Brian Hill wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brian Hill" wrote:
"Eric F. Richards" wrote in message
...
"Brenda Ann" wrote:
I'm sorry... just because the mother is a sleazeball doesn't exonerate
Jacko. It has been said before -- if he weren't a wealthy celebrity
with a high profile, the case would have been open and shut. *Not
having heard the courtroom presentation,* I can only go by what I see,
and I acknowledge that the jury may have seen it differently.
--
Eric F. Richards
"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert
Wouldn't he have had child porn too?
B.H.
Actually, he didn't have any kiddie porn. Even with this group of
mouth-breathers on the jury, that would've sealed his fate.
That's my point. If he really is a pedophile , I would think he would have
had at least one article of child porn?
B.H.
I don't think you can use the absence of child porn as a strong indication he's
not a pedophile.
Garden variety porn might have been a tool used in the grooming process.
I imagine if a pedophile showed a kid child porn, it wouldn't take very long for
the kid to figure things out and get very uncomfortable.
I'm not sure he's a pedophile - but if I was a parent, I wouldn't want him alone
with my kids.