|
|
Forum: Victims and Survivors Corner
Thread (Discussion): We need help - It's a wash
Message 122241
Please help
Posted by Chopdoc
on Nov 24, 2003 07:48 PM | Also by Chopdoc
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
I have been through over a year and a half of torture in trying to get the guy that molested my daughter into prison. The trial just concluded and the jury let him off on all counts despite pysical evidence and the fact that our daughter named him and detailed the abuse. We are all stunned and don't know what to do or how to go on. He was her step father and although they have divorced they have a son together and if he gets unsupervised visitation with his son I believe the boy is in danger. The boy is autistic and cannot communicate it if somebody abuses him. If anybody has any idea about what can be done please tell me. This guy is walking the streets. He is also an internet junkie/computer whiz and we have reason to believe he is involved in child porn. He could be your neighbor.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 122242 (In Reply to Message 122241)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 24, 2003 08:45 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
No doubt I will be set on by a pack of wild dogs shortly for lacking empathy, but here goes.
You said the jury acquitted him on ALL counts? Since they heard the testimony and viewed the evidence first-hand, I refuse to second-guess their decision. Obviously the case against him wasn't nearly as solid as you would like to believe. The jury told us and you that the man is innocent. Like it or not, justice has been served.
If you're concerned about the man being around your daughter, keep her away from him. If you're concerned about the man being around his son, that is a matter for the courts and the child's mother to take care of. You have no legal standing in that matter, so you need to just stay out of it. I'm sure the child's mother is aware of the allegations made against the father? Let her fight that fight.
I myself am an Internet junkie/computer whiz. So are a lot of other people. That in no way is an indication that I or they are purveyors of child porn. You said you "have reason to believe". What reasons do you have?
Sorry if I rub you the wrong way, as I'm sure I do. If your daughter was molested, I'm truly sorry. I've seen enough fabricated abuse cases to know that not all is as it may seem. But as a father myself, I would certainly be more likely to believe anything my daughter told me over the words of anybody else.There obviously is something about this case that caused 12 members of your community to believe this man did not molest your daughter.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122241)
Message 122246 (In Reply to Message 122242)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 24, 2003 09:45 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
I'll agree with Orolon on a couple of points. Basically if a jury didn't convict him our out of luck. There are double jeporady laws that will prevent any retrail.
If I may ask how old was your daughter and what exactly was alledged to have taken place? On what grounds did they NOT convict him? What physical evidence was there? Usually physical evidence is in itself pretty damning. Did you daughter change her story or something? What exactly happend? I'm sure you sat thru the trial so you can probably tell us what the jury heard to reach their decision.
You said he's the girls stepfather. Were you married to him? Was this all part of some kind of divorce and custody fight? Did the defense portray it that way?
You said he has a son. Why do you feel he's in danger? What makes you believe he's into child porn? (Being an internet junky is something alot of us are).
If you daughter was abused I'm sorry but if you want real advice you need to tell us what exactly happend in the trial and why they didn't convict him. I'm not insensitvie (Im an abuse victim myself) but we need to know the rest of the story here.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122242)
Message 122250 (In Reply to Message 122242)
Not guilty, not innocent
Posted by steve
on Nov 24, 2003 09:51 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> The jury told us and you that the man is innocent.
A jury does not have the power to find someone innocent. They are tasked with finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. Not guilty can mean the jury believes the defendant is innocent. It can mean the jury doesn't thinks the state proved the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This may seem like a subtle difference, but it really isn't. Orolan, I'm sure you even knew this. Maybe you thought it would be easier to sway the poster if you misspoke?
>Since they heard the testimony and viewed the evidence first-hand,
> I refuse to second-guess their decision.
