YEEEHAW!! Let's have a sex party

[Atlas]

SoCals Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_re_us/sex_club_children

Texas town reels from horrific abuse in its midst

By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jun 22, 5:44 PM ET

MINEOLA, Texas - In the windowless front rooms of a former day care center in a tiny Texas community, children as young as 5 were fed powerful painkillers they knew as "silly pills" and forced to perform sex shows for a crowd of adults.

Two people have already been convicted in the case. Now a third person with ties to the club, previously known in town only as a swingers group, is set to go on trial Monday not far from Mineola, population 5,100.

"This really shook this town," said Shirley Chadwick, a longtime resident of Mineola. "This was horrible."

Patrick Kelly, 41, is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, tampering with physical evidence and engaging in organized criminal activity.

In all, six adults have been charged in connection with the case, including a parent of the three siblings involved.

Jurors this year deliberated less than five minutes before returning guilty verdicts against the first two defendants, who were accused of grooming the kids for sex shows in "kindergarten" classes and passing off Vicodin as "silly pills" to help the children perform.

Jamie Pittman and Shauntel Mayo were sentenced to life in prison. Kelly also faces a life sentence if convicted, and Smith County prosecutors hope for another swift verdict.

Thad Davidson, Kelly's attorney, said his client passed a lie-detector test proving his innocence and worries about getting a fair trial in Tyler, 25 miles southeast of Mineola, which is in Wood County.

"I think it's impossible to get a fair trial within 80 miles of Smith County," Davidson said.

Mineola, about 80 miles east of Dallas, is a close-knit, conservative bean-processing town of with more than 30 churches. Residents there want to put the scandal behind them as quickly as possible.

The one-story building where prosecutors say four children — the three siblings, now ages 12, 10 and 7, and their 10-year-old aunt — were trained to perform in front of an audience of 50 to 100 once a week has been vacant since the landlord ousted the alleged organizers in 2004.

Down a slight hill is a retirement home, and even closer is the office of the local newspaper. Doris Newman, editor of The Mineola Monitor, said rumors of swinger parties spread around town but that no one mentioned children being involved.

Newman, who can see the building from her office window, said she remembers the parking lot filling up with more than a dozen cars at night.

In August 2004, an editorial under the headline "Sex In the City" opined that if the swingers left quietly, "we'll try and forget they've infiltrated our town with their set of moral standards."

"It's not that we're trying to look the other way," Newman said. "But there's a lot more to Mineola than that."

According to a Mineola police report, the department first investigated a complaint in June 2005 in which the siblings' foster mother said one of the girls described dancing toward men and another child saying that "everybody does nasty stuff in there."

In the second trial, Child Protective Services caseworker Kristi Hachtel testified, "I've seen a lot and I never in my wildest dreams imagined this. They were preyed upon in probably one of the most heinous ways possible."

The children are now doing better, the welfare agency said.

"Through counseling and therapy sessions, these children are now finally feeling secure and safe," agency spokeswoman Shari Pulliam wrote in an e-mail.

Permanent custody of the three siblings was given to John and Margie Cantrell. This week, prosecutors in California charged John Cantrell with sexually assaulting a child in the state 18 years ago. Margie Cantrell said her husband is innocent.

Kelly's attorney moved Friday asking to postpone the trial in light of the allegations against Cantrell, a state witness. Texas Child Protective Services said it would be "common" for the agency to investigate.

The Rev. Tim Letsch is opening a church in the yellow-plastered building where the children were abused. He acknowledges that building a congregation might be difficult because of the stigma attached to the property.

"You got to decide whether you're willing to forgive those kind of things," Letsch said. "It's a hard deal. Especially for a spiritual person to walk in and say, 'This happened here.'"

[Atlas]

SoCals Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_re_us/sex_club_children

Texas town reels from horrific abuse in its midst

The one-story building where prosecutors say four children — the three siblings, now ages 12, 10 and 7, and their 10-year-old aunt — were trained to perform in front of an audience of 50 to 100 once a week has been vacant since the landlord ousted the alleged organizers in 2004.



Does anyone else find it surprising that 50 to 100 people would watch this? A whole lot of people need to be going to jail.

[AboveAverage]

Good Lord....I don't even know what to say.

[TheReverend]

They need to find anyone who came up with the idea, participated, watched, or knew about it, and kill them all.

[Dukes]

And my wife keeps telling me we should move to Texas.......

[broncofan7]

And my wife keeps telling me we should move to Texas.......

The Northern Dallas Suburbs such as Frisco, Mckinney and Wylie are fantastic places to live with GREAT schools, quailty and affordable housing and a great job market. Don't let this article about some deranged 'hicks from the sticks' taint your perception of the Great State. I am a transplant from back East and I would not live anywhere else (well maybe Hawaii:)

[PaintballCLE]

The one-story building where prosecutors say four children — the three siblings, now ages 12, 10 and 7, and their 10-year-old aunt — were trained to perform in front of an audience of 50 to 100 once a week has been vacant since the landlord ousted the alleged organizers in 2004.

