(there are even software versions available for PCs) can
repeat the measurements for themselves.
Here is a bibliography on stress evaluation by VSA and
http://www.diogenesgroup.com/read.htm
http://www.diogenesgroup.com
<LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
RHA
>: In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>
>: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>
>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
Not quite. It is a scientific version of the House
Managers' request for live testimony so Senators
could observe demeanor and voice inflection. And
then there's your side's famous clinton videotape
"proving" his "mental focus."
Now. Don't you feel foolish?
>
>FoFP
--
rha
Joseph R. Darancette
>In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>
>A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
>caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>
You missed his point.... He did an analysis of an electronic voice not
a real voice. Anyone who has used a telephone or listened to their
own voice in a recording can tell you it ain't the same. You would
most likely get a better analysis reading chicken entrals.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Mark S. Bilk
You would most likely get a more accurate evaluation of VSA
performance when used on an electronically transmitted voice
if you would take the trouble to learn something about how
the machine and the human voice work, instead of just assuming
your conclusion and working backward to a smear, like all the
other Right-wing morons.
The fundamental frequency of the voice, which is what the
analyzer looks at, is entirely unaffected by electronic
transmission. The non-flatness of the frequency passband of
the channel has an effect on the final speech waveform similar
to, but much smaller than, the filtering of the glottal (vocal
fold) pulse-train by the throat, pharynx, tongue, nasal pas-
sages, etc. This filtering changes the relative amplitudes of
the various harmonics of the glottal wave, but the fundamental
frequency remains exactly the same. Therefore the small vari-
ations in this frequency, caused by tremor of the vocal fold
muscles, and related to stress, are also unchanged by passage
through the electronic channel.
The stress indications provided by the analyzer will therefore
be the same as if the microphone signal were fed directly into it.
M Holmes
:>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
:>: In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
:>:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
:>
:>: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
:>: the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
:>: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
:>: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
:>: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
:>: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
:>
:>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
: This Right-wing liar
Right Wing? Moi? I think not.
: is using the propaganda technique of
: willful ignorance, claiming that the facts presented by
: the opposition are just too hard for his poor widdle brain
: to understand, and therefore can't be true, whereupon he
: smears them as being akin to superstition.
So there really is a device that can be pointed at the television which
will tell you whether or not someone is lying? A device EVEN MORE
ACCURATE than those advertised in leaflets that fall out of the Sunday
comics?
I have a bridge in Scotland you might want to buy...
FoFP
M Holmes
:>: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
:>: the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
:>: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
:>: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
:>: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
:>: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
:>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
: Not quite. It is a scientific version of the House
: Managers' request for live testimony so Senators
: could observe demeanor and voice inflection. And
: then there's your side's famous clinton videotape
: "proving" his "mental focus."
My side? Which side is that then?
: Now. Don't you feel foolish?
I'd have to lose an awful lot of brain cells to feel as foolish as you
actually are.
FoFP
M Holmes
: Mr. Sheaffer is using smear tactics here.
[...]
: It's interesting to note that Robert Sheaffer is an avowed
: Male Supremacist
I think you failed your smear test.
FoFP
Mark S. Bilk
>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: Mr. Sheaffer is using smear tactics here.
>
>: It's interesting to note that Robert Sheaffer is an avowed
>: Male Supremacist
>
>I think you failed your smear test.
No, I wrote the truth. Look at Sheaffer's website
and read his Usenet articles about feminists and
feminism in DejaNews.
He claims explicitly that it is both natural and
good for men to dominate women. This doctrine
encourages rape.
The OldTimer
Mark S. Bilk wrote in message ...
>In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>
>the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
>caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>
>The fundamental frequency of the voice is generated by the opening
>and closing of the vocal folds, at a rate which depends on their
>mass, tension, and the pressure underneath them generated by the
>diaphraghm and rib-cage muscles. The frequency ranges from 50 to
>300 Hz (pulses per second), depending on the size and gender of
>the person and the aforementioned parameters. The voice usually
>sounds like it has a higher pitch than that because the throat,
>mouth, and nose act as a filter that favors the higher harmonics
>of the vocal fold sound.
>
>The voice frequency variations are not changed by the transmission
>of the voice through telephone, radio, TV, or tape sound systems,
>so a VSA test can be done on the sound signal of a TV show just
>as well as with the person speaking into a microphone that's
>connected directly to the analyzer.
>
>>Hell, physically connected lie detector tests are not allowed in a court
of
>>law "as proof". Please go on and on about how they are.
>
>Polygraph and VSA tests are not total proof of veracity, but they
>provide strong evidence of relative stress. Since Broaddrick
>presents no actual evidence whatsoever that a rape by Clinton
>occurred, the estimate of her veracity depends entirely on the
>degree to which her vocal delivery sounds sincere. It is
>therefore very appropriate to analyse her voice for stress.
>
>
>Lie Detector Reveals. . .Clinton Rape Charge Is A LIE
>
>Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in an Arkansas hotel
>room 21 years ago is a LIE!
>
>She did have sex with Clinton that day -- but it wasn't forced.
>
My computer screen type print imaging machine says you are all as full of
shit as a Christmas Turkey. She was raped and Bill Clinton was the rapist.
