Lois Lane Posted July 1, 2007 How in the world can one fondle the breasts of a ten year old? Maybe she was fat! So funny, yet so disturbing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tahliil Posted July 1, 2007 11 years ago? what kind of evidence has been presented in the court besides HE said, SHE said sort of accusations? panties kept and saved? peices of clothes concealed somewhere? finger prints, clinically sensitive documentations? What could they possiblly present from 11 years ago that could make him sneak out and run away and vanish like that besides of course that already exhausted argument of not having faith in the Justice System?? 11 years ago seems to compilicate matters more when you try to prove things beyond reasonable doubt here I guess.. Anyone following this case closely,am curious??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fabregas Posted July 1, 2007 I remember some members of our society were saying that this was a clanish witchunt against the man. I don't whether he is guilty or innoncent. But I hope those people of his clan/family who are or may attempt to help him slip away know that they will be punished.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roobleh Posted July 1, 2007 This is not she said, he said case. Why don't you read the article first. It says that he already confessed to authorities. Plus she taped him saying that he enjoyed the sex they had when she was a child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Allamagan Posted July 1, 2007 She would later record their phone conversations, in which he allegedly admits having sex with her when she was 10 10? was he crazy? a 10 yrs old girl! man, if the above quote is true and can be proved before court then he is one S.O.B and may he rot in jail for the rest of his life. If he didn't do it then why disappearing? Wouldn't be better to fight and clear his name instead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tahliil Posted July 1, 2007 And the judge let him out on a bail with that irrefutable, irreversible fact and proof of his voice on tape??? Something is amiss here... Would somebody, especially those who were following this case directly, please enlighten me a little more of how and on what grounds did the judge of this case agree to let this guy out on a bail while he heard and saw such rock solid supporting facts against him, more than ever though, when the indictment pertains to child abuse ??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cara. Posted July 1, 2007 You're innocent until proven guilty, so technically the state shouldn't imprison you until a guilty verdict is reached. Bail isn't about the evidence but rather based on whether the judge thinks the suspect is a flight risk and won't appear for the trial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
