Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: blueblazes

I think it will be very difficult for a lot of these cases that might be coming up. For one thing, I am seeing a lot of talk about how there was "no evidence."

The thing is, with molestation, it's hard to find "evidence" other than the child's accusations. Molesters don't usually molest on camera, or in the company of witnesses. Molesting per se is not going to leave the bruises and tearing that a rape would, so there would be little or no physical evidence. Demanding physical evidence to convict is tantamount to giving permission to every pervert in the country to molest at will.


71 posted on 06/14/2005 8:17:27 AM PDT by MizSterious (First, the journalists, THEN the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: MizSterious

Exactly. I think it's pretty much impossible to convict many of these people (or indeed to even convict on charges like murder) as people don't seem to have a grasp of what Reasonable Doubt might be. I can't even imagine what kind of case you have to construct to get a conviction nowadays - videotapes, dna, doing it on the Boston Common in front of a marching band? Michael Jackson has publicly admitted that he sleeps with unrelated young boys in the same bed. That one FACT, in and of itself, should be enough to get him convicted of something. What do people think he's doing in bed with these boys? Is this "okay"? He has to be stopped. Anyone with a moral sense and sense of responsibility would have found him guilty simply because he needs to be stopped.

If we cannot find the most obvious, flagrant, admitted child molester on the face of the planet, guilty, then what is the point of having these laws at all?


78 posted on 06/14/2005 8:21:31 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: MizSterious

Moreover, pedophiles like Jackson deliberately seek out children from exactly the kind of background the victim in this case represented - dysfunctional, chaotic, maybe the family are grifter, they're unappealing. That's EXACTLY what pedophiles look for. It gives them a child that is vulnerable and needy because of their background and then if they are accused of pedophilia they can simply say, "well look at this kid's background, obviously he's crazy, lying, promiscuous, - whatever". They pick these kinds of families.


82 posted on 06/14/2005 8:24:18 AM PDT by blueblazes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

To: MizSterious
it's hard to find "evidence" other than the child's accusations

Most children don't have a prior track record of lies in legal cases.

This case was just too dirty to sort through. Since the mother was there and an active player in the relationship and proximity of the child to MJ... She's relevant. And if she'd shown to make things up and get her kid to play along, the case has to be thrown out.

This whole trial is a circus side show.

88 posted on 06/14/2005 8:27:04 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson