fishfry600
All Star
Got this from kanyetothe
Charlamagne Tha Rapist Lies:
1. He said that he went to the police station
Arrest Warrant, then documented arrest determined that was a lie:
2. Charlamagne said he wasn't even there and someone framed him. LIE
The victim said he told the courts that the sex was consensual which would explain why even if they found DNA they would need her testimony but since she stopped coming he got a plea deal
3. He lied and said that he was only 20, small lie but still a lie
Now I want to see the DNA results because if he said it was consensual that only means he was forced to admit that he had sex with her.
4. The gang rape story has not been confirmed because she only said HE raped her. That was another lie he made up to discredit her and make it seem like he wasnt involved.
This is the break down of the charges since yall keep trying to say he was never charged or it was dismissed because of DNA. FALSE it would say revaluation of evidence
Break down of the charges and what I FEEL is proof of a Plea deal.
1. Lenard said in the video that he got reduced charges which usually means it was a plea deal.
2. The Charge of THE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT was disposed of by way of Nolle Pro's one year after he was charged with it.
DNA HAD BEEN IN THE SYSTEM FOR A YEAR 8/28/2001 ALREADY IF IT WAS THE REASON THE CASE WAS DISMISSED THAT WOULDNT TAKE A YEAR.
What's the difference between nolle prosequi and dismissal of charges?
Nolle prosequi is a Latin phrase meaning “will no longer prosecute” NOT THAT HE WAS EXONERATED BECAUSE DNA
A prosecutor might nol pross or dismiss charges for a variety of reasons, including:
The reason given for the Nolle Pro's in the court documents is the one I highlighted. Please pay attention to the dates.
If we look at the dates of The original charge THE RAPE that was in 8/28/2001
Note: The Grand Jury would not indict him if they didn't have substantial evidence and probable cause
Then on 6/10/2002 A WHOLE YEAR LATER the new charge appears the same day they determine the Victim didnt show up to court.
So it is my belief that they gave him a reduced charge because the case was now weak. They could have still pursued him but why go through the trouble?
Hence the Plea
Note: Lenard LIED and said he only got 2 or 3 months in his video interview. He, in fact, got THREE YEARS
This is looking bad.
Charlamagne Tha Rapist Lies:
1. He said that he went to the police station
Arrest Warrant, then documented arrest determined that was a lie:
2. Charlamagne said he wasn't even there and someone framed him. LIE
The victim said he told the courts that the sex was consensual which would explain why even if they found DNA they would need her testimony but since she stopped coming he got a plea deal
3. He lied and said that he was only 20, small lie but still a lie
Now I want to see the DNA results because if he said it was consensual that only means he was forced to admit that he had sex with her.
4. The gang rape story has not been confirmed because she only said HE raped her. That was another lie he made up to discredit her and make it seem like he wasnt involved.
This is the break down of the charges since yall keep trying to say he was never charged or it was dismissed because of DNA. FALSE it would say revaluation of evidence
Break down of the charges and what I FEEL is proof of a Plea deal.
1. Lenard said in the video that he got reduced charges which usually means it was a plea deal.
2. The Charge of THE CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT was disposed of by way of Nolle Pro's one year after he was charged with it.
DNA HAD BEEN IN THE SYSTEM FOR A YEAR 8/28/2001 ALREADY IF IT WAS THE REASON THE CASE WAS DISMISSED THAT WOULDNT TAKE A YEAR.
What's the difference between nolle prosequi and dismissal of charges?
Nolle prosequi is a Latin phrase meaning “will no longer prosecute” NOT THAT HE WAS EXONERATED BECAUSE DNA
A prosecutor might nol pross or dismiss charges for a variety of reasons, including:
- reevaluation of evidence
- emergence of new evidence
- failure of witnesses to cooperate, or
- desire to give the defendant a second chance.
If we look at the dates of The original charge THE RAPE that was in 8/28/2001
Note: The Grand Jury would not indict him if they didn't have substantial evidence and probable cause
Then on 6/10/2002 A WHOLE YEAR LATER the new charge appears the same day they determine the Victim didnt show up to court.
So it is my belief that they gave him a reduced charge because the case was now weak. They could have still pursued him but why go through the trouble?
Hence the Plea
Note: Lenard LIED and said he only got 2 or 3 months in his video interview. He, in fact, got THREE YEARS
This is looking bad.
