Which side of this story do you believe?

[madog]

Obviously not everyone shares the same "rightness, morality, something..." which is essentially my point.

someone almost thirty years younger. She's 58 and he is in his late 80's.

correct me if i am wrong but that is a 22 year difference not 30...

Consider yourself corrected.

Stupid case, next...

Thanks but just because you think it's stupid does not make it so. It's easy for people to make such claims when something doesn't fit into their perspective of the world or how they think things should or oughta be.

If you thought this was stupid then why did you waste time on posting in this topic anyway?

Or did you simply think that my particular case was stupid?

Just like you, I'm trying to understand but I'm not going to call you stupid because I don't.

 

[Leareth]

Obviously not everyone shares the same "rightness, morality, something..." which is essentially my point.




Consider yourself corrected.

I was tired when I read that...




Thanks but just because you think it's stupid does not make it so. It's easy for people to make such claims when something doesn't fit into their perspective of the world or how they think things should or oughta be.

If you thought this was stupid then why did you waste time on posting in this topic anyway?

Stupid as in the entire thing smells fishy, why bother going before the law and wasting everybody's time. obviously the dad and son don't get along, the girl is pretty stupid for dating a guy twice her age, the son is stupid for dating a girl still in high school.
Or did you simply think that my particular case was stupid?

the case is stupid, since the girl went to the park with the guys dad when she probably knew they dont get along seems kind of fishy, I think that there was some sort of set up going on and the dad is the one paying for his sons actions again...the facts don't quite add up to the girls story.

Just like you, I'm trying to understand but I'm not going to call you stupid because I don't.

Did you just call me stupid?

 

[MarkCollette]

If it was just some random 16 year old chick, I'd believe her. Given the dynamic with the son though, I believe the old man.

 

[iTwitch]

Trial by water, throw them in and see who floats.

 

[Sun Baked]

Trial by water, throw them in and see who floats.

You know she will ... especially with her surgically implanted flotation devices.

And you know the old man probably paid for them.

 

[solvs]

Isn't it obvious? Everyone is guilty. It probably was a set up, but Daddy seemed more than happy to play right into it. Doesn't matter what happened, though I doubt he'll be prosecuted, but I think the intent is obvious all around.

 

[iTwitch]

I guess at that age some guys are willing to roll the dice, but you think being a lawyer he'd be smarter? When this is sorted out he outta get something extra for being an idiot.

 

[madog]

Did you just call me stupid?

I didn't read over my last post... and it's been a week since I wrote it, but I'm not calling you stupid. It's just your post before sounded a bit "angry" to me but I see exactly what you mean now.

I try not to pass judgement immediatly [or at all if my temper allows] but I'm not perfect. And I agree that it is pretty stupid when you add it all up. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just another moron trying to earn some quick and easy cash.

I guess I need to learn to use smilies more to display my demeanor. I'm rarely serious

 

[redAPPLE]

Up until reading this, I was convinced all the stories on Jerry Springer were made up

apparently, no they aren't.

 

[redAPPLE]

The real question is will anyone allow this guy to represent them again?

i am sure michael jackson is watching this very very closely.

 

[legalcosult]

I wonder why the last post was taken off??

It seems this website censors what they allow on their site. Today, I read a readers comment that stated it was not wise to judge just by what soneone claims, but rather to inspect the facts first. This person merly stated some truth about this case, and their posts are no longer on here.

Maybe the readers should seek a non censored site to communicate through?

 

[legalcosult]

Amazing

It is amazing how so many people can form an opinion just by what one reporter writes. If people are being convicted by people who are so easily swayed, then G-d help those people. Did the reporter expect this lawyer who was accused of groping a kid to admit he did it when asked the question? He is a lawyer. He has been in practice for many years according to the article. This would be a pretty big indicator that his first reaction would be deny, deny, deny. So, automatically this poor girl is a slut because this lawyer claims she was his sons girlfriend? According to what the missing post said, this lawyer was accused of very similiar behavior in the past. It is a damn shame that the public (you people) are so easily swayed in either direction. Perhaps the day will come when you will be judged in the samw fashion. A bunch of idiots this country has turned in to. A bunch of undisiplined morons. I liked what Jesus said when he said "he without sin should cast the first stone". That means, take the LOG out of your own eye, before trying to remove the dust in someone elses.

 

[jsw]

It seems this website censors what they allow on their site. Today, I read a readers comment that stated it was not wise to judge just by what soneone claims, but rather to inspect the facts first. This person merly stated some truth about this case, and their posts are no longer on here.

Maybe the readers should seek a non censored site to communicate through?

Ah, how ironic that you suspect censorship while advocating that one should first inspect the facts before assuming things.

The poster was a double-registered banned member. Posts were removed for that reason, not due to content. Clearly, you either spend very little time here or pay little attention to the types of posts which are allowed.