.'"

uhhhhhhh 10 yr old aunt? wtf?

[Smiling Assassin27]

There is little that surprises me these days. Add this one to the list.

[bpc]

Hammurabi's law. Steal an apple, lose your hand. Molest a child, get castrated.

[TheReverend]

Hammurabi's law. Steal an apple, lose your hand. Molest a child, get castrated.

Little excessive for an apple, not excessive enough for child molesting.

[crawdad]

This is sick

[cutthemdown]

very disturbing

[Meck77]

The Northern Dallas Suburbs such as Frisco, Mckinney and Wylie are fantastic places to live with GREAT schools, quailty and affordable housing and a great job market. Don't let this article about some deranged 'hicks from the sticks' taint your perception of the Great State. I am a transplant from back East and I would not live anywhere else (well maybe Hawaii:)

Sorry bud I don't buy it. 100 people watching children being raped on stage in Texas leads me to believe that area of Texas is very disturbed.

How can that many people be silent and especially the police.

[El Guapo]

what?!? how horrible.

[dbfan4life]

No words to descibe the hideousness of this. Just ****ing awful.

[FantomForce]

SCREW the life sentence. Let them all Burn!

[Inkana7]

SCREW the life sentence. Let them all Burn!

It's Texas. They have no such thing as a "life sentence".

That's just sick.

[Drunk Monkey]

SCREW the life sentence. Let them all Burn!

Texas kills more people then any other state. It just might happen.

[broncofan7]

Sorry bud I don't buy it. 100 people watching children being raped on stage in Texas leads me to believe that area of Texas is very disturbed.

How can that many people be silent and especially the police.

Well, Mineola is actaully considered East Texas. The cities that I mentioned are nothern Dallas Suburbs, basically a product of the great white flight that has hit DFW since the late 1980's. We have many CA, NY transplants in Frisco for sure and I just wanted to make sure that people saw this action by this sick group of Texans as nothing more than a group of people who happended to reside in TX instead of being reflective of all Texans. when the Cowpokes get their new stadium you should coem down here and check it out..you would be impressed with Frisco. Pizza hut park, where FC Dallas plays, is right down the street from my home and Dr Pepper ball park is one of the best minor league ball parks in the entire USA. Only $8 to sit on the outfield grass.......

http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/AA/frisco.html

[Dukes]

The Northern Dallas Suburbs such as Frisco, Mckinney and Wylie are fantastic places to live with GREAT schools, quailty and affordable housing and a great job market. Don't let this article about some deranged 'hicks from the sticks' taint your perception of the Great State. I am a transplant from back East and I would not live anywhere else (well maybe Hawaii:)

Yeah I'm fairly familure with that area, it would be Denton specifically. I was really just making a joke. ;D And I've lived in Hawaii, you'll go out of your mind after 6 weeks. Great place to visit, but the only way to live there is if you were born there IMO.

[alkemical]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Silence_%28documentary%29

The Franklin child abuse allegations refers to allegations of a child prostitution ring serving high level U.S. politicians. "Franklin" refers to the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union, a Nebraska financial institution. The relationship with Franklin was indirect via charges of involvement by a former Franklin officer, Lawrence E. King, in the alleged child sex ring.

The allegations of the child sex ring made national news on June 29, 1989 when the front page of the Washington Times bore the headline Homosexual Prostitution Inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush.[1] The Washington Times article by journalists Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald alleged that key officials of the Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations were connected to an elaborate Washington, D.C male prostitution ring, and reported that two of these prostitutes even entered the White House late at night. The allegations included, among other things, "abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion."

In July, 1990, a county grand jury in Nebraska's Douglas County concluded that the charges were a "carefully crafted hoax", although they failed to identify the perpetrators of said hoax.[2] Various conspiracy theories regarding a coverup of the original allegations persist to the present day.

Key persons named in the allegations were Craig J. Spence, a Washington, D.C.-based Republican lobbyist who committed suicide in 1989,[3][4] and Lawrence King, who was eventually convicted of embezzling thirty-eight million dollars as manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union in Nebraska.[5] King had been one of the Republican party's rising stars, performing the national anthem at the 1984 and 1988 Republican National Conventions. According to the December 18, 1988 New York Times, unidentified people present at a closed meeting reported that Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers said he had heard credible reports of "boys and girls, some of them from foster homes, who had been transported around the country by airplane to provide sexual favors, for which they were rewarded."[6]


<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=866739408240639313&hl=en&fs=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

[Crushaholic]

What a disappointment, Atlas. The thread title made me think that you were going to bring Ms. Cole to Orangemane weekend for a second...:clown:

[BroncoBuff]

Does anyone else find it surprising that 50 to 100 people would watch this? A whole lot of people need to be going to jail.