One of the most enjoyable things about being 65 is
watching the younger generations make the same
dumb mistakes, the same stupid assumptions,
buy the same political scams and fall for the same
societal gimmicks and not having a clue as to what
is really going on. The fun is seeing that look on
their faces, when the truth finally hits them.
The OldTimer
Mark S. Bilk
>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>:>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>:>:In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>:>:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>:>
>:>:A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>:>:the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
>:>:caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>:>:which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>:>:In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>:>:rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>:>
>:>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
>
>: This Right-wing liar
>
>
>:the opposition are just too hard for his poor widdle brain
>:to understand, and therefore can't be true, whereupon he
>:smears them as being akin to superstition.
>
>will tell you whether or not someone is lying? A device EVEN MORE
>ACCURATE than those advertised in leaflets that fall out of the Sunday
>comics?
>I have a bridge in Scotland you might want to buy...
Again, "M Holmes" lies for the Right-wing by pretending
to be mystified about the Voice Stress Analyzer. He's
definitely lying, because the article he responded to
contained a bibliography of thirty books and articles
about the VSA. He *omitted* this bibliography in his
followup, so that his lie about the VSA being a hoax
would seem believeable to the reader.
Here's the bibliography again; note that some of the
references are to scientific articles and government
documents. Following that is the article about the VSA
test performed on Broaddrick. Note that item 27 in the
bibliography is a report on the Verimetrics VSA, which
was the machine used in the analysis of Broaddrick's
speech.
http://www.diogenesgroup.com/read.htm
http://www.diogenesgroup.com
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/story-00001.html
Garrett Johnson
> In article <msbF7z...@netcom.com>, Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
> >the voice, which are inaudible to the ear.
>
> Right. There is NO scientifically-valid evidence of the validity of this
> so-called test. Why do you expect anyone to accept this?
You don't have to accept anything. But since a rape sure can't be
proven we have to give Clinton the benifit of the doubt. And if nothing
else, this earns him that much.
Unless of course, you are a clintonophobe. In which case just
turn Rush up louder.
Harold
You would have to explain your justification for giving Clinton the
benefit of the doubt. Just saying "benefit of the doubt" without
justification for doing so labels you as a Clintondroid.
In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
Regards, Harold
----
"I am pleased to sign into law ... the reauthorization of the
Independent Counsel Act. This law ... is a foundation stone
for the trust between the government and our citizens... the
independent counsel statute has been in the past and is today
a force for government integrity and public confidence."
---President Clinton, June 30, 1994.
Garrett Johnson
> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:20:38 -0800, Garrett Johnson
> <midt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You don't have to accept anything. But since a rape sure can't be
> >proven we have to give Clinton the benifit of the doubt. And if nothing
> >else, this test earns him that much.
> > Unless of course, you are a clintonophobe. In which case just
> >turn Rush up louder.
>
> You would have to explain your justification for giving Clinton the
> benefit of the doubt. Just saying "benefit of the doubt" without
> justification for doing so labels you as a Clintondroid.
It's called "innocent until proven guilty". If that makes me a
Clintondroid in your book, then I guess I am.
> In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
> citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
> there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
Those four "corrobrating witnesses" consist totally of people
testifying that Juanita told her that she was raped.
No physical evidence. No eye witnesses. No one that can even
place Juanita and Clinton in the same place.
.
.
.
.
.
Harold
<midt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:20:38 -0800, Garrett Johnson
>> <midt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > You don't have to accept anything. But since a rape sure can't be
>> >proven we have to give Clinton the benifit of the doubt. And if nothing
>> >else, this test earns him that much.
>> > Unless of course, you are a clintonophobe. In which case just
>> >turn Rush up louder.
>>
>> You would have to explain your justification for giving Clinton the
>> benefit of the doubt. Just saying "benefit of the doubt" without
>> justification for doing so labels you as a Clintondroid.
>
> It's called "innocent until proven guilty". If that makes me a
>Clintondroid in your book, then I guess I am.
Depends on what you mean by the phrase "innocent until proven guilty",
doesn't it?
What is "is"? To me, that is a phrase useful in a court of law, but
not in public opinion. For example, if you actually abide by those
sentiments, you must think that Reagan did not approve of the Iran
Contra deal, since it was never proven in a court of law. That is
silly, and so are you.
>> In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
>> citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
>> there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
>
> Those four "corrobrating witnesses" consist totally of people
>testifying that Juanita told her that she was raped.
> No physical evidence. No eye witnesses. No one that can even
>place Juanita and Clinton in the same place.
Frequently, there is no physical evidence in a rape crime, because of
the nature of the crime and the condition of the victim. Very often,
what the victim wants most is to be clean again, since the experience
leaves them feeling defiled (as they were), so it is not at all
unusual for them to shower (very thoroughly) as soon as they have an
opportunity.
The victims are often convinced of their own guilt (they must have led
him on, after all, no?), and worried about the repercussions (he is a
powerful man, don't you know?).
In rape, it is frequently the victim who must pay, not the criminal.
And it is sentiments such as you have expressed here which help to
perpetuate this.
Regards, Harold
----
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time. Never."
