Posted on 07/12/2009 9:02:50 AM PDT by libstripper
Oh wait, you just signed up today, I should have known.
either that or the witness protection program. i wd be hunting them both down
I can see when they were still young children.
But at some point when they were far more conscious, they should have come forward.
Think about a COP in jail on CHILD MOLESTATION charges.
An INNOCENT cop.
And think of the double hell that guy went through.
See my post 43. I know kids can be manipulated by evil adults. But 20 years to recant? That’s what I was referring to.
Unfortunately, things don’t ever get simple in these cases. Memory is surprisingly changeable. If a overeager prosecutor gets you to identify the perpertrator of a crime by using inappropriate ID techniques, you will “remember” your indentification even though it may not match the original perp. That’s why many witnesses in death row cases have proven to be inaccurate, when their ID is tested by DNA methods.
High profile, “important” cases put pressure on prosecutors for convictions. Investigators stretch the ID rules. Witnesses are lead by the investigators. By the time its all over, the witness has a firm, but incorrect, recollection of the crime.
Children are even more vulnerable to these distortions. Many of these kids, lead by overeager investigators, have quite clear and damaging memories of abuse that never occurred in reality.
Don’t blame the kids. A corrupt and determined investigator can get about any kid to testify to about anything. In many cases, the investigator can get them to “remember” facts to support their testimony as well.
The ugly truth is that there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent people in jail because our memories are not as firm as we would like to believe them to be.
When they'd do this to little kids, it was easy. The kids believed Mom and the nice doctors and nice cops and wanted it over with. I don't blame the kids at all. It took them years to realize this was all crap.
Given the hysteria of the times, I could even cut a little slack to the Mom and original prosecutor. But, the creep STILL trying to defend this atrocity should be disbarred immediately.
Oh, and Mitt Romney's cowardice in the infamous Amirault case renders him unfit for office as well. Look that up, if you have the stomach for it.
Oops. You wrote what I was trying to write. Only you did it better!
;)
hence, I'd have voted not guilty in that case, since jurors are only to consider the evidence actually presented.
That the parents took the $25 million is what has always bothered me most. If someone touched one of my children money couldn’t buy me off.
Rage? Luckily I am neither a parent of an abused child nor was I one myself.
Had either of these situations existed, I would have shown rage that would have most likely caused the demise of the perp.
You are so blinded with love for your hero, Michael, the King Of Pop(ping young boys), (a common affliction among liberal @$$holes), that you forget to look at the pervert and life ruiner for what he really is....
the child’s parents were filth and deserve the same punishment as a child molester should get.
If you want to prove this statement about eyewitness identification, just watch the Food Channel and two of their younger chefs, Bobby Flay and Tyler Florence. Both are white men in their early to mid 30s, apparetly with no genetic relationship. However, they look sufficiently similar that they could play fraternal twins and nobody would doubt that they were.
Hardly.
you would execute 9 year old children? Allah be praised!
Wrong! Lack of evidence "proves" nothing. This logical error is becoming more and more common these days but it is still a fallacy. In formal logic it is called the "fallacy of the negative premise".
In the syllogism above the lack of evidence may just as well be due to care taken by the accused to eliminate such evidence. You can argue till you're blue in the face but you cannot make a solid case either way.
Putting it another way is that "lack of evidence" is just that, a lack of evidence, which proves nothing at all, inferring anything else from that is a jump from solid ground into the darkness. Conclusions drawn with the aid of logic are built up piece by piece of demonstrable evidence and held in place by rigid rules making the conclusions drawn irrefutably correct. There is no place for intuition, common sense, or unsupported assertion.
Regards,
GtG
They are no longer nine. Please re-read the article. They are in their twenties.
So because they were brainwashed and programmed when they were 6 and 9: off with their heads!
By the way I did not advocate the death penalty. A good whipping with a cat-o-nine tails followed by twenty years would be sufficient
Puts one in mind of Grant Snowden, a decorated policeman whom Janet Reno railroaded into prison on false charges.
I’d almost expect that the next time we hear of him it will as a defendent in a murder trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.