Yeah ... I'm kinda dubous on that point.

[Paladin]

Ah.... A little humor among the dark news. eh?

[broncosteven]

Childcare is scarry, That is why we pay big bucks and didn't try to cheap out on dubious providers.

[BroncoBuff]

Yeah ... I'm kinda dubous on that point.
Yeah, this is a hoax and/or intentionally exaggerated story.

Just like this one: The story a week ago about a supposed "pact" to get pregnant between twelve underage girls in Massachusetts. The news is breaking now that the story was a hoax and/or exaggeration.

Besides, how in the world could you find FIFTY adults in Texas who would sit still to watch 6-year old drugged siblings have sex?

[kmonty]

Yeah, this is a hoax and/or intentionally exaggerated story.

Just like this one: The story a week ago about a supposed "pact" to get pregnant between twelve underage girls in Massachusetts. The news is breaking now that the story was a hoax and/or exaggeration.

Besides, how in the world could you find FIFTY adults in Texas who would sit still to watch 6-year old drugged siblings have sex?

God I hope you're right. Then again, that's pretty sick and twisted too. Who thinks of this stuff?

Either way the whole thing is completely sick and twisted.

[TheReverend]

Yeah, this is a hoax and/or intentionally exaggerated story.

Just like this one: The story a week ago about a supposed "pact" to get pregnant between twelve underage girls in Massachusetts. The news is breaking now that the story was a hoax and/or exaggeration.

Besides, how in the world could you find FIFTY adults in Texas who would sit still to watch 6-year old drugged siblings have sex?

I'm not sure the associated press publishes hoaxes like they're fact. I definitely WANT to believe this didn't, won't, and couldn't happen, but it's a sick world.

[Beantown Bronco]

Just like this one: The story a week ago about a supposed "pact" to get pregnant between twelve underage girls in Massachusetts. The news is breaking now that the story was a hoax and/or exaggeration.

I'm still trying to figure out who stands to gain what by trying to say the original story was a hoax or exaggeration. I truly believe the Time story was more or less accurate.

Right now, some school officials are trying to say that some things got twisted in the story, yet they are not denying any of the core facts....most importantly, that 17 girls at the relatively small school are all pregnant and they are all under the age of 16. Whether or not there was an actual "pregnancy pact" is irrelevant IMO. They are all underage friends and they are all pregnant. Their parents are nowhere to be found.

That town is already well known as ground zero for teen heroine use and large scale distribution of drugs.....and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. I'm thinking they just want this kind of national attention to go away, because it's the last thing they need right now. Apparently, they are of the belief that if they erase the "pact" part of the equation, people will all of a sudden ignore the more important fact that these children are still pregnant.

[broncocalijohn]

Does anyone else find it surprising that 50 to 100 people would watch this? A whole lot of people need to be going to jail.

Atlas, your softness for criminals is showing. I cannot believe they cant get some of those to get on trial. FRY THEM!

[Rock Chalk]

A special place in Hell is reserved for all those involved.

[Beantown Bronco]

A special place in Hell is reserved for all those involved.

But they already live in Texas.

[Atlas]

What a disappointment, Atlas. The thread title made me think that you were going to bring Ms. Cole to Orangemane weekend for a second...:clown:

I tried but Kyla likes girls and none of the girls on the Mane were up to it.

[Atlas]

Atlas, your softness for criminals is showing. I cannot believe they cant get some of those to get on trial. FRY THEM!

yeah I know John. But as a good liberal I'm against the death penalty. I have a feeling that people that go and watch live child porn might find it very tough in jail anyhow.

[Atlas]

Just to throw somethinmg out there but what would a the scene in this room look like? I mean with 50-100 people watching..... What are they doing? Are they taking pictures? Are they making out with someone? Are they masturbating to this? Is this one big redneck orgy?

I can picture a sign of the front yard saying.

Child Pornagraphy 3 P.m. Today. B.Y.O.B. and don't feerget yours cowboy hats, disposable kameras and chewing tabacca!!

[sisterhellfyre]

Yeah, this is a hoax and/or intentionally exaggerated story.


I don't believe this story for a minute without a WHOLE LOT MORE explanation and detail.

I don't know how many of you may remember it, but a few years ago in a little town called Wenatchee, in upstate eastern Washington, there was a similar scandal that rocked the whole village. The kids at one day care center started talking about horrendous satanic ritual abuse involving all kinds of weirdness. In working with therapists, the kids "recalled" all sorts of strange details about underground rooms that they reached thru tunnels, adults dressed as clowns, and etc.

A number of people were arrested, kids taken away from their families by childrens' services divisions, more counseling, more "therapy," more and more and more... lives were ruined, careers wrecked, and some people pled guilty or no contest to reduced charges just to get the circus over with. All this in spite of the fact that repeated investigations, including digging up the grounds of the daycare center looking for the tunnels, found NOTHING.