---Bill Clinton, January, 1998
bd
disservice by equating this public figure case with the normal
sort of private citizen cases. Public opinion will probably find
for the President. It is dangerous to assume that the standards
which public opinion applies to the JB case, should apply to
normal cases also.
On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 20:06:36 GMT,
hbras...@removethis.earthlink.net (Harold) wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 11:04:32 -0800, Garrett Johnson
><midt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Depends on what you mean by the phrase "innocent until proven guilty",
>doesn't it?
>
Careful. If you question definitions in this ng, you're a LIAR.
:-)
/snip/
>To me, that is a phrase useful in a court of law, but
>not in public opinion.
It's basic to both. Public opinion (hopefully :-) follows
standards of fair play, common sense etc. The law follows those
standards too, as best it can -- at least, the Constitution, Bill
of Rights, etc follows it pretty well. So terms from the BoR are
often useful in non-legal situations.
See d'Entreves /Natural Law/.
> For example, if you actually abide by those
>sentiments, you must think that Reagan did not approve of the Iran
>Contra deal, since it was never proven in a court of law. //
No, we do not have to accept every verdict of every case. Just
the same basic principles of where to start.
Common sense says most presidents would know what is going on.
Common sense also says an Attorney General running for governor
doesn't go around raping strangers in public hotels. Rather
risky, one scream could put him in jail.
>>> In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
>>> citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful.
What has that to do with anything? A person could lie constantly,
but never risk armed robbery, murder, rape, etc.
>>> In addition,
>>> there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
>>
>> Those four "corrobrating witnesses" consist totally of people
>>testifying that Juanita told her that she was raped.
How far back can we document their claims of having heard the
story? Also, is there any proof that /she/ told it to them?
Yoakum did try to market it to to the tabloids. This gives him a
motive for having invented or embellshed it in the first place.
Any evidence it really began with JB?
>> No physical evidence. No eye witnesses. No one that can even
>>place Juanita and Clinton in the same place.
>
>Frequently, there is no physical evidence in a rape crime,
True, see below.
But with no evidence that there was any meeting at all, that
Clinton even came to the hotel ... with no establislhed
relaitonship between them ... they had met only once, briefly,
in a photo-op business context ....
That's witch hunt stuff.
> because of
>the nature of the crime and the condition of the victim. Very often,
>what the victim wants most is to be clean again, since the experience
>leaves them feeling defiled (as they were), so it is not at all
>unusual for them to shower (very thoroughly) as soon as they have an
>opportunity.
>
>The victims are often convinced of their own guilt (they must have led
>him on, after all, no?), and worried about the repercussions (he is a
>powerful man, don't you know?).
All this is very true.
But we can't apply private citizen standards to a public figure
case.
If this were between two private citizens, the man, if falsely
accused, could sue the accuser for slander. He could take her to
court and ask that she prove her accusations, or withdrraw them.
This discourages false accusations. Clinton, as a public figure,
does not have that option (Bradley Act).
In a private case, it is rare that a woman would have motive for
bringing a false charge of rape. So the presumption is that she
is telling the truth.
In this public figure case, there are powerful motives for making
a false charge. One is pressure from the OIC and VRWC :-). (See
Steele, McDougal, and Lewinksy stories for examples of the sort
of pressure I mean.) Another is reward by future book and
interview payments. Another very possible motive is someone
blackmailing her for some error on regulations or taxes.
Imo we do ordinary, private citizen rape victims a dangerous
disservice by equating this public figure case with the normal
sort of private citizen cases. Public opinion will probably find
for the President. It is dangerous to suggest that the standards
which public opinion applies to the JB case, should apply to
normal cases also.
bd
*****************************************************
Julie Steele defense site: (trial March 30, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
Organizing for 2000:
http://www.rain.org/%7eopenmind/stopcoup.htm
http://www.pfaw.org -- http://www.moveon.org
The Eight Classic Moral Principles:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4809/
*****************************************************
Robert Sheaffer
>>
>>: It's interesting to note that Robert Sheaffer is an avowed
>>: Male Supremacist
What a laugh! As if someone who questions feminist lies (especially those
about supposed "ancient matriarchies," which are Mr. Bilk's favorites)
is a "Male Supremacist", akin to some kind of "white supremacist"!!
More smears, that's all they've got are smears, not facts.
>No, I wrote the truth. Look at Sheaffer's website
>and read his Usenet articles about feminists and
>feminism in DejaNews.
>
>He claims explicitly that it is both natural and
>good for men to dominate women.
I said that all human societies are, and always have been, patriarchal,
and no matter how much the feminists don't like that fact (or lie about it),
it isn't going to change. Read the website yourself and you'll how absurd
this guy's claim is.
> This doctrine
>encourages rape.
ME encouraging rape? I'm not a Clinton supporter: I support the rule of
law for everyone. Even for presidents!!!
Joseph R. Darancette
>In article <36dcbbdd...@news.uia.net>, Joseph R. Darancette <dar...@uia.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:48:00 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>>In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>>>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>>>
>>>A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>>>the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
>>>caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>>>which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>>>In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>>>rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>>>
>>You missed his point.... He did an analysis of an electronic voice not
>>a real voice. Anyone who has used a telephone or listened to their
>>own voice in a recording can tell you it ain't the same. You would
>>most likely get a better analysis reading chicken entrals.