 

[legalcosult]

Oh really?

Ah, how ironic that you suspect censorship while advocating that one should first inspect the facts before assuming things.


By claiming someone else said something does not in anyway make me an advocate of what they said. Either you did not read what I wrote, or you did not comprehend what I wrote. Either way, the results were the same: another opinion without an understanding. I guess it is true what they say about opinions! I just think it would be better if they were educated. So, on an elementary level, the reader who made the comment that I paraphrased, was the one advocating the inspection of facts. But, since we are on the topic, I do believe the same thing. And the fact that his reply was deleted was the fact. The reason why is not relevant. The result was deletion. I would be curious to know why he was "double banned".

And how would I have known that he was a double banned member? Fortunately for me, time does not allow me the opportunity to sit online all day and night and moderate threads on Macrumors.

 

[MrSmith]

By claiming someone else said something does not in anyway make me an advocate of what they said. Either you did not read what I wrote, or you did not comprehend what I wrote. Either way, the results were the same: another opinion without an understanding. I guess it is true what they say about opinions! I just think it would be better if they were educated. So, on an elementary level, the reader who made the comment that I paraphrased, was the one advocating the inspection of facts. But, since we are on the topic, I do believe the same thing. And the fact that his reply was deleted was the fact. The reason why is not relevant. The result was deletion. I would be curious to know why he was "double banned".

 

[solvs]

Maybe the readers should seek a non censored site to communicate through?

This is a privately owned site, moderated by people who do so in their own spare time for no compensation. They make that pretty clear when you sign up. If you don't like it, you don't have to post here. It's not the government censoring anything, so it's not really a First Amendment issue either, if that's where you're going with this. Sure some of us are judging, but most of us made it pretty clear we don't know what to think and it doesn't really matter because we aren't there.

I think you're being pretty judgmental of us.

 

[shupy]

In the end

Isn't it obvious? Everyone is guilty. It probably was a set up, but Daddy seemed more than happy to play right into it. Doesn't matter what happened, though I doubt he'll be prosecuted, but I think the intent is obvious all around.

He was found not guilty. However facts that came out:
Son met girl on Internet. Son was living with father.
Girl was only 15 at the time.
Son tries to set up meeting.
Girl agrees to meet son after he agrees to bring along his father (the attorney) and they meet for dinner in a public place.
Girl advises them at dinner her age.(15)
Son does not meet girl again, (she is under age) but they continue writing and talking on phone.

Father is going through his third nasty divorce.
Girl calls son her "boyfriend", sends him pictures of her mother and family.
Girl sends father her report card.(straight A student).

Father hits on her mother via email.
Mother refuses to respond, tells girl not to contact them.

Day of incident.
Father contacts girl to see what she is doing in evening.
Girl replies, she is marching with band in the parade, will be at carnival that evening. Girl says they(father and son) should meet her at carnival.
Father goes to carnival, calls girl on cell and meets her and her friends.
Girl introduces him as boyfriend's dad.
Girl asks father where son is. Father calls son's cell for girl to leave message.
Father takes girl on ferris wheel where incident happens.
Girl threatens to scream, father lets her alone.
She calls friend via cell and meets her to go home. Girl tells no one of incident. She is embarassed that boyfriend's dad molested her.
Father and son have falling out. Father has son arrested for using his credit cards.(Father has done this to one of his other kids and also an ex wife).
Son leaves town when warrant is issued for his arrest.

While son is on the lam, he calls girl. She tells him of incident, he tells her to go to police. She does.

Police investigate, confiscate her computer to see if son has made any improper suggestions i.e. sex. No evidence found against son, but father's emails to girl and mother are recovered. Father refuses to make statement.

Under oath, father says he has no idea how young she was???? Can't remember???? No recollection of why he went to carnival?

So...Jury cannot convict as beyond reasonable doubt. Like OJ and Jackson. Reasonable doubt.

Son is in jail in Virginia.

The only innocent one is the girl. She was a perfect victim. She was young and stupid. She trusted boyfriend's father, she was writing son against mom's wishes.
Who's she gonna tell? Son (boyfriend?)
Hey, your dad molested me last night.
Mother?
Mom, I was trying to date this 35 year-old-guy I met on the Internet and his dad molested me.

 

[MrSmith]

Beyond reasonable doubt of what? She was 15 (fact) and, I gather from your summary, he admitted the incident.

 

[shupy]

Reasonable doubt

Beyond reasonable doubt of what? She was 15 (fact) and, I gather from your summary, he admitted the incident.

Nope. He admitted to being there, denied the molesting. Said she was lying because of the boyfriend. Claimed he had no idea how old she was.

Based on the American legal system, it is up to the State to prove that the incident happened beyond a reasonable doubt.

Predators know how to pick victims.