I have a really hard time believing that any group of 50 to 100 adults would sit around and watch a bunch of stoned preschoolers play at having sex. Much less that those same adults would regard such a spectacle as some sort of aphrodisiac. I want to know where these stories are coming from, and how much the "therapists" are involved in the process. Are they "helping" the kids to "remember" what happened? It may ultimately prove impossible to sort out what "really" happened, what the therapists suggested and the kids included in their stories, and how much was pure fantasy. I don't believe that the kids would make up such stories on their own, but if they can see for themselves that the kids who make up the stories get special attention or other positive reinforcement...

It sounds far more likely to me that this story and the "pregnancy pact" story from back east are both "end of the world" moral decay sensationalism trotted out by the media as we head into the hot-&-heavy part of the election season. It's another witch-hunt brewing up, pure & simple.

Regards,
m.

[TailgateNut]

Just to throw somethinmg out there but what would a the scene in this room look like? I mean with 50-100 people watching..... What are they doing? Are they taking pictures? Are they making out with someone? Are they masturbating to this? Is this one big redneck orgy?

I can picture a sign of the front yard saying.

Child Pornagraphy 3 P.m. Today. B.Y.O.B. and don't feerget yours cowboy hats, disposable kameras and chewing tabacca!!




Just a bunch of sick ass Texans.

Gotta wonder which church they attend.

Club 'em!

[BroncoBuff]

A special place in Hell is reserved for all those involved.
Hey everybody ... ALEC IS ALIVE!

[Atlas]

Just a bunch of sick ass Texans.

Gotta wonder which church they attend.

Club 'em!

There are 30 churches in Mineola and only 5,000 people.

[SouthStndJunkie]

Yeah I'm fairly familure with that area, it would be Denton specifically. I was really just making a joke. ;D And I've lived in Hawaii, you'll go out of your mind after 6 weeks. Great place to visit, but the only way to live there is if you were born there IMO.

Ya damn haole.

[TailgateNut]

There are 30 churches in Mineola and only 5,000 people.

That would explain it. No further comment required.

[Atlas]

Yeah, this is a hoax and/or intentionally exaggerated story.


The trial is already over. These people were found guilty.

Here is a WBAP report on it

SoCals Link: http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=758562&spid=6051

MINEOLA, Texas (AP) -- In the windowless front rooms of a former day care center in a tiny Texas community, children as young as 5 were fed powerful painkillers they knew as "silly pills" and forced to perform sex shows for a crowd of adults.

Two people have already been convicted in the case. Now a third person with ties to the club, previously known in town only as a swingers group, is set to go on trial Monday not far from Mineola, population 5,100.

"This really shook this town," said Shirley Chadwick, a longtime resident of Mineola. "This was horrible."

Patrick Kelly, 41, is charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, tampering with physical evidence and engaging in organized criminal activity.

In all, six adults have been charged in connection with the case, including a parent of the three siblings involved.

Jurors this year deliberated less than five minutes before returning guilty verdicts against the first two defendants, who were accused of grooming the kids for sex shows in "kindergarten" classes and passing off Vicodin as "silly pills" to help the children perform.

Jamie Pittman and Shauntel Mayo were sentenced to life in prison. Kelly also faces a life sentence if convicted, and Smith County prosecutors hope for another swift verdict.

Thad Davidson, Kelly's attorney, said his client passed a lie-detector test proving his innocence and worries about getting a fair trial in Tyler, 25 miles southeast of Mineola, which is in Wood County.

"I think it's impossible to get a fair trial within 80 miles of Smith County," Davidson said.

Mineola, about 80 miles east of Dallas, is a close-knit, conservative bean-processing town of with more than 30 churches. Residents there want to put the scandal behind them as quickly as possible.

The one-story building where prosecutors say four children - the three siblings, now ages 12, 10 and 7, and their 10-year-old aunt - were trained to perform in front of an audience of 50 to 100 once a week has been vacant since the landlord ousted the alleged organizers in 2004.

Down a slight hill is a retirement home, and even closer is the office of the local newspaper. Doris Newman, editor of The Mineola Monitor, said rumors of swinger parties spread around town but that no one mentioned children being involved.

Newman, who can see the building from her office window, said she remembers the parking lot filling up with more than a dozen cars at night.

In August 2004, an editorial under the headline "Sex In the City" opined that if the swingers left quietly, "we'll try and forget they've infiltrated our town with their set of moral standards."

"It's not that we're trying to look the other way," Newman said. "But there's a lot more to Mineola than that."

According to a Mineola police report, the department first investigated a complaint in June 2005 in which the siblings' foster mother said one of the girls described dancing toward men and another child saying that "everybody does nasty stuff in there."

In the second trial, Child Protective Services caseworker Kristi Hachtel testified, "I've seen a lot and I never in my wildest dreams imagined this. They were preyed upon in probably one of the most heinous ways possible."

The children are now doing better, the welfare agency said.

