to him. next thing you know there s an ice cream sitting on your bed. and it s 110 degrees outside. on march 7, 2008, we had a hearing before judge stubblefield who was the presiding judge. it was the first hearing we d been able to have on the case. there was no hearing at all about our motion for dna testing. he just ruled on that without a hearing. i pointed out that we ve now been fighting for three years to get this testing, and that mr. bradley had fought us every step of the way. at the time i thought three years was a long time. but i told the court and i m quoting your honor, there is a blood-stained bandanna that was found at the crime scene. it was found, taken into custody by the sheriff. it contained a hair. this bandanna may contain the blood of the victim, christine morton, plus perhaps mingled with the blood of the murderer. but it may also contain skin
on the issue. i have to say he explained it a couple of times and i still don t understand it. basically, on march 7, he was talking to greta and she asked him, all she said is what about libya? he said we would impose a no-fly zone right away. then the last week, when we have the no-fly zone, he was on the today show and said i wouldn t have intervened at all. a lot of people say citks say when obama does something he is against him and when he doesn t do something he is against him. the explanation is once obama said gaddafi must go he had to intervene. i don t understand why this week when we did intervene. shannon: he was confusing. folks should watch for themselves. he is in the spotlight because he could be on the radar in 2012, in the midst of making a decision. i think he basically said
record. they don t care about what he does. all they care about is money. now, all of a sudden, he argues about his boss, he called his boss names. all this stuff is bad stuff. gregg: rachel, charlie sheen, i don t think i m going out on a limb here he is such a whack job, he would be the last guy you would ever want to put in front of a jury. so is this lawsuit with the inflated damages, is this really just a pretext for something else? i think it was a brilliant move by his attorney. what it was, i think, it was a pro-active rather than reactive approach. on march 7 warner brothers sent the attorney for mr. sheen a letter indicating they were going to be pursuing breach of contract against him in pursuant to the terms of the contract. really all this is simple contract dispute. you have him breaching the contract and recovering damages and they need to arbitrate this.