>
>You would most likely get a more accurate evaluation of VSA
>performance when used on an electronically transmitted voice
>if you would take the trouble to learn something about how
>the machine and the human voice work, instead of just assuming
>your conclusion and working backward to a smear, like all the
>other Right-wing morons.
>
>The fundamental frequency of the voice, which is what the
>analyzer looks at, is entirely unaffected by electronic
>transmission. The non-flatness of the frequency passband of
>the channel has an effect on the final speech waveform similar
>to, but much smaller than, the filtering of the glottal (vocal
>fold) pulse-train by the throat, pharynx, tongue, nasal pas-
>sages, etc. This filtering changes the relative amplitudes of
>the various harmonics of the glottal wave, but the fundamental
>frequency remains exactly the same. Therefore the small vari-
>ations in this frequency, caused by tremor of the vocal fold
>muscles, and related to stress, are also unchanged by passage
>through the electronic channel.
>
>The stress indications provided by the analyzer will therefore
>be the same as if the microphone signal were fed directly into it.
>
><LI><a href="http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html">Links To Reality</a>
>
Mark. Send me a JPG of your mom and I'll make her look like Traci
Lords. Send me a WAV of your voice and I'll make you sound like Donald
Duck.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Joseph R. Darancette
>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: In article <7bh80i$6up$4...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>:>In talk.politics.misc Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote:
>:>: In article <7bgmev$kuf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <m...@uswest.net> wrote:
>:>:>This guy did these tests through his television? Yea, he's not a wacko!
>:>
>:>: A Voice Stress Analyzer measures small variations in the pitch of
>:>: the voice, which are inaudible to the ear. These variations are
>:>: caused by tremors in the muscles of the vocal folds ("vocal cords"),
>:>: which change according to how much stress the person is feeling.
>:>: In the same way, stress causes changes in skin resistance, heart
>:>: rate, and breathing rate, which are measured by a polygraph.
>:>
>:>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
>
>: This Right-wing liar
>
>Right Wing? Moi? I think not.
>
>: is using the propaganda technique of
>: willful ignorance, claiming that the facts presented by
>: the opposition are just too hard for his poor widdle brain
>: to understand, and therefore can't be true, whereupon he
>: smears them as being akin to superstition.
>
>So there really is a device that can be pointed at the television which
>will tell you whether or not someone is lying? A device EVEN MORE
>ACCURATE than those advertised in leaflets that fall out of the Sunday
>comics?
>
>I have a bridge in Scotland you might want to buy...
>
Hey...... Them X-Ray glasses work real great.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Ian Goddard
IAN: What's the possibility that when she said
the incriminating words she experienced a rush
of fear manifest as "voice stress," for those
were the words that would endanger her, if
indeed all that she's saying is true?
************************************************************
Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
------------------------------------------------------------
(+) Something can come from nothing, if, and only if, (-)
(-) that something is equal to nothing ((-)+(+) = 0). (+)
____________________________________________________________
"[I]n any closed universe the negative gravitational energy
cancels the energy of matter exactly. The total energy, or
equivalently the total mass, is precisely equal to zero."
- + - + Dr. Alan Guth (The Inflationary Universe) + - + -
M Holmes
:>:>Translation: "Broaddrick is lying, I read it in the tea leaves!"
:>
:>: This Right-wing liar
:>
:>Right Wing? Moi? I think not.
:>
:>:is using the propaganda technique of
:>:willful ignorance, claiming that the facts presented by
:>:the opposition are just too hard for his poor widdle brain
:>:to understand, and therefore can't be true, whereupon he
:>:smears them as being akin to superstition.
:>
:>So there really is a device that can be pointed at the television which
:>will tell you whether or not someone is lying? A device EVEN MORE
:>ACCURATE than those advertised in leaflets that fall out of the Sunday
:>comics?
:>I have a bridge in Scotland you might want to buy...
: Again, "M Holmes" lies for the Right-wing
You should try your own Vice Stress Analyzer. I'm not right wing.
: by pretending
: to be mystified about the Voice Stress Analyzer.
Mystified? No. I think it's bollocks.
: He's
: definitely lying
Did you point a Voice Stress Analyzer at my text and conclude that?
: because the article he responded to
: contained a bibliography of thirty books and articles
: about the VSA.
The wackiest UFO Conspiracy books have bibliographies.
: He *omitted* this bibliography in his
: followup, so that his lie about the VSA being a hoax
: would seem believeable to the reader.
Of course I did. I've also sent the black helicopters over your house.
: Here's the bibliography again; note that some of the
: references are to scientific articles and government
: documents.
Government documents eh? Gosh. If your Voice Stress Analyzer tells you
that governments always tell the truth then you might want to put in
fresh batteries.
: Following that is the article about the VSA
: test performed on Broaddrick.
Under strictly supervised scientific protocols of course?
: Note that item 27 in the
: bibliography is a report on the Verimetrics VSA, which
: was the machine used in the analysis of Broaddrick's
: speech.
: http://www.diogenesgroup.com/read.htm
: http://www.diogenesgroup.com
: 1. The Assassination Tapes. An electronic probe into the Murder of
: John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup. George O'Toole. Penthouse
: Press Ltd. New York 1975.