"Through counseling and therapy sessions, these children are now finally feeling secure and safe," agency spokeswoman Shari Pulliam wrote in an e-mail.

Permanent custody of the three siblings was given to John and Margie Cantrell. This week, prosecutors in California charged John Cantrell with sexually assaulting a child in the state 18 years ago. Margie Cantrell said her husband is innocent.

Kelly's attorney moved Friday asking to postpone the trial in light of the allegations against Cantrell, a state witness. Texas Child Protective Services said it would be "common" for the agency to investigate.

The Rev. Tim Letsch is opening a church in the yellow-plastered building where the children were abused. He acknowledges that building a congregation might be difficult because of the stigma attached to the property.

"You got to decide whether you're willing to forgive those kind of things," Letsch said. "It's a hard deal. Especially for a spiritual person to walk in and say, 'This happened here.'"

[Drunk Monkey]

East Texas is a ****ed up place. Aside from this stuff they still have some pretty bad race issue.

[colonelbeef]

Anybody else catch this part?

"Permanent custody of the three siblings was given to John and Margie Cantrell. This week, prosecutors in California charged John Cantrell with sexually assaulting a child in the state 18 years ago. Margie Cantrell said her husband is innocent."

so they took the children away from their abusive parents/families... and GAVE THEM TO AN ACCUSED CHILD MOLESTER?!!!?!??!!?!

:thumbsdow

[~Crash~]

Hammurabi's law. Steal an apple, lose your hand. Molest a child, get castrated.

That would make thiefs easier to spot:rofl:

[sisterhellfyre]

The trial is already over. These people were found guilty.

Doesn't mean any such thing as these kid-sex parties actually *happened.* The verdict only shows that the witch hunt succeeded.

And to return a guilty verdict after only FIVE MINUTES of deliberation? I find that just incredible.

I find this story more interesting as an example of our culture's willingness to condemn those who operate outside the accepted "moral standards" (edit: by engaging in swinging) as the modern equivalent of heretics and blasphemers. The swingers in that town are just lucky that burning them at the stake would be cruel and unusual punishment, even for Texas.

I'd also like to know... if there were supposedly 50 to 100 adults at those parties, where are the rest of the arrests?

Regards,
m.

[Los Broncos]

How awful.

[Broncochica]

Too many sick people in this world!

[DHallblows]

uhhhhhhh 10 yr old aunt? wtf?

First thing I thought too!!! :rofl:

[nickademus]

and just think they used to hang a man for stealing a horse. Kids are helpless, they are innocent and for people to abuse them like this should be punishable by death. And I am not talking about death row I mean about five minutes after the guilty verdict send them in front of a fireing squad and call it a day. I honestly think murder is a less hainous crime.

[Northman]

And my wife keeps telling me we should move to Texas.......

lmao, a friend of mine wants to move there as well. Wait till i tell him about this. Especially since he has a little girl.

[nickademus]

I find this story more interesting as an example of our culture's willingness to condemn those who operate outside the accepted "moral standards" as the modern equivalent of heretics and blasphemers. The swingers in that town are just lucky that burning them at the stake would be cruel and unusual punishment, even for Texas.


wow I hope you are just messing with people here and dont really believe the crap that is spewing from your computer. the "accepted moral standards" we are talking about here is wether or not it is wrong to drug some kids and watch them bump uglies as a form of entertainment. screw "heretics and blasphemers" call them criminals but does it really matter what you call a dead man?

[broncocalijohn]

Doesn't mean any such thing as these kid-sex parties actually *happened.* The verdict only shows that the witch hunt succeeded.

And to return a guilty verdict after only FIVE MINUTES of deliberation? I find that just incredible.

I find this story more interesting as an example of our culture's willingness to condemn those who operate outside the accepted "moral standards" as the modern equivalent of heretics and blasphemers. The swingers in that town are just lucky that burning them at the stake would be cruel and unusual punishment, even for Texas.

I'd also like to know... if there were supposedly 50 to 100 adults at those parties, where are the rest of the arrests?

Regards,
m.

What the F are you talking about? You have a fat neg rep (and I wish I could do more harm than that) coming to you, but I would love to hear how you think this behavior is Ok. Are you into this sort of behavior and think it is OK? And yes , the kiddie parties did happen according to the jury and I am surprised it only took 5 minutes. It should have taken only 2 minutes and that is long enough for roll call.

[TailgateNut]

Doesn't mean any such thing as these kid-sex parties actually *happened.* The verdict only shows that the witch hunt succeeded.

And to return a guilty verdict after only FIVE MINUTES of deliberation? I find that just incredible.

I find this story more interesting as an example of our culture's willingness to condemn those who operate outside the accepted "moral standards" as the modern equivalent of heretics and blasphemers.



Regards,
m.


Accepted moral standards??? Are you out of your mind?

The actions of the adults in this horror story are inexcuseable. Period. Nothing compares to crimes against children. A public stoning would not do justice for these heinous actions.

