Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[Kevin]

What information did I divulge which is not public record?

Hint: I gave you the public record. Everything I've said is part of it.

Interesting, DrPhil, what did you enter a plea to?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hint: I gave you the public record. Everything I've said is part of it.

Hint: The point eludes you.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Hint: The point eludes you.

Many points elude him. He still thinks it's about plea negotiations.

[AZTheta]

Denis Healey succinctly said it best. My own father taught me "don't be a blabbermouth. It's way worse than having to have the last word". He also liked to remind me that when you burn your own ass, you are the one who has to sit on the blister. So think about it.

Happy Saturday, one and all!

[als463]

Wow. I just can't get over his pretentious attitude.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Interesting, DrPhil, what did you enter a plea to?

Originally Posted by als463

Wow. I just can't get over his pretentious attitude.

But you really need to. Your attitude has been just as pretentious, if not even shittier, on other occasions. You're the last person to talk about reading comprehension, and I think you, like many of the people on this board, have some sort of personality disorder.

Just move on.

But I know you can't. LOL

[DubaiSis]

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

It was many years ago but I worked as an Occupational Therapist in inpatient psych on a 5-12 year old unit for several years. In my experience, with children at very young ages who have been abused, they typically had knowledge of things that most children of that age would not have. The therapists usually used a lot of play therapy and children tend to imitate what they have experienced or seen through their play. Additionally, most children who are molested at that age had physical signs of the abuse. Their parts are small and adult parts (even fingers) are not and often do some damage. Proving WHO did it can be very difficult, but whether abuse had happened was pretty obvious. 95% of the kids who were on our 5-12 y/o unit had been physically or sexually abused.

I don't know what a lawyer would advise, but if I was absolutely innocent of a crime, I don't think I would accept a plea bargain. I would trust that since I was innocent, there would not be evidence to convict me.

[DrPhil]

Many "innocent" people take plea bargains because they or the people who are officially or unofficially advising them believe there is a high probability of conviction. Of course, they would rather have the charges dropped but the plea bargain is the lesser of the two evils when dropping charges isn't an option.

This is especially the case for certain charges and defendants of particular demographics. Saying "if you're not guilty you wouldn't take a plea bargain" doesn't work for many people in the system.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I don't know what a lawyer would advise, but if I was absolutely innocent of a crime, I don't think I would accept a plea bargain. I would trust that since I was innocent, there would not be evidence to convict me.

I used to think this too. Unfortunately it's just not reality for many people. Unless you have a lot of money, it can be absolutely debilitating to fight charges. And innocent people are charged, often because they trust the system and trust that there won't be evidence since they are innocent. Evidence comes in many different forms, and innocence is not the protection that it should be.

As for the rest of the thread, I hope that everyone who us ganging up on Kevin can see how much kettle they are to his pot. I don't agree with how he has stated his opinions, but there are others who have been his equal on many levels.

[DrPhil]

DubaiSis, what I'm wondering is do "we" always hold on to the "innocent people are sometimes found guilty" theme? If "we" do, what's the point of guilty verdicts?

Originally Posted by pbear19

As for the rest of the thread, I hope that everyone who us ganging up on Kevin can see how much kettle they are to his pot. I don't agree with how he has stated his opinions, but there are others who have been his equal on many levels.

The thread seems to be moving beyond Kevin so if you take issue with this back and forth don't hypocritically perpetuate the back and forth.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

So for those of you have experience at the protective services, counseling, etc. end of the spectrum, what is your instinct on this issue?

My instinct is that child abuse is wildly under-reported, and being a rich guy in no way means he's necessarily innocent, but as soon as you throw divorce into it I suddenly become much more leery of the facts of the case. Which leaves me back at no side taken.

There's no such thing as not taking a side. If you choose to decide that you don't know what happened, you are then saying you don't believe the victim and her testimony. When we talk about the legal system, you can say that you don't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are saying that you think the victim is not trustworthy, and that means you have taken a side.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

There's no such thing as not taking a side. If you choose to decide that you don't know what happened, you are then saying you don't believe the victim and her testimony. When we talk about the legal system, you can say that you don't believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, but you are saying that you think the victim is not trustworthy, and that means you have taken a side.

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

Right.

I'm also reminded of the McMartin preschool scandal where most of the kids have come forward and admitted that they said what they said to please the adults who were asking. They weren't abused.

From the article Dee posted, it sounds like there was medical evidence consistent with what was alleged. Interviews get a little murky.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I can't take a side with the information given. I don't know how this child's testimony was elicited.

The point is that *someone* has to be lying. The accused, the child, or I suppose in some scenarios, a third party who is trying to use the child to damage the accused (see: Woody Allen). If you say "I don't know who is telling the truth," you are deciding that the accused is not credible, and you'd rather err on the side of believing him than on the side of believing her. As far as the law goes, that's a good thing...innocent until proven guilty and all that, but as far as a bunch of us jerks Monday-morning quarterbacking on a GC thread, I will choose to believe a child who has been victimized over an adult who has shown a pattern of sexually predatory behavior towards children.