Forum Novice

|
quote: Originally posted by SueC: It seems,to me, that the Supreme Court cautioned the Prosecution NOT to use the molestation factor in the second trial as there weren't enough hard facts to positively conclude that he'd done anything, and they did it anyway. That being said, isn't it their own fault they didn't heed the warning?
Rather than being a technicality, it strikes me as inherently unfair to bring up an allegation (child molestation) without presenting some very, very convincing evidence that he (David Camm) did, in fact, molest his daughter. Otherwise, it is nothing more than character assassination.
(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
|
| |
|
Newbie

|
Oh, Please. This guy is guilting as sin and he knows jail is where he belongs. That is why he doesn't seem upset. His attorney seems more upset than he does! How many times does his attorney get to win this case?
|
| |
|
Forum Novice

|
quote: Originally posted by patie: Oh, Please. This guy is guilting as sin and he knows jail is where he belongs. That is why he doesn't seem upset. His attorney seems more upset than he does! How many times does his attorney get to win this case?
One fair trial is all it takes but so far, he hasn't gotten that. 
(\__/) (='.'=) (")_(")
|
| |
|
Forum Novice
|
Guilty as sin or not, he has to get a FAIR trial (in the eyes of the law), and the prosecutors were warned not to present that information cause they had nothing to back up their allegations and they did it anyway.
It is unfortunate but sometimes there just isn't enough evidence to convict someone without a reasonable doubt, and we'll have to wait for his judgment day to come from God, above.
|
| |
|