Allison M. spoke the truth
rich...@my-deja.com
hear his side of the story. Well I just watched the trial and saw him
hide behind the law, alcoholic teens and a slander attack on his
accuser. I'M STILL WAITING FOR HIS STORY!!!
Why couldn't Chmura take the stand and say she walked in on him in the
bathroom and that no sexual activity occurred??? His inability to do
this speaks volumes. Not guilty by reasonalbe doubt but definitely not
innocent.
Good luck Ally. Being compared to Susan Smith by the old fat man was
ludicrous. I'm glad she snapped back at the old geezer when she was on
the stand. Chmura offers no defense of what happened in the bathroom
and she's the liar. Chmura hides behind the fat teen Klebler to be his
"he said" and the jury gives him bonus points for being polite. Go
figure. Did the jury ever stop to notice that he never rebuked any of
Alison's key facts. They attacked her vagina. They said the room was
too small. The media coverage constantly called Ally a liar. But the
defendant NEVER factually denied what happened in the bathroom. Anyone
with common sense knows why he showed up to a post-prom teen
party...and it wasn't to leave early to golf the next morning--hell he
only lived a few blocks away...WHERE HIS WIFE SLEPT ALONE.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
j. vonbriel
And I think the people who chose to believe that the 17 year old was a
Lolita (and believe that 30-year old Chmura was some innocent babe who
was seduced) need to ask themselves why they bent over backward to
disbelieve her story.
Chmura slept around on his wife with an underage teen. I won't forget
that and the others around here who want to turn him into St. Mark
shouldn't forget that either.
Glad to see the Packers don't want him back.
In article <95m5ff$j5m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Bob
> bathroom and that no sexual activity occurred??? His inability to do
> this speaks volumes. Not guilty by reasonalbe doubt but definitely not
> innocent.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not Chmura. She did not prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that she was assaulted. As the defense proved, she is
not a credible witness; for she had admitted to lying and spreading rumors
and didn't provide a plausible explanation as to why she wouldn't have been
lying about this incident.
Chmura owes no explanation. He is under no obligation to take the stand in
his own defense. The jury (amply represented by women no less) took very
little time to reach a verdict. That's very telling.
thehatefulnerd
what universe are you living in?
obviously chewy cant give his story until he knows there is nto going to be
a civil case brought against him.
Did the jury ever stop to notice that he never rebuked any of>Alison's key
facts.
except everything she said.
They attacked her vagina.
?
'attacked her vagina'?
get a life.
Anyone>with common sense knows why he showed up to a post-prom
teen>party...and it wasn't to leave early to golf the next morning--hell
he>only lived a few blocks away...WHERE HIS WIFE SLEPT ALONE.
how about helping out his friend to make sure that a bunch of drunk
teenagers dont get out of control?
would you rather have them getting in fist fights or going out for a road
trip?
without someone there to stand up to some drunk dumbass teens, maybe a real
rape might even occur.
chewy was helping out his friend because he cared about the young kids who
were going to be there, and just because some lying gold digger wants to get
sympathy and sue him for a million dollar$, his life is destroyed.
she probably went in there to seduce him and he rejected her, thats how i
look at it.
randall
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
j. vonbriel
I agree he has no responsibility to take the stand, but the fact that
the jury returned a quick verdict only means they returned a quick
verdict. It could just as easily mean they didn't take enough time to
fully deliberate the facts. I don't think we can say he was more
innocent because they came back quickly.
dcle...@my-deja.com
"Bob" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
This is true. It was a tough case to make without any hard DNA
evidence. I found the incident to be more a story about how drinking
affects judgement and perception. Everyone who has drunk a lot at a
party walks around the next day regreting( if they remember ) what
happened. The village idiot knows better than to mix underaged girls
with a lot of alcohol. Consequently, I think Chumra is sooo damn lucky
to be walking the street today. Who knows, maybe the alcohol prevented
the release of some hard DNA evidence.....
thehatefulnerd
>the release of some hard DNA evidence.....
or maybe she swallowed it.
Kelly
the whirlpool.
Let's see. Two middle aged guys show up at a post prom party. They encourage the
teens to drink. They get into a whirlpool with the teens in their underwear. They
grope some of the teenage girls in a sexual way.
These were two middle-aged men on the prowl for some teenage ...
I wonder what happened in that bathroom during those 60 seconds?
If this thing goes to civil court, I would think that meeting the burden there,
which is lower than "reasonable doubt", should be a slam dunk.
who...@whodere.com wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:01:40 -0600, Spiritwheels
> <spirit...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <eeit7t4o04jespgnh...@4ax.com>,
> >who...@whodere.com says...
> >> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:36:20 -0600, "thehatefulnerd"
> >> <thehate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'M STILL WAITING FOR HIS STORY!!!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >what universe are you living in?
