| Topic Name: |
Way To Go, Jurors.... |
| Message Name: |
Ever occour to you... |
| Date Posted: |
06/14/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
have set a child molestor free, and i hope you're happy.
is there ANY way for a celebrity to be found guilty in California??? If a celebrity committed a murder on live TV you idiots would find a way to set him free
so, you hated the mother...thats fine, but WHAT ABOUT THE PAST BAD ACTS, you wackos....did the mother have anything to do with the '93 accuser????? What about the thousands of other boys the freak molested??
good job, and i can only hope that each of your sons are next, because he WILL molest again |
| Message: |
... that the system worked exactly the way it's supposed to?
You didn't sit on the jury. You didn't hear it the way they did -- meaning free of analysts, spin doctors, Nancy Dis-Grace, whatever.
Yes, he's a freak. Yes, I wouldn't want my kids with him. I can't believe California's equivalent of Child Welfare Services hasn't come in and taken those kids away. (Especially seeing as how one is named "Blanket" -- Lord have mercy.)
But the fact is this -- in America, you are presumed INNOCENT until you are PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The jury had reasonable doubts.
Tom Sneddon botched this case. He put his marbles in a disgusting pair of con artists. They were hardly sympathetic figures.
THOUSANDS of other boys? Who's doing your math? Maybe you're referring to all the kids visiting Neverland. Really... who'd even have the time between skin bleachings?
If everybody else thinks he's guilty, well fine, they can let him rot like O.J. Simpson or file their own damned civil suits. But dissing on the jury for making a perfectly acceptable and reasonable conclusion reeks of totalitarian lust. Why not just hang his butt from a balcony at the Neverland mansion? Oh damn, that's right... Congress just passed a resolution against lynching, didn't it?
|
|
