[youngidiot]

No, you don't understand the system.

Remove the emotion and think here for a second. If you can inflame people to a belief with no proof and then condemn them, is that the kind of system you want?

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, they could not do that in this case.

It's the way it is, you have to accept that not everything is perfect in life, but you cannot convict on what you think rather then what you can prove.

I think we've gotten so damned caught up in legalistic bullsh*t that we've thrown common sense out the window. She wasn't even guilty of child abuse? REALLY? It's absurd.

[Las Vegas Ron]

She wasn't even guilty of child abuse? REALLY? It's absurd.

Unfortunately, she wasn't charged with that crime.

What evidence do you have to support she abused the child?

Not what you think, present evidence.

Maybe the prosecution should have charged her with what they could prove instead of going for charges they had no evidence to support???

Just a thought.