I don’t think this is Katie Johnson, since she came forward in 2016. This is the one they’re talking about:
A redacted FBI report released as part of the botched release of the Epstein files revealed that the woman told interviewers Trump had forced her to perform a sexual act on him and punched her in the side of the head after she allegedly “bit the s–t out of” his penis.
Trump is then alleged to have yelled, “Get this little b—h the hell out of here,” according to an FBI memo detailing one of Jane Doe 4’s interviews.
The woman also alleged that she was assaulted multiple times by Epstein in South Carolina, as well as by a third man identified by The Post and Courier as businessman Jimmy Atkins.
An explosive new report by the South Carolina-based newspaper The Post and Courier has corroborated several personal details provided by a woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted at the age of 13 by Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and a third man, Jimmy Atkins, during the 1980s.
The newspaper’s investigation verified roughly 16 personal details from the woman’s 2019 FBI interviews, which investigators suggest bolsters her overall credibility.
It doesn’t require much science. Victim testifies she bit the attacker and it drew blood. Attacker has scar of approximately the same age. That’s not going to secure a conviction on its own, but it adds to the prosecution’s evidence.
If it didn’t draw blood, it’d be harder to find a lasting mark.
Not saying it’s good science. It’s just a good point. If you have a bite scar on your dick, it’s most likely because you tried putting it somewhere that it should not be.
In the context where a lady comes out of the shadows and says she put a scar on Trumps mushroom, where nobody had ever mentioned a scar on Trumps mushroom before, and it is later revealed that Trump does indeed have a scar on his mushroom…
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… what is it?
Preaching to the choir, I was speaking technically.
The odds that the president would be convicted with such junk sciencer were zero when he was just a rich asshole. There is no chance this holds as of now. Someone of character needs to take the lead, if you get my drift.
Old man time is on the case though, and it changes little, without a popular alternative we are fucked.
I don’t think this is Katie Johnson, since she came forward in 2016. This is the one they’re talking about:
Edit: And this
I saw a tv show where, in one episode, a rapist got bit and they were able to use the scar as evidence.
Junk science.
Those shows are propaganda. Propublica has done some good reporting on this, I can link it if you care to read any of it.
It doesn’t require much science. Victim testifies she bit the attacker and it drew blood. Attacker has scar of approximately the same age. That’s not going to secure a conviction on its own, but it adds to the prosecution’s evidence.
If it didn’t draw blood, it’d be harder to find a lasting mark.
Not saying it’s good science. It’s just a good point. If you have a bite scar on your dick, it’s most likely because you tried putting it somewhere that it should not be.
In the context where a lady comes out of the shadows and says she put a scar on Trumps mushroom, where nobody had ever mentioned a scar on Trumps mushroom before, and it is later revealed that Trump does indeed have a scar on his mushroom…
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck… what is it?
Preaching to the choir, I was speaking technically.
The odds that the president would be convicted with such junk sciencer were zero when he was just a rich asshole. There is no chance this holds as of now. Someone of character needs to take the lead, if you get my drift.
Old man time is on the case though, and it changes little, without a popular alternative we are fucked.
Bite matching is absurdly inaccurate, unfortunately. TV loves it though.
The existence of a scar would be telling and they already know who did the biting so it’s not a matter of bite matching.