Why? Since I don't think you actually believe a jury always makes the right decision and that the state always proves every guilty defendant's guilt beyond a resoanable doubt I suspect that from time to time you do in fact second-guess juries' decisions. A recent post of yours about Michael Jackson even seems to indicate that if you served on a jury you wouldn't convict if the state didn't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the way the system is supposed to work, but please don't confuse innocence with not proven guilty and don't pretend a jury verdict always reflects a defendant's true innocence or guilt.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122242)
Message 122252 (In Reply to Message 122241)
Hello
Posted by dp1
on Nov 24, 2003 11:35 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Hello Chopdoc,
I am sorry to hear about your disappointment with the trial. I don't know how old your daughter is but I hope you are able to explain to her how are criminal justice system works. More importantly, from the eyes of a victim it is important to have closure. Obvisously, this twisting of events is a minor set back for her healing. If I was her parent I would explain to a therapist about the not guilty verdict and ask for assistance so your daughter can get closure to this chapter in her life. If you need some legal answers to your questions regarding the surprise verdict I think it's best to call the presecuting attorney. If your child is old enough and the attorney is willing they can also explain what happened to your daughter. You should also look at other legal options available to you.
You did the best you could by supporting your daughter and allowing the law to administer justice. I think it's time for you to accept the outcome no matter how unfair you think it was. Remember that you too must set the example for your daughter and lead the way to getting on with your life.
Good luck and welcome to the board.
DP1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122241)
Message 122253 (In Reply to Message 122250)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 24, 2003 11:53 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Steve,
Since a defendant, under the presumtion of innocence premise, is innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, a finding of not guilty is in fact a confirmation of that innocence. Yes, we both know that it is possible the evidence wasn't strong enough for conviction. But it is wrong to automatically assume that.
I firmly believe that in today's courtrooms, juries are far more inclined to err on the side of caution and convict in child sex abuse cases. If this jury failed to convict on ANY count or return a lesser-included offense conviction, the evidence had to be pretty much non-existent or had a total lack of credibility.
As my first paragraph shows, I wasn't trying to mislead or sway the poster, and I didn't misspeak. Presumption of innocence is a premise that has been around a lot longer than you and I put together, and is a fundamental foundation of our courts.
Sure, I sometimes second-guess a jury decision. But only if I've been given all the facts that were presented in the case and/or I attended portions of the trial. No way will I formulate an opinion based only on the words of the "losing" side. Or the "winning" side, for that matter.
And as for MJ, yes, I said that. It is a perfect example. People the world over have already tried and convicted him. Why? Because they don't like him. Ever think about the fact that maybe this thread's original poster doesn't LIKE the exonerated defendant? What evidence is there in the MJ case? At this point, only the statements made by the boy in some therapy session (for what, we don't know). If I were on the jury, the state better come up with something better than that. And right now, MJ is innocent. He will remain so if he is found not guilty.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122250)
Message 122256 (In Reply to Message 122253)
Posted by steve
on Nov 25, 2003 01:20 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
> Since a defendant, under the presumtion of innocence premise, is
> innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, a finding of not guilty is in fact a
> confirmation of that innocence.
In the US legal system a defendant is presumed innocent, but I stand by my statement that a verdict of not guilty is not equivalent to being declared innocent. I made no statement about the frequency with which not guilty verdicts are due to the state not making a strong enough case because that is not the issue. Presumed innocent just means the burden is on the state in proving guilt as opposed to the burden being on the defendant in proving innocence as is the case in some countries. In the US, the law never declares someone innocent.
I don't have time to dig up a series of pages that explain the difference, but if the following doesn't convince you maybe you can research on your own or someone else can point you in the right direction. See
What Happens When A Person is Charged With A Crime?. Incidentally, note that the word "innocent" is never used.
> I firmly believe that in today's courtrooms, juries are far more
> inclined to err on the side of caution and convict in child sex abuse
> cases.
I have no doubt that in such cases some jurors err on the side of convicting someone, even though the guilt wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I've served on a jury. Let me just say that anyone who has their fate decided by a jury of "their peers" better keep their fingers crossed. Juries bring their own agendas and in my limited experience are pretty low on the qualification poll, generally speaking.
> If this jury failed to convict on ANY count or return a lesser-included
> offense conviction, the evidence had to be pretty much non-existent
> or had a total lack of credibility.