Cut to the quick and tell us if Gordon Liddy really was on the Grassy Knoll.
: 3. Body Language. Fast, J. M. Evans and Company, New York, 1970.
Hey! I read that one. I don't remember him mentioning the Voice Stress
Analyzer though. What page is it on?
: 13. Games People Play.Berne, Eric, M.D., Grove Press, INC. 1964.
I have a copy of that too. No Voice Stress analyzer mentioned there either.
: 25. You Can Analyze Handwriting. Holder, R. Wilshire Book Company, No.
: Hollywood, California, 1971.
You missed "You Can Interpret Head Lumps" and "Bald Men Don't Lie" by
B.Ruse, Independent Press 1998.
FoFP
Rob Robertson
That's really the heart of the whole issue. I don't doubt that VSA
can measure changes in frequency components, or that these changes
are related to various levels of stress. The question is *why* the
level changes, and applying VSA to a 25-minute interview that actually
spanned several hours puts the baseline in question.
I don't think that VSA is inherently 'junk science', but it can
easily be misinterpreted to mean whatever you want, which then
*makes* it junk science. At least that's what my astrologer told me.
> ************************************************************
> Visit Ian Williams Goddard ------> http://Ian.Goddard.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> (+) Something can come from nothing, if, and only if, (-)
> (-) that something is equal to nothing ((-)+(+) = 0). (+)
> ____________________________________________________________
> "[I]n any closed universe the negative gravitational energy
> cancels the energy of matter exactly. The total energy, or
> equivalently the total mass, is precisely equal to zero."
>
> - + - + Dr. Alan Guth (The Inflationary Universe) + - + -
>
>
_
Rob Robertson
Craig
> IAN: What's the possibility that when she said
> the incriminating words she experienced a rush
> of fear manifest as "voice stress," for those
> were the words that would endanger her, if
> indeed all that she's saying is true?
Maybe we can use phrenology and craniometry to determine the truth...
Cheers...Craig
---
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
Against stupidity, the gods themselves fight in vain - Schiller
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
F. Prefect
(Harold) wrote:
>In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
>citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
>there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
Then she should file a civil suit, claiming continuing traumatic
stress disorder resulting from the alleged attack. I doubt the statue
of limitations would apply and we could get to bottom of this issue.
Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
timing.
F. Prefect
I the beginning the Universe was created. This has
made a lot of people very angry and been widely been
regarded as being a bad move.....Douglas Adams
Mr. Tubby
>Mark. Send me a JPG of your mom and I'll make her look like Traci
>Lords. Send me a WAV of your voice and I'll make you sound like Donald
>Duck.
>
sound like Donald Duck? Is Traci Lords one of your favorites?>
>
>
>Joseph R. Darancette
>dar...@uia.net
M Holmes
: Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
: way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
: feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
: timing.
I'm curious about this statement. What is it about the timing that makes
you suspicious? I'm not unacquainted with the motive of revenge and I'd
have said that if she wanted revenge because he raped her then her
timing was almost perfect. If it had come out less than a month
beforehand it could have sunk Clinton. That's pretty accurate shooting
over 20 years.
: F. Prefect
FoFP
Martin McPhillips
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:25:37 GMT, hbras...@removethis.earthlink.net
>(Harold) wrote:
>
>>In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
>>citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
>>there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
>
>Then she should file a civil suit, claiming continuing traumatic
>stress disorder resulting from the alleged attack. I doubt the statue
>of limitations would apply and we could get to bottom of this issue.
Now there's an "real good" idea.
>Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
>way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
>feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
>timing.
As a mob spokesman, Gary, you're obliged to be always skeptical
of charges made by women harmed by Clinton. But you should
occasionally pay attention to the actual circumstances surrounding
such charges. Broaddrick came forward because she had been
identified as Jane Doe #5 and because the stories swirling around
her rape by Clinton were not necessarily her own.
She had refused to help any opponents of Clinton's for years. She
even denied the rape in a Jones case affidavit, until the IC caught
up with her and to avoid serious complications she accepted immunity
and told the same story she had always told to a few friends and
family members: that Bill Clinton lied his way up to her hotel room, hit
on her, and when she resisted he bit her lip threw her down on the
bed and forcibly raped her.
That's your guy, Gary. That's Bill Clinton. Your Criminal President.
Garrett Johnson
> I'm curious about this statement. What is it about the timing that makes
> you suspicious? I'm not unacquainted with the motive of revenge and I'd
> have said that if she wanted revenge because he raped her then her
> timing was almost perfect.
I saw someone post that Clinton pardoned the murderer of one
of Juanita's witness/friends.
> If it had come out less than a month
> beforehand it could have sunk Clinton.
She tried to make it come out a month ago. NBC sat on the story
while trying to confirm it. They never did.
Harold
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 17:25:37 GMT, hbras...@removethis.earthlink.net
>(Harold) wrote:
>
>>In a court, as a juror I would go along with you, but in public as a
>>citizen, Clinton is not well known for being truthful. In addition,
>>there were four corrobrating witnesses for Juanita Broaddrick.
>
>Then she should file a civil suit, claiming continuing traumatic
>stress disorder resulting from the alleged attack. I doubt the statue
>of limitations would apply and we could get to bottom of this issue.
