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

[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.