You seem to be trying to convince us that in child sex abuse cases (which my earlier reply wasn't meant to be limited to) that only in very rare cases are guilty defendants found not guilty. I don't want to get too far on a tangent so I'll say that the focus of my earlier reply was 1. not guilty is not the same as innocent (you seem to have read more into that than was there) and the jury system isn't foolproof (I could have been clearer about that).
> No way will I formulate an opinion based only on the words of the "losing" side.
A little hypocritical don't you think? You came to this message board and essentially asked everyone here, without having to say it in so many words, to give you the benefit of the doubt when you shared your version of the facts of your situation. As does everyone who posts here. When someone like Chopdoc comes here and shares his version of the facts I think we should extend him the benefit of the doubt. Your reply came across (to me at least) as you suggesting that Chopdoc's daughter might not have been abused, juries always get it right and that he shouldn't try to get involved in order to prevent the person from abusing others.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with asking clarifying questions or making suggestions, but Chopdoc came here for support and advice, not accusations and discouragement.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122253)
Message 122257 (In Reply to Message 122241)
Questions
Posted by poetsdreamscape
on Nov 25, 2003 01:26 AM | Also by poetsdreamscape
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The boy is autistic and cannot communicate it if somebody abuses him. If anybody has any idea about what can be done please tell me. This guy is walking the streets. He is also an internet junkie/computer whiz and we have reason to believe he is involved in child porn. He could be your neighbor.
First I need to ask if he is in a special ed school of any kind. If so you can send a letter to the school with your suspicions so they can closely monitor him they should have nurses and even more so the directors of any such institution is highly trained to figure these things out. I would like to also know why you believe he is involved with child porn and what you mean by involved with child porn. Its easy to say someone is so and so but with out the facts to prove its just hear say. Also you can write or call cps and tell them of your concern I am sure they will follow up on it. I understand your anger because a jury found him not guilty but thats the way the law works and he has been cleared of all the charges and i believe there were multiple counts. It is not easy to get a conviction with out solid evidence and with the abuse of the registry and all of its attachments as people become aware of it they will have to have beyond a resonable doubt.For future reference not everyone convicted goes to jail some wind up on probation with therapy and you should have been told that before a trail by the DA .I wish your child well in life and hope that you have put her in therapy to help her heal any wounds she may have.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122241)
Message 122349 (In Reply to Message 122253)
Constitutional rights
Posted by marta
on Nov 26, 2003 12:47 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
>>>
Sure, I sometimes second-guess a jury decision. But only if I've been given all the facts that were presented in the case and/or I attended portions of the trial. No way will I formulate an opinion based only on the words of the "losing" side. Or the "winning" side, for that matter.
And as for MJ, yes, I said that. It is a perfect example. People the world over have already tried and convicted him. Why? Because they don't like him. Ever think about the fact that maybe this thread's original poster doesn't LIKE the exonerated defendant? What evidence is there in the MJ case? At this point, only the statements made by the boy in some therapy session (for what, we don't know). If I were on the jury, the state better come up with something better than that. And right now, MJ is innocent. He will remain so if he is found not guilty.
>>>
With all due respect, orolan, presumption of innocence isn't required of anyone but the state, and then only during a criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court even ruled in 1979 that the presumption does not extend to pre-trial detainment, i.e. the constitutional rights of the accused in question were not violated when he was treated like a criminal by being held in a rather rough and tumble facility while awaiting trial. The presumption is a way of guaranteeing due process, of ensuring that the defendant is convicted based on proper procedure and a fair trial. It is a means, along with the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of slanting the scales of justice far in the defendant's favor in order to check the state's ability to incarcerate at will those accused of crimes. It prevents the state from arbitrarily or injudiciously depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.