> >> >obviously chewy cant give his story until he knows there is nto going to be
> >> >a civil case brought against him.
> >>
> >> Yeah he can. If he didn't do anything wrong, there's no reason why he
> >> shouldn't be able to give his story, because nothing in his story
> >> would be useful in a civil case.
> >
> >Not so fast... attorneys can turn anything around.
>
> There is only one truth. Chmura either sexually assaulted this girl,
> or he didn't.
>
> >> >how about helping out his friend to make sure that a bunch of drunk
> >> >teenagers dont get out of control?
> >>
> >> Yeeeeeeah, right. THAT'S why he hopped into the hot tub in his
> >> underwear and played drinking games with the kids. Gotcha.
> >
> >Was that claim ever substantiated by anyone other than the kids? For all
> >you know, the kids could've made that up, trying to act like hotshots.
> >After all, Chmura's accuser made up her story right from the start.
>
> Yeah. Everybody, including Kleber, is lying. Everybody but Mark
> Chmura, who didn't utter a word of testimony one way or the other at
> the trial. The fact that Chmura was in the hot tub in his underwear
> and played drinking games was not disputed testimony.
>
> >> >chewy was helping out his friend because he cared about the young kids who
> >> >were going to be there,
> >>
> >> Uh-huh. Kleber says Chmura was there because he was supposed to sleep
> >> over and go play golf in the morning with Gessert.
> >
> >Okay... so THAT'S why he was there. Why twist it around to make it seem
> >like he was hot for some teen?
>
> Who said he was there because he was hot for her? Nobody.
>
> >I can believe that he was there so that
> >they (he and Gessert) could get an early start at golf in the morning.
> >Why can't you??
>
> Basically, because I'm not a Packer fan and I'm not going to
> rationalize his actions on that night. If you want to get an early
> start, I don't believe that you stay up drinking all night and hot
> tubbing with underage girls. Just how far does Chmura live from
> Gessert, anyway?
>
> >> and just because some lying gold digger wants to get
> >> >sympathy and sue him for a million dollar$, his life is destroyed.
> >> >she probably went in there to seduce him and he rejected her, thats how i
> >> >look at it.
> >>
> >> Are you blind? To what lengths will you defend his actions? I can
> >> understand why you wouldn't believe that he raped anyone, but to
> >> rationalize his presence at that party in this way is ludicrous.
> >
> >Why? A lot of women have tried seducing men and turned it around to look
> >like rape after the man says 'no'.
>
> Yes, and lots of men actually have sexually assaulted underage girls.
JK
wrote:
>Yup.
>
>And I think the people who chose to believe that the 17 year old was a
>Lolita (and believe that 30-year old Chmura was some innocent babe who
>was seduced) need to ask themselves why they bent over backward to
>disbelieve her story.
You didn't have to bend over backward. A lot of people who wanted to
believe her have seen the holes in her fairy tale as well. OPEN YOUR
EYES.
>Chmura slept around on his wife with an underage teen.
Got any evidence to back up that slander?
>I won't forget
>that and the others around here who want to turn him into St. Mark
>shouldn't forget that either.
Who?
JK
>On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:29:15 GMT, "Bob" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Chmura owes no explanation. He is under no obligation to take the stand in
>>his own defense. The jury (amply represented by women no less)
>
>I think that a lot of women on the panel tended to help Chmura.
Give me a break. Women historically have been very hard-nosed in sex
cases.
JK
>>Not so fast... attorneys can turn anything around.
>
>There is only one truth. Chmura either sexually assaulted this girl,
>or he didn't.
Yes, but lawyers are specifically trained in the art of taking
someone's words and turning them 180 degrees. The only safe thing he
can say until this is over is a simple "I didn't do it."
JK
>Nor was there any dispute to Lese's assertion that Chmura groped her thigh while in
>the whirlpool.
On the stand she said that they were packed in the tub like sardines
and that she thinks his hand brushed against her thigh. When asked if
any part of her body was touching anyone else, she said "Probably."
It was a non-issue.
rich...@my-deja.com
"Bob" <rm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
steroid stud is all about. I didn't say a drunk teen could win the
case in our court system (nor should she have). Chmura probably knew
as many have known for ages...the best time to rape is when the girl
has been juiced and will never be believed. It seems now that Ally
passed a polygraph test and Chmura and Kleber hid from taking
one...though it would be inadmissable in court. Gee, why would that
be???
rich...@my-deja.com
tells his story in a criminal and civil trial. You say he can't talk
because of the civil trial. Why not...he's just going to tell the same
lie he could have told in his criminal trial. He had the polite fat
boy to back him up. He'll go to his grave only saying, "she walked in
on me and no sexual activity occurred." Why couldn't he tell his lie
for all of us to hear? Ally passed her polygraph test and fat boy and
Chmura decided against taking this revealing yet inadmissable test.
