That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.

wrote:


That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..

Law and order have nothing to do with justice!

And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there.

I hope the whole state slides into the ocean.

Thank you for wishing death on me. I live there...



wrote in message
news
wrote:


That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..

Law and order have nothing to do with justice!

And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there.

I hope the whole state slides into the ocean.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply. Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me please.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

That He Got Acquitted on all counts..

Hard to Believe California Justice..


Jury really had no choice if they were to follow the law. There was
more
than reasonable doubt if only because of the fact the family had already
attempted to defraud in at least three other instances.



Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt. I haven't followed it too closely
but I have yet to hear anybody I know give me a good reason for hanging
him
other than the usual he's weird so he must have done it type of reply.
Does
anybody here have an intelligent argument on the subject. I never thought
he
was a pedophile. I always thought he was just a lonely type that in his
fame
related to kids better than adults because he trusted them more or
whatever.
But like I said, I never followed his stuff that close. Enlighten me
please.

B.H.



The odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The
odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that
the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.



I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the
case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction.

B.H.

"Brian Hill" wrote in message
...

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message news:d8lcui$ih8 The
odd general behavior was/is pretty compelling 'evidence', but I for one
am glad that he wasn't convicted on that and the 'hearsay' evidence that
the
prosecution proffered. It used to be that past accusations could not be
entered into evidence in a criminal trial.. even past convictions were
not
allowed as evidence in the trial, only for sentencing purposes.



I thought I heard they found child porn. Is that true? Now if that was the
case I'd have to start leaning in the other direction.

B.H.


Nope, no child porn, just some adult porn. If they had found child porn,
I'm sure that charge would have been included in the gallery of charges they
brought (and if so, they would have had an excellent chance of conviction on
that one, since simple posession is a felony)

Brian Hill wrote:

Not only that Brenda but we sure don't want to live in a society that
convicts on less than reasonable doubt.



Remember Quantanamo? The White House said that even if they were all
found innocent, they STILL wouldn't be released. Either you have justice
or you don't. Why is the government immune from the law?




mike

wrote:


Law and order have nothing to do with justice!

And now there is the OJ killer and the fruit pervert out there.

I hope the whole state slides into the ocean.


Why wish death on all of them? Only about eighty percent of them are
deviates. Ninety percent tops...





mike