That's a good idea, if I were her I would probably do it. You cannot
make her do it , however.
>
>Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
>way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
>feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
>timing.
That is probably because you have never been raped. It is easy to
knock someone who has had a traumatic physical experience.
Regards, Harold
-------
"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."
--Rudyard Kipling
M Holmes
: M Holmes wrote:
:> I'm curious about this statement. What is it about the timing that makes
:> you suspicious? I'm not unacquainted with the motive of revenge and I'd
:> have said that if she wanted revenge because he raped her then her
:> timing was almost perfect.
: I saw someone post that Clinton pardoned the murderer of one
: of Juanita's witness/friends.
As an excuse for Broaddrick';s claims, this is on a par with the
"Clinton murdered Foster" people.
:> If it had come out less than a month
:> beforehand it could have sunk Clinton.
: She tried to make it come out a month ago.
As I said, if she wanted revenge then that was precisely the time to
take it. I believe the timing makes it more credible.
FoFP
F. Prefect
>In talk.politics.misc F. Prefect <fo...@inter-linc.net> wrote:
>
>: Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
>: way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
>: feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
>: timing.
>
>I'm curious about this statement. What is it about the timing that makes
>you suspicious? I'm not unacquainted with the motive of revenge and I'd
>have said that if she wanted revenge because he raped her then her
>timing was almost perfect. If it had come out less than a month
>beforehand it could have sunk Clinton. That's pretty accurate shooting
>over 20 years.
>
>: F. Prefect
>
>FoFP
Had the Lewinsky matter never come to the forefront, I would seriously
doubt we would be hearing anything concerning a rape that allegedly
took place 20 years ago.
Perhaps we're looking at the matter from different angles, but I would
contend that a monetary motive on the part of JB cannot be ruled out.
F. Prefect
wrote:
>As a mob spokesman, Gary, you're obliged to be always skeptical
>of charges made by women harmed by Clinton. But you should
>occasionally pay attention to the actual circumstances surrounding
>such charges. Broaddrick came forward because she had been
>identified as Jane Doe #5 and because the stories swirling around
>her rape by Clinton were not necessarily her own.
>
>She had refused to help any opponents of Clinton's for years. She
>even denied the rape in a Jones case affidavit, until the IC caught
>up with her and to avoid serious complications she accepted immunity
>and told the same story she had always told to a few friends and
>family members: that Bill Clinton lied his way up to her hotel room, hit
>on her, and when she resisted he bit her lip threw her down on the
>bed and forcibly raped her.
>
>That's your guy, Gary. That's Bill Clinton. Your Criminal President.
True, I do tend to be skeptical, it's may nature. You speak of actual
circumstance and evidence. Why, I must ask, did ken starr not use
such evidence. God knows he would have loved to if the 'facts' could
pass the sniff test. But, apparently not.
Bill Clinton is an adulterer. He may have also committed perjury and
obstruction of justice in his botched attempt to coverup up one of his
dalliances. Does this make him unfit to be President of the US? The
Senate and the majority of the American public think not.
M Holmes
:>She had refused to help any opponents of Clinton's for years. She
:>even denied the rape in a Jones case affidavit, until the IC caught
:>up with her and to avoid serious complications she accepted immunity
:>and told the same story she had always told to a few friends and
:>family members: that Bill Clinton lied his way up to her hotel room, hit
:>on her, and when she resisted he bit her lip threw her down on the
:>bed and forcibly raped her.
:>
:>That's your guy, Gary. That's Bill Clinton. Your Criminal President.
: True, I do tend to be skeptical, it's may nature. You speak of actual
: circumstance and evidence. Why, I must ask, did ken starr not use
: such evidence.
He was investigating Clinton's efforts at obstruction of justice. Rape
isn't such and Broaddrick said she'd never been threatened or bribed
after the incident. Hence nothing that Starr could use.
Still, if you want to defer to the judgement of Ken Starr on issues
concerning Clinton then you probably have an even lower opinion of
Clinton than I do.
: F. Prefect
FoFP
Bill Bonde
>
> Had the Lewinsky matter never come to the forefront, I would seriously
> doubt we would be hearing anything concerning a rape that allegedly
> took place 20 years ago.
>
> Perhaps we're looking at the matter from different angles, but I would
> contend that a monetary motive on the part of JB cannot be ruled out.
>
the impeachment going on and felt that it would end in Clinton being
removed from office or at least censured. When the Democrat party
refused to punish Clinton, it could've been too much and she went public
with her claims.
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> As an excuse for Broaddrick';s claims, this is on a par with the
> "Clinton murdered Foster" people.
Do you believe that Foster committed suicide at Fort Marcy Park?
> FoFP
_
Rob Robertson
bd
Prefect) wrote:
>On 4 Mar 1999 16:35:05 GMT, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.misc F. Prefect <fo...@inter-linc.net> wrote:
>>
>>: Going around claiming Clinton raped her 20 years ago and, oh by the
>>: way I can't even remember the MONTH much less the date, leaves me
>>: feeling more than just a bit skeptical of her claims, considering the
>>: timing.