Why would that be Randall?
Balthazar the Blue
news:3a80a38d$0$7170$272e...@news.execpc.com...
>
> "Balthazar the Blue" <balthaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3a807...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> > <who...@whodere.com> wrote in message
> > news:ram08t8n6gsekt4kt...@4ax.com...
> whore.
> > >
> > > Calling her a "liar" can be construed as slander.
> >
> > Only if it's not true.
>
> Well the DA says she passed HER lie detector test.
You believe lie detector tests? Polygraphs are INADMISSABLE because they
can be INACCURATE.
A person can be so nervous the the polygraph would indicate they're lying
when they're not.
A person can conceal their emotions well enough that the polygraph would
indicate they're telling the truth when in fact they are lying.
And a person could be so convinced that something made up is true, that they
would believe they were telling the truth, even though the whole contrivance
was false.
As such, her statement while connected to a polygraph must be taken with a
grain of salt.
Since Chmura was found NOT GUILTY of the charges against him, I imagine he
could call it slander if she continued to claim he assaulted her.
Brian Curley
> Could be. I don't really have any ties to the legal community and that
> may indeed be the case. The jury remarks afterwards sounded like the
> jury was, how should I put this, receptive to thinking he was guilty,
> but apparently the lack of DNA evidence was the kicker.
I'd really like to know what remarks you're referring to because having
read most of the local and national coverage, and watched most of the
CourTV coverage of the case, it sounded to me like there were 4 jurors
who thought he might be guilty of the assault but who were easily
persuaded in deliberations that there simply wasn't enough proof. And
they all said Kleber was the linchpin.
--
Brian Curley
Notorious BKC
Brian Curley
> His point is that there is no legal harm to failing a lie detector test
> because such a test is inadmissible.
Bull. If you take a polygraph and fail, even though you can't introduce
the evidence in court, there's nothing to stop the results from being
circulated in the press. And when a civil case may be pending, to do so
would be suicide.
> If, as he now says, Chmura is interested in rehabilitating his public image,
> surely he is aware of the fact that passing a lie detector test would
> certainly go a long way toward improving his reputation.
Why? Polygraphs are unreliable. Why would an unreliable test help him?
If he passed, those who believe he's guilty would just think he beat the
machine. If he failed, those same people would say it's proof of his
guilt. It's a no win scenario.
> Unless he surmises that the likely outcome of a lie detector test is one
> which would harm his reputation. Then refusing to take a lie detector test
> is the way to go.
Why take the risk? Since it's been proven, time and again, that one can
take a polygraph and fail it without lying, why give someone who'd want
to imply that you *were* lying the ammunition? It simply makes no sense
for him to take one, guilty or innocent.
Brian Curley
> I'll bet even being intentional about it isn't even necessary. I'll bet
> that if you grabbed me out of my office one day, dragged me into the
> police station and put me in front of some belligerent cops, I could
> possibly be found to be lying about my innocence in a murder case, just
> because of all the commotion.
>
> I wish we'd just chuck all the lie detectors into the dump, because all
> they do is create false controversy.
Cool! We found common ground. How about a round of Kumbayah?
Brian Curley
> There was a lot of corroborating evidence that substantiated her version of the story. I
> am not relying on her word alone.
OK... let's look at what you consider corroborating evidence.
> There was also a lot of evidence that Chmura was flirting with teenage girls
And this corroborates a sexual assault claim? So have you ever flirted
with a girl? Then I presume you proceeded to sexually assault her
afterwards, right?
> and even groped one in the whirlpool while wearing only his underwear.
Would this be the same hot tub that was described as "packed like
sardines"? The same hot tub in which a witness described that she was
touched by others "unintentionally"? So touching someone in a hot tub
corroborates a claim of sexual assault? I guess you've never bumped into
someone in an elevator in a manner that, were it not for the
circumstances, could be considered "groping". Or if you did then I
presume you proceeded to sexually assault him or her.
> It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to understand that he was horny, drunk and on the prowl for teenage flesh.
Excuse me, we were talking about corroborating evidence, not salacious
supposition you concoct in your filthy mind.
> Then he finds himself alone in a bathroom with someone
No... according to eye witness testimony, he was alone in the bathroom,
period. Until Allison McCabe opened a closed door and entered of her own
free will. Again we're talking about evidence, not your supposition.
> he had made sexually suggestive comments to prior to this party (those comments were
> corroborated at the trial).
On the contrary, those statements were refuted by the only witness to
testify about them, Lynda Chmura. To corroborate a statement by a third
party, you have to be a witness to them making the statement. There was
no testimony from anyone who witnessed Mark Chmura refer to Allison
McCabe as "jailbait". On the other hand Allison McCabe herself testified
that she had spread rumors about Mark Chmura.