[broncofan7]

The moral standards relative to children performing sexual acts for the amusement/stimulation of adults are uniform in that we all beileve this to be an IMMORAL and criminal act. Being a SWINGER is not such an act in some peoples opinion, but utilizing children in anyway makes these swingers in fact, criminal. I doubt that the locals would 'frame' these swingers as being pedophiles for the simple fact of ridding their town of swinging.

[sisterhellfyre]

The moral standards relative to children performing sexual acts for the amusement/stimulation of adults are uniform in that we all beileve this to be an IMMORAL and criminal act. Being a SWINGER is not such an act in some peoples opinion, but utilizing children in anyway makes these swingers in fact, criminal. I doubt that the locals would 'frame' these swingers as being pedophiles for the simple fact of ridding their town of swinging.

Wow. I'm amazed.

I thought I had posted a pretty straightforward statement looking at the wider social context for these criminal convictions. I thought I had made a pretty good point that I wasn't going to believe these charges without seeing a lot more evidence for myself, considering the legal and cultural history of child abuse witch hunts in our country over the last 40 years. Instead, I've got one person asking if I'm condoning such behavior, and another wishing he could "do more harm than that."

The fact that a jury convicted these people in east Texas does not prove that they actually committed these acts, any more than the jury way back when proved that there were actually real, live witches casting spells in Salem. It's easy -- it may even be human nature -- to be suspicious of someone who does things a little differently in their lives as compared to the more widely accepted social norms. When someone does one thing we don't like (swinging, for example) because it's "immoral," it's easy to accuse and even convict them of all sorts of other things. After all, who knows just what those "depraved perverts" might be doing behind closed doors?

That's the point I was trying to make.

Let me say it more clearly: IF the people involved actually DID what they were accused of doing -- if they fed painkillers to preschoolers and put them thru sexual abuse -- ALL of the people involved should be put away for a long, LONG time behind bars. That's part of why I wanted to know why there weren't more arrests. If there were supposedly 50 to 100 people involved in staging these "events," why aren't there more people on trial?

It's just that considering the history of false accusations and even false convictions, and the number of people whose lives have been ruined, I'm not going to believe it until I see more and better evidence than one brief online news report.

Regards,
m.

[TheReverend]

Wow. I'm amazed.

I thought I had posted a pretty straightforward statement looking at the wider social context for these criminal convictions. I thought I had made a pretty good point that I wasn't going to believe these charges without seeing a lot more evidence for myself, considering the legal and cultural history of child abuse witch hunts in our country over the last 40 years. Instead, I've got one person asking if I'm condoning such behavior, and another wishing he could "do more harm than that."

The fact that a jury convicted these people in east Texas does not prove that they actually committed these acts, any more than the jury way back when proved that there were actually real, live witches casting spells in Salem.

Let me say it more clearly: IF the people involved actually DID what they were accused of doing -- if they fed painkillers to preschoolers and put them thru sexual abuse -- ALL of the people involved should be put away for a long, LONG time behind bars. That's part of why I wanted to know why there weren't more arrests. If there were supposedly 50 to 100 people involved in staging these "events," why aren't there more people on trial?

It's just that considering the history of false accusations and even false convictions, and the number of people whose lives have been ruined, I'm not going to believe it until I see more and better evidence than one brief online news report.

Regards,
m.

5 minute jury deliberation isn't convincing enough? What evidence do you need? Do you need to be in the crowd watching?

These people should all be killed even if just 10% of the story is true. If it's all true, then they should all be tortured for years being executed.

[sisterhellfyre]

5 minute jury deliberation isn't convincing enough? What evidence do you need? Do you need to be in the crowd watching?

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.

Regards,
m.

[TheReverend]

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.

Regards,
m.

This is east Texas 2008, not Moscow 1970...

[TailgateNut]

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.

Regards,
m.


So, in your opinion, it was a corrupt court on a witch hunt. Could'nt have been a trial with evidence which left no doubt for the jury.

[nickademus]

Wow. I'm amazed.

I thought I had posted a pretty straightforward statement looking at the wider social context for these criminal convictions. I thought I had made a pretty good point that I wasn't going to believe these charges without seeing a lot more evidence for myself, considering the legal and cultural history of child abuse witch hunts in our country over the last 40 years. Instead, I've got one person asking if I'm condoning such behavior, and another wishing he could "do more harm than that."

The fact that a jury convicted these people in east Texas does not prove that they actually committed these acts, any more than the jury way back when proved that there were actually real, live witches casting spells in Salem. It's easy -- it may even be human nature -- to be suspicious of someone who does things a little differently in their lives as compared to the more widely accepted social norms. When someone does one thing we don't like (swinging, for example) because it's "immoral," it's easy to accuse and even convict them of all sorts of other things. After all, who knows just what those "depraved perverts" might be doing behind closed doors?

That's the point I was trying to make.