>>
>>I'm curious about this statement. What is it about the timing that makes
>>you suspicious? I'm not unacquainted with the motive of revenge and I'd
>>have said that if she wanted revenge because he raped her then her
>>timing was almost perfect. If it had come out less than a month
>>beforehand it could have sunk Clinton.
So, why didn't she push it in time to sink him?
NBC 'sat' on it, so she phoned a newsaper she had been talkng to
for months and told them to run the story. Way wait till the
trial was over? Or she could have gone on any number of tv or
radio shows that wouldn't have checked it as NBC did.
Or come out in the House impeachment debate. Or maybe in the OIC
investigation.
Holding off till after the trial suggests that she didn't want to
risk being called to tell the story under oath, let teh WH
cross-examine, etc.
As it was, she got maximum media attention with no risk, no
accountability.
>
>Had the Lewinsky matter never come to the forefront, I would seriously
>doubt we would be hearing anything concerning a rape that allegedly
>took place 20 years ago.
>
>Perhaps we're looking at the matter from different angles, but I would
>contend that a monetary motive on the part of JB cannot be ruled out.
Not on the part of anyone, with the amounts of money going round
on all this. :-)
However, pressure/blackmail seems very possible also. Immunity
agreement from Starr (who knows what terms) ... investigations of
her background ... maybe someone found some little mistake she'd
made in taxes or nursing home regulations or something.
She seems intelligent, might have balked at risking
cross-examination but given in to RR pressure once the trial was
over.
bd
********************************************************
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Julie Steele defense site: (trial March 30, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
F. Prefect
>In talk.politics.misc F. Prefect <fo...@inter-linc.net> wrote:
>
>:>She had refused to help any opponents of Clinton's for years. She
>:>even denied the rape in a Jones case affidavit, until the IC caught
>:>up with her and to avoid serious complications she accepted immunity
>:>and told the same story she had always told to a few friends and
>:>family members: that Bill Clinton lied his way up to her hotel room, hit
>:>on her, and when she resisted he bit her lip threw her down on the
>:>bed and forcibly raped her.
>:>
>:>That's your guy, Gary. That's Bill Clinton. Your Criminal President.
>
>: True, I do tend to be skeptical, it's may nature. You speak of actual
>: circumstance and evidence. Why, I must ask, did ken starr not use
>: such evidence.
>
>He was investigating Clinton's efforts at obstruction of justice. Rape
>isn't such and Broaddrick said she'd never been threatened or bribed
>after the incident. Hence nothing that Starr could use.
>
Nothing starr could use!!! For Christ's sake if he could prove that
Clinton did rape JB, a felony, he would have jumped on it like a
Bengal tiger on a monkey.
bd
Prefect) wrote:
>On 5 Mar 1999 17:15:45 GMT, M Holmes <fo...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>In talk.politics.misc F. Prefect <fo...@inter-linc.net> wrote:
>>
>>:>She had refused to help any opponents of Clinton's for years. She
>>:>even denied the rape in a Jones case affidavit, until the IC caught
>>:>up with her and to avoid serious complications she accepted immunity
>>:>and told the same story she had always told to a few friends and
>>:>family members:
The story had been going around. Yoakum was trying to sell it to
the tabloids for years. Is there any proof that JB actually told
it to them? I mean proof, not just their unsupported word.
Rumours begin, go round, get momentum.... They don't have to
start by the person gossiped about.
When the OIC got into it, there was plenty of reason for everyone
invoved to begin supporting the story, as they did.
/snip/
>>: True, I do tend to be skeptical, it's may nature. You speak of actual
>>: circumstance and evidence. Why, I must ask, did ken starr not use
>>: such evidence.
>>
>>He was investigating Clinton's efforts at obstruction of justice.
That is his explanation now. :-)
He was hired to investigate the Whitewater case: fraud about
money. He expanded that to the JB case: civil complaint of
'flashing'. :-) He could quite easily have expanded it to a rape
case -- which /would/ have been material to the PJ charge.
Actually there /was/ an 'obstruction' handle: Yoakum's claims.
Most likely, imo, they checked it all and found the rape probably
an unfounded rumour. If it had been publicly looked into at that
time, there would have been time for the WH to research and
answer the charge. They would have had to give a date, and the WH
would have had something to work on. The WH could have
cross-examined JB at some point.
Better strategy to keep the story mysterious till the last
minute.
Also, JB might have balked. She could be pressured to give a
vague statement that the affidavit was false, but would not agree
to a real charge that would let her be cross-examined. She did
not make her move till the trial was over and that danger was
past.
>> Rape
>>isn't such and Broaddrick said she'd never been threatened or bribed
>>after the incident. Hence nothing that Starr could use.
So said Steele also. Didn't stop him there.
>>
>Nothing starr could use!!! For Christ's sake if he could prove that
>Clinton did rape JB, a felony, he would have jumped on it like a
>Bengal tiger on a monkey.
Yes. There was the handle of the Yoakum claims of WH favors he
could have used.
Harold
wrote:
>Imo we do ordinary, private citizen rape victims a dangerous
>disservice by equating this public figure case with the normal
>sort of private citizen cases. Public opinion will probably find
>for the President. It is dangerous to assume that the standards
>which public opinion applies to the JB case, should apply to
>normal cases also.
