[A CA Guy]

The jury had to deal with the facts, evidence and witnesses brought to them, and they replied properly to it all.

Really, there was NO case.

[MizSterious]

In molestation cases, usually there is no physical evidence. They have to rely on other things, such as patterns of behavior. There was a lot of good evidence in this case--not Sneddon's fault that the jury thought "beyond REASONABLE doubt" meant "beyond ANY doubt."

[The KG9 Kid]

You're going to have a hard time convincing these non-Californians that a California district attorney's office hasn't got the competency of a bucket of warm spit, even though this state's track record for the same should leave little doubt of that fact.

[Zevonismymuse]

What if a step-father, who had settled a case when previously accused of molesting kids had been on trial? What if this step-father admitted to sharing his bed with preteen girls on a regular basis? What if a maid's daughter, with nothing to gain by testifying, claimed the step-father had molested her? The step-father would have convicted ina minute.

There was plenty of evidence. The jury was star-struck.