Let me say it more clearly: IF the people involved actually DID what they were accused of doing -- if they fed painkillers to preschoolers and put them thru sexual abuse -- ALL of the people involved should be put away for a long, LONG time behind bars. That's part of why I wanted to know why there weren't more arrests. If there were supposedly 50 to 100 people involved in staging these "events," why aren't there more people on trial?

It's just that considering the history of false accusations and even false convictions, and the number of people whose lives have been ruined, I'm not going to believe it until I see more and better evidence than one brief online news report.

Regards,
m.

look I could give a rats ass about these people swinging. the fact that a jury of their peers convicted them within five minutes tells me the evidence was overwhelming. whether or not I accept this evidence as fact is the point you were attempting to make but in your orignal post you were defending the convicts actions stating that we look to persecute anyone who falls outside our "moral standards" the point I was making is chid abuse is not a moral standard it is a ****ing crime so ether be specific or keep your mouth shut.

[sisterhellfyre]

So, in your opinion, it was a corrupt court on a witch hunt. Could'nt have been a trial with evidence which left no doubt for the jury.

I don't know. I don't know WHAT the evidence was. Without knowing a lot more, and considering the history of witch hunts in our country, I'm not willing to rush to judge and condemn.

Regards,
m.

[BroncoBuff]

And my wife keeps telling me we should move to Texas.......
Hey, I was born in Dallas. Lived there til we moved to Denver the week before I started kindergarten. What does that make me?

[TheReverend]

I don't know. I don't know WHAT the evidence was. Without knowing a lot more, and considering the history of witch hunts in our country, I'm not willing to rush to judge and condemn.

Regards,
m.

You're aware that witch hunts are in the past? A longggggggg ways in the past...?

[sisterhellfyre]

look I could give a rats ass about these people swinging. the fact that a jury of their peers convicted them within five minutes tells me the evidence was overwhelming. whether or not I accept this evidence as fact is the point you were attempting to make but in your orignal post you were defending the convicts actions stating that we look to persecute anyone who falls outside our "moral standards" the point I was making is chid abuse is not a moral standard it is a ****ing crime so ether be specific or keep your mouth shut.

Child abuse is a crime, yes. We agree on that point completely.

My point is just that it's easier to accuse and convict people of crimes when we demonize them for doing something else that we don't like. That's my point, period.

Regards,
m.

[TailgateNut]

I don't know. I don't know WHAT the evidence was. Without knowing a lot more, and considering the history of witch hunts in our country, I'm not willing to rush to judge and condemn.

Regards,
m.




When did you become the Supreme Court?
They were convicted. End of story. Next

[sisterhellfyre]

You're aware that witch hunts are in the past? A longggggggg ways in the past...?

"Witch hunt" in this case is a figure of speech, Rev. I figured that people would understand to what I referred.

Regards,
m.

[TailgateNut]

Hey, I was born in Dallas. Lived there til we moved to Denver the week before I started kindergarten. What does that make me?


A f-in texan!Hilarious!

[Kaylore]

A f-in texan!Hilarious!

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6964/ohsnapes0.jpg

[sisterhellfyre]

When did you become the Supreme Court?
They were convicted. End of story. Next

Do I have to be on the Supreme Court to ask questions about what happened?

Not end of story, no more than it would be for anyone else falsely accused and sitting in a prison cell for it.

Regards,
m.

[BroncoBuff]

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.
There's always a lot of factors beyond any brief account, but the system is the system, and we have a pretty damn good one in the United States.

That said, I agree there appear to be serious questions about the conduct of this trial. I've tried 8 or 9 cases to jury-read verdicts, and dozens more with juries that didn't go to deliberations, and I'm telling you guys that five minutes is beyond bizarre. It takes more than five minutes to name a foreperson, much less deliberate, MUCH LESS vote. It takes more than five minutes to line out the elements for each charge and each named defendant on each count ... ESPECIALLY in MVMO trials like this one (multi-victim, multi-offender)!

No judge should permit ANY verdict in 5 minutes ... ever. If a jury came back that fast in cases I've tried, the judge would've seated the jury, handed their forms back un-read, and explained that "deliberations" should always include the panel hearing from each juror individually, and at least a brief discussion of EACH element of each crime charged - one at a time - before any vote should be taken. The law is loathe to tell juries what to do behind closed doors, but the judge can, and should, tell them these things. In fact, most judges in L.A. County, at least the ones I've tried cases before, actually suggest the jury NOT deliberate right away. Preferably take a lunch break or coffee break first, before deliberating, MUCH less before a vote.

And YES, there have been horrific witch hunts over sex abuse cases. The topic of sexual abuse of children closes and angers minds instantaneously. The abrupt, hostile reactions in here to hellfyre's pretty tame questions about the conduct of the trial attests to this.

[Beantown Bronco]

I don't know. I don't know WHAT the evidence was. Without knowing a lot more, and considering the history of witch hunts in our country, I'm not willing to rush to judge and condemn.