Well, that is certainly true.
In a normal rape case, the jury is allowed to listen to both the
accused and accuser, and believe the one they find the most credible,
even in the absence of physical evidence.
[deleted]
Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"When I was a boy, I was told anybody could become president.
I'm beginning to believe it"
--Clarence Darrow
RHA
Harold <hbras...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 22:13:22 GMT, bhuva...@my-dejanews.com (bd)
>wrote:
>
>>disservice by equating this public figure case with the normal
>>sort of private citizen cases. Public opinion will probably find
>>for the President. It is dangerous to assume that the standards
>>which public opinion applies to the JB case, should apply to
>>normal cases also.
>
>
>In a normal rape case, the jury is allowed to listen to both the
>accused and accuser, and believe the one they find the most credible,
>even in the absence of physical evidence.
I wonder how long Mr. Brashears would subscribe to
this judical theory if it were his butt on the line.
Him against some innocent looking co-ed. Hate to
say it, but with zero evidence the case would be
dismissed. There has to be at least evidence some
form of contact took place.
The problem Mr. Brashears skips right over is that
there are questionable aspects to this specific
allegation similar to the Jones case, elements that
do not hold up to scrutiny. If Mr. Brashears would
address the particulars he'd sound more persuasive
than the average rabid clintonhater. Of course, he
have an element of credibility if he used UseNet to
criticize malefactors of all political persuasions.
>
>[deleted]
>
>Harold (Capitalist Pig)
>----
>"When I was a boy, I was told anybody could become president.
>I'm beginning to believe it"
> --Clarence Darrow
Nahhhhh, Quayle doesn't stand a chance.
Wait...Reagan was elected. Twice. Maybe I'm wrong.
Would Marilyn allow him to live in the White House?
--
rha
Harold
<midt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Harold wrote:
[edited]
>> You would have to explain your justification for giving Clinton the
>> benefit of the doubt. Just saying "benefit of the doubt" without
>> justification for doing so labels you as a Clintondroid.
>
> It's called "innocent until proven guilty". If that makes me a
>Clintondroid in your book, then I guess I am.
If you really believed in it, you would think
1. Reagan innocent of Iran-Contra,
2. North innocent of anything (guilty verdict not upheld).
3. Starr is innocent of any wrongdoing.
4. Tripp is innocent of wrongdoing.
When you repeat the above, I will believe you to have some integrity.
RHA
Speaking of "integrity," you should have corrected the
previous respondent be noting it's "assumed innocent.."
and written your points as:
1. Reagan ->legally assumed<- innocent of Iran-Contra, unless proven
in a court of law.
2. North ->assumed<- innocent of anything (guilty
verdict not upheld). <- wrongo! Verdict **set aside**
due to use of immunized
testimony. (You really don't
understand these matter, do
you?)
But was proven in a court of law.
3. Starr is ->legally assumed<- innocent of any wrongdoing.
Unless proven in a court of law.
4. Tripp is ->legally assumed<- innocent of wrongdoing.
Unless proven in a court of law.
Care to comment on the odds fer&agin' Lewinsky winning
a civil case against Tripp for damages? I think a jury
would love to swack Tripp with a large civil judgement.
And the OJ trial shows Tripp doesn't have to be found
guilty in her criminal trial. Neat, huh?
--
rha
bre...@no-spam.com
<std...@mailexcite.com> wrote:
>F. Prefect wrote:
>>
>> Had the Lewinsky matter never come to the forefront, I would seriously
>> doubt we would be hearing anything concerning a rape that allegedly
>> took place 20 years ago.
>>
>> Perhaps we're looking at the matter from different angles, but I would
>> contend that a monetary motive on the part of JB cannot be ruled out.
>>
>Does this mean that she is lying? It is possible that this women watched
>the impeachment going on and felt that it would end in Clinton being
>removed from office or at least censured. When the Democrat party
>refused to punish Clinton, it could've been too much and she went public
>with her claims.
Or perhaps a patriotic white lie motive. Her son seems
comfortable at the Free Republic site. Perhaps she sincerely
believes Clinton ran drugs with Bush, murdered X people, attacked
dozens of other women, etc.
She might think, "Well, I lucked out that I never got him on the
phone and the rumour was false. But I should support all those
Other Victims who are Afraid To Speak Out."
Cheers,
Bredon
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
bre...@no-spam.com
> Care to comment on the odds fer&agin' Lewinsky winning
> a civil case against Tripp for damages? I think a jury
> would love to swack Tripp with a large civil judgement.
> And the OJ trial shows Tripp doesn't have to be found
> guilty in her criminal trial. Neat, huh?
Another reason to petition for pardons for the Lewinsky family!
So Monica wouldn't be scared to speak out and use some of her
money for such a good cause.
Cheers,
Bredon
---
On 14 Mar 1999 21:55:10 GMT, ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA)
wrote:
********************************************************
Email mailto:Pres...@whitehouse.gov to "Pardon the Lewinskys!"
Julie Steele defense site: (trial May 3, 1999)
http://www.juliehiattsteele.com/
News site worth checking? http://www.consortiumnews.com/
Petition against Starr, and good info:
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/petition.htm
http://www.rain.org/~openmind/jonesrev.htm