When you argue that the populace at large should withhold judgment until they have adequate information, it is not without merit. It is, however, completely unrealistic. You may be more likely to wait before judging because of your experience, but there is no motivation for most of America to refrain from going with their gut. And ultimately, what does it matter if Joe Blow in Cincinnati thinks MJ is guilty? NOT MUCH. You can argue that it's still unfair, and that it does matter if the people he interacts with everyday judge him prematurely, and you wouldn't be wrong. Fortunately for him, the people around him aren't allowed to deprive him of life, liberty, or property. All they can do is ostracize or subtly discriminate against him. They may be wrong, but they aren't compelled to do otherwise.
I'm sure there are circumstances where you would go with your gut, despite the compelling argument to wait for all the information, no?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122253)
Message 122415 (In Reply to Message 122242)
Posted by PVulcan
on Nov 27, 2003 10:35 PM | Also by PVulcan
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Now how can this be? Over and over again I see on here, IF someone is acquitted then justice has been served! BUT, if someone is convicted on a sex crime, he/she must apppeal because they didn't have a good lawyer ,they were entrapped, the person lied blah blah blah! *sigh* talk about sheep!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122242)
Message 122417 (In Reply to Message 122415)
Posted by Silverthorne
on Nov 27, 2003 10:56 PM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
You dont see that PVulcan. The only time I've suggested someone had a bad defense was the lady whose husband was convicted of meeting a "girl" in person even though the "age" was never mentioned in the chat. Remember too I said that based on the condition that everything she said was true.
Most people here would probably agree that people who molest children and are convicted probably got a fair trial.
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122415)
Message 122421 (In Reply to Message 122349)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 28, 2003 12:00 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta,
I fully understand the implications of presumption of innocence as described. Yes, is in fact a "legal" issue. And yes, Joe Blow and his opinion won't amount to anything in the MJ case. But if Joe Blow owns an L.A. television station and insists that his employees continuously bombard the public with diatribes about how "bad" MJ is and proclaim MJ's "guilt", Joe Blow is interfering with MJ's ability to get a fair trial by an impartial jury. Joe Blow is entitled to his opnion, but he needs to stick to the KNOWN facts. In the case of MJ, we KNOW that a boy has made an accusation. What else do we know? Absolutely NOTHING.
In the case of the original poster of this thread, we are given a sob story about how an obviously guilty person was somehow acquitted by a jury of his peers in the face of solid physical evidence, and we are asked to sympathize with this miscarriage of justice.
I have to wonder what the comments would If the origianl poster had been a person claiming their spouse had been convicted by a jury on circumstantial and questionable evidence? Let me guess. The responses would be "that's the way the suystem works", "too bad", or "obviously he was guilty, or the jury wouldn't have convicted".
It bothers me that posters seem to have two different sets of rules and opinions, one for "victims", and another for "offenders". No wonder the courts have souch strict requirements for convictions. Anything else, and people like many posters on this board would simply convict everybody that had the bad luck to be accused of a crime.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122349)
Message 122542 (In Reply to Message 122421)
I know
Posted by marta
on Dec 01, 2003 07:55 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
But if Joe Blow owns an L.A. television station and insists that his employees continuously bombard the public with diatribes about how "bad" MJ is and proclaim MJ's "guilt", Joe Blow is interfering with MJ's ability to get a fair trial by an impartial jury. Joe Blow is entitled to his opnion, but he needs to stick to the KNOWN facts.
>>>
I thought I made it clear that the only reason Mr. Blow may "need" to stick to the known facts is because of his compelling sense of journalistic integrity, or his well-developed sense of justice. He is not compelled by anything else.
I also thought I conveyed that while this sucks, no one comports themselves with the notions of due process 100% of the time, yourself included (along with me). Some are more careful than average, but it's part of the human condition to be suspicious, petty, and to want to believe bad things about others who don't easily fit into the way we understand the world.
EXAMPLE:
>>>
we are given a sob story about how an obviously guilty person was somehow acquitted by a jury of his peers in the face of solid physical evidence, and we are asked to sympathize with this miscarriage of justice.