> When she comes out of the bathroom she is emotionally devastated according to the testimony of
> a friend who witnessed her exit.
And according to another witness she claims, vehemently, that "nothing
happened." But that aside, how is her emotion state corroborating
evidence of her claims of a sexual assault? She could have been
"emotionally devastated" for any number of reason. It's equally as
likely that she was drunk and upset about something else. If you've
never seen a drunk person go into a crying jag then you need to get out
more.
> She spends much of the next day crying and upset.
Which corroborates claims of a sexual assault how, exactly? There's no
other possible reason she could have been crying and upset? How about a
man she had the hots for dismissed her when she tried to come on to him?
How about she was afraid that rumors were going to be spread that she was
an easy slut because her friends caught her in a bathroom with a
professional football player? How about she tried to fend off those
rumors by claiming he'd forced himself on her and now she didn't know how
to get out of the lie without being charged with a crime herself?
> Use common sense and put 2 and 2 together.
No... we're talking about evidence. Or rather you claimed you were going
to talk about evidence that corroborated Allison McCabe's story. I'm
still waiting for you to indicate the first piece.
> Something happened in that bathroom
OK... what? And your proof is? Keep in mind that the defense
established that: a) her claim of penetration was unsubstantiated; b) her
claim that he performed oral sex on her was unsubstantiated; c) her claim
that the lay on the floor was refute by the builder, a model of the
bathroom, and her own admission that the mock-up didn't appear large
enough for them to have lay on the floor; d) she was, in her own words,
"extremely drunk".
> and, given that the defense argued that Allison hated Chmura
Not to mention admitted spreading rumors about him previously.
> and given her emotional state after leaving the bathroom
When she vehemently claimed nothing had happened, and despite the victim
being in the bathroom only 60 seconds, Mark Chmura was fully clothed then
the door opened.
> it seems extremely
> unlikely that what happened occurred with her consent.
Despite the fact that eye witness testimony established that she entered
the closed bathroom even after she learned that Mark Chmura was in there.
Excuse me... you said something about corroborating evidence. Where is
it?
j. vonbriel
Brian Curley (Master of Time and Space) <bkcu...@facstaff.wisc.edu>
wrote:
I was mainly referring to the comment that was something like "we know
something went on in there...etc" and that Chmura showed bad judgement
being there. To me, that sounds like they thought it was fishy that he
was there but obviously, to that jury, they felt the evidence to back
that up wasn't strong enough.
Brian Curley
> Well, isn't this a bit of revisionist history. Here's an exact quote from the MJS
>
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/chmura/jan01/chmura28012701.asp
>
> "Lese also testified that while in a hot tub during the party last
> April, Chmura, 31, touched her inner thigh and put his arm
> around her. Feeling uncomfortable, she moved away."
>
> Inner thigh. Arm around her. Made her feel so uncomfortable that she moved away. Get
> it?
Yeah... she also testified that others touched her unintentionally. Got
proof Chmura touched her thigh intentionally? And she testified that
they were "packed like sardines". Ever seen Mark Chmura? He's got
pretty wide shoulders. If he puts his arms on the edge of the hot tub,
it gives everyone more room. I suppose you've never sat along the edge
of a tub or pool with your arms on the sides, huh?
Oh... and as for your revisionist histort:
Allison McCabe: Mark Chmura pulled me into the bathroom.
Kleber: Allison McCabe entered the closed bathroom even after I told her
Mark Chmura was in there.
Get it? No, I doubt you do.
j. vonbriel
Dave Wallen
>
> Allison McCabe: Mark Chmura pulled me into the bathroom.
>
> Kleber: Allison McCabe entered the closed bathroom even after I told her
> Mark Chmura was in there.
Speaking of revisionist!
Klebler: I told her not to go in there
Did Allison know that Chumura was in the bathroom?
Klebler: I'm not sure.
That's as good as your revisionist "She said nothing happened":
Still later, he saw her fall onto the basement floor and approached her.
"What just happened?" he said he asked her.
She told him nothing had happened. "I swear on my life. I swear on my
parents' life. I swear on the Holy Bible. I didn't do anything," he said she
told him.
Bob
> as many have known for ages...the best time to rape is when the girl
> has been juiced and will never be believed
We shouldn't assume what Chmura knew or didn't know.
RickFly
>
>Calling her a "liar" can be construed as slander.
Actually, its "libel" or "defamation"
Balthazar the Blue
"RickFly" <lorsq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bqBOhDL2q4FwM...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> >Calling her a "liar" can be construed as slander.
>
> Actually, its "libel" or "defamation"
And only if it's not true. If she was lying, then
you can figure out the rest.
Brian Curley
says...
>
> >
> >Calling her a "liar" can be construed as slander.
>
> Actually, its "libel" or "defamation"
It could be "construed" as a lot of things. "Construed" is a word you use
when you can't prove anything.