Regards,
m.

It's one thing to rush to judgment when "rumors" float around the Mane about player arrests and such before any real info is released. It's another to call it "rushing to judge" when in fact a person has been lawfully charged with a crime and gone through the process of being adjudicated by the US Courts.

So what you are saying is this:

you don't believe any person that is found guilty in our courts is actually guilty unless you have had your chance to review all the evidence, as well as a copy of the court's transcript of the case, and actually sat in on the jury deliberations?

You must be real fun to hang around with at parties.

[rugbythug]

Wow-What a slippery slope America is on once the elites have decided there are no moral absolutes. When each person gets to decide their own morality the decay has begun. This is sad. Welcome to the De-evolution.

We hold these truths to be self evident. Err maybe.

[sisterhellfyre]

So what you are saying is this:

you don't believe any person that is found guilty in our courts is actually guilty unless you have had your chance to review all the evidence, as well as a copy of the court's transcript of the case, and actually sat in on the jury deliberations?

So what you're saying, Beantown, is that you don't ever question what you read in the newspapers? If someone in authority presents something to you as "established proof," that's good enough?

I'll remember that next time I read in the newspaper about someone being released from Death Row because new evidence proved the wrong person had been convicted and sentenced.

Regards,
m.

[TailgateNut]

So what you're saying, Beantown, is that you don't ever question what you read in the newspapers? If someone in authority presents something to you as "established proof," that's good enough?

I'll remember that next time I read in the newspaper about someone being released from Death Row because new evidence proved the wrong person had been convicted and sentenced.

Regards,
m.


I'm starting to wonder why you picked this particular crime/ group to adopt.
HMMMMMMM?

[sisterhellfyre]

I'm starting to wonder why you picked this particular crime/ group to adopt.
HMMMMMMM?

[LOL] Here we go again with the leading innuendoes...

Where's that "not this s*** again" graphic when I need it?

Regards,
m.

[Bladerunner]

There are some seriously incensed people because m. pointed out that there are a number of odd things about this story. Nothing m. has said condones child molestation or excuses criminal behavior. His pointing out that there is a history of justice meted out in this country based on the uncorraborated accusations of children. I dont have any idea if this is the case here or not, but m. pointing it out surely doesn't deserve the irrational ire that resulted.

And the fact that a jury found the defendants guilty doesn't make it fact that these things happened. I challenge any of you who think our legal system is so sound to explain to me how you trust that OJ didn't actually do it.

And no m. you aren't the only one that is wondering where are the charges on the 50-100 people who were spectating these shows. Nor are you the only one that finds a 5 mnute jury deliberation to be a flag that it wasn't very deliberate.

And for those of you that will somehow interpret this post as an acceptance and condonment of child molestation, please just leave it be, because you are simply hearing what you want to hear.

[TheReverend]

There are some seriously incensed people because m. pointed out that there are a number of odd things about this story. Nothing m. has said condones child molestation or excuses criminal behavior. His pointing out that there is a history of justice meted out in this country based on the uncorraborated accusations of children. I dont have any idea if this is the case here or not, but m. pointing it out surely doesn't deserve the irrational ire that resulted.

And the fact that a jury found the defendants guilty doesn't make it fact that these things happened. I challenge any of you who think our legal system is so sound to explain to me how you trust that OJ didn't actually do it.

And no m. you aren't the only one that is wondering where are the charges on the 50-100 people who were spectating these shows. Nor are you the only one that finds a 5 mnute jury deliberation to be a flag that it wasn't very deliberate.

And for those of you that will somehow interpret this post as an acceptance and condonment of child molestation, please just leave it be, because you are simply hearing what you want to hear.

Reasonable doubt is a ONE-way street...

That was a ****ed up situation allowed under "reasonable doubt" but this is a conviction, meaning there was NO reasonable doubt.

[Bladerunner]

Reasonable doubt is a ONE-way street...

That was a ****ed up situation allowed under "reasonable doubt" but this is a conviction, meaning there was NO reasonable doubt.

Ok...so you are asserting that the system is fallible, but only to the effect that guilty people get off, and that innocent people are never falsely convicted?

While, I agree that the reasonable doubt metric will skew the errors to false exonerations, is delusional to believe that there are no innocent people convicted of crimes in America.

I have no idea if this case in one of those, but it's not wrong to acknowledge the reality that the legal system makes both conviction and exoneration mistakes.

[~Crash~]

You're aware that witch hunts are in the past? A longggggggg ways in the past...?


Nope you are wrong in the 70's if you were a kinder garden or preschool teacher there was some crazy things being accused against them latter on after a few years in jail they were let out of jail lives ruined (SP) because of false things said and were talk a lot of peoples lives up in smoke.

[Northman]

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.

Regards,
m.

No offense, but you could apply those questions to anyone on trial.

[TheReverend]

Nope