>>>
You've made a fairly hefty accusation (that she's lying) with insufficient evidence. Why bother? It's not clear why you would assume a lie from the get go, without asking a lot more questions. Except, perhaps because you have a bone to pick, because you think you're more likely than not right. Just like all the people speculating about Michael Jackson.
>>>
I have to wonder what the comments would If the origianl poster had been a person claiming their spouse had been convicted by a jury on circumstantial and questionable evidence?
>>>
If the original post was as ambiguous as this post, no one should respond with anything but questions. In a perfect world.
>>>
Let me guess.
>>>
Feel free to speculate away. We're not in court here after all.
>>>
The responses would be "that's the way the suystem works", "too bad", or "obviously he was guilty, or the jury wouldn't have convicted".
It bothers me that posters seem to have two different sets of rules and opinions, one for "victims", and another for "offenders".
>>>
I haven't seen this occurring. I know that I myself tend to attack anyone who isn't rigorous about giving information but still expects sympathy.
This assumption of guilt phenomenon occurs because it is inconsistent with conventional wisdom that people walking the straight and narrow can suddenly be dragged into a pit of injustice by the horrible monster that is the American criminal justice system. People who suspect wrong-doing without solid evidence of it do so not because they're immoral or unjust, but because everything about their world throughout their entire life makes it seem HIGHLY improbable that a person will get in trouble with the law if he/she didn't do anything wrong.
Your job is education, not castigating and crying foul.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122421)
Message 122545 (In Reply to Message 122542)
Posted by steve
on Dec 01, 2003 08:48 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
marta wrote:
> This assumption of guilt phenomenon occurs because it is
> inconsistent with conventional wisdom that people walking the
> straight and narrow can suddenly be dragged into a pit of injustice
> by the horrible monster that is the American criminal justice system.
This reminds me of an experience I had while serving on the jury during a civil trial. I'll label my fellow juror as "Juror". This is paraphrased, but accurate and took place after jury selection, just before the trial was to begin.
Juror: Judge, I don't feel qualified to decide the outcome of this case. Can I be excused?
Judge: We all have concerns about deciding the fate of our peers. That is natural.
Juror: I don't think I should be a juror.
Judge: Is there something more you want to add? You were asked a series of questions before you were selected and both attorneys selected you.
Juror: Well, I think he [the defendant] must be guilty.
Judge: What do you mean?
Juror: I don't think anyone would go to the trouble of bringing someone to court unless the other person is guilty.
Judge: This juror is dismissed.
The juror wasn't just using this as an excuse. It was apparent that she really believed that no one would ever file civil charges unless the other party was at fault. I'm glad she spoke up. But as scary as her thought process was I have no doubt that a significant percentage of jurors feel the same way (whether it's a civil case or criminal case) and don't voice their concerns to have themselves excluded.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122542)
Message 122556 (In Reply to Message 122241)
sorry for your daughter
Posted by lisaearl
on Dec 02, 2003 01:44 AM | Also by lisaearl
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: South Dakota,
Country: United States |
I am really sorry that your daughter was abused. I have a seven year old that was also. You are lucky you have seen all the information. I am getting the run around......Always an excuse why Mom cant see all the information. It is hard know exactly how to help without knowing all the facts. My husband is waiting sentancing. He will be in prison soon. No jury trial......he plead guilty.....he doesnt want anymore pain inflicted on his daughter or sons or me. We are lucky. The best thing you can do for your daughter now is set a good example. Dont continue being a victim and know that life does go on. Living in fear is no fun. Acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. Take care of yourself and your daughter. Good luck to you!!
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122241)
Message 122582 (In Reply to Message 122556)
Posted by mouseinawheel
on Dec 02, 2003 05:46 AM | Also by mouseinawheel
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Firstly, I’m sorry for you and for your daughter. The lack of closure that is often left for victims after an unsuccessful prosecution can be very difficult to deal with. To state the obvious here, it’s important that both you and your daughter seriously consider working through some of your feelings with a mental health professional. Don’t underestimate the damage done to you as a secondary victim of this abuse. It’s not a sign of weakness for you to need help working through this sort of thing.
Also, and I know you are likely far to early in the process of recovering from the events in question to really process this, you need to focus more on your daughter and less on the person who victimized her. She needs you more than you need vengeance or justice. She needs you right now more than any future victims you might prevent by pursuing this person. The justice system is certainly far from perfect, but it’s the best we have. You may have gone into the courtroom seeking justice, but all you will ever receive there is the law. In this case, the person who assaulted your daughter was found not guilty under the law. It is surely unjust to you. It is still the law. Even with this finding you’d likely have little difficulty executing a restraining order or an equivalent “stay away” order legally requiring the man to avoid contact with you or your daughter. If you haven’t pursued that, I’d recommend you do.
If you believe in a higher power, take comfort in the fact that there are other, more certain, forms of justice. If you feel it would help become involved in victims rights organizations. Most importantly, though, help your daughter and yourself to heal this pain and go on to happy lives. You have to accept that certain things in life, fair or unfair, will be out of your control. By all appearances, the fate of this man is one of those things. If you believe in fate, or Karma, or a just God then hold that faith that there will be justice sometime for him even if you are not there to witness it.
Be well, and good luck to you both.
--Mouse
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122556)
Message 122632 (In Reply to Message 122582)
Bravo
Posted by orolan
on Dec 03, 2003 02:36 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Very well-said, Mouse. So many parents of victims fail to grasp this. They are so stuck in the revenge and retribution mode that they forget the child and his/her needs.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122582)
Message 122633 (In Reply to Message 122542)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 03, 2003 02:52 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Marta said:
>>>
You've made a fairly hefty accusation (that she's lying) with insufficient evidence.
>>>
Maybe so. But apparently somebody made a fairly hefty accusation that he molested the child with insufficient evidence also. Tit for tat.
>>>
Except, perhaps because you have a bone to pick
>>>
Not picking bones here. Simply responding to those who jumped on me for having the unmitigated gall to postulate that perhaps the guy really is innocent.
>>>
Your job is education
>>>
Actually, my job is making sure tall buildings will remain in an upright state.
I know. That isn't what you were talking about.
Steve's post following yours was pretty good. Lends credence to the premise that juries, while the best system there is, are not without flaws.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122542)
Message 122714 (In Reply to Message 122633)
It's a wash
Posted by marta
on Dec 05, 2003 05:57 AM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
>>>
Maybe so. But apparently somebody made a fairly hefty accusation that he molested the child with insufficient evidence also. Tit for tat.
>>>
How disappointing.
>>>>
>>>
Your job is education
>>>
Actually, my job is making sure tall buildings will remain in an upright state.
>>>>
How funny! : )
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (122633)
Thread
122241, Chopdoc, Nov 24, 2003 07:48 PM [Please help]
122242, orolan, Nov 24, 2003 08:45 PM
122246, Silverthorne, Nov 24, 2003 09:45 PM
122250, steve, Nov 24, 2003 09:51 PM [Not guilty, not innocent]
122253, orolan, Nov 24, 2003 11:53 PM
122256, steve, Nov 25, 2003 01:20 AM
122349, marta, Nov 26, 2003 12:47 AM [Constitutional rights]
122421, orolan, Nov 28, 2003 12:00 AM
122542, marta, Dec 01, 2003 07:55 PM [I know]
122545, steve, Dec 01, 2003 08:48 PM
122633, orolan, Dec 03, 2003 02:52 PM
122714, marta, Dec 05, 2003 05:57 AM [It's a wash]
122415, PVulcan, Nov 27, 2003 10:35 PM
122417, Silverthorne, Nov 27, 2003 10:56 PM
122252, dp1, Nov 24, 2003 11:35 PM [Hello]
122257, poetsdreamscape, Nov 25, 2003 01:26 AM [Questions]
122556, lisaearl, Dec 02, 2003 01:44 AM [sorry for your daughter]
122582, mouseinawheel, Dec 02, 2003 05:46 AM
122632, orolan, Dec 03, 2003 02:36 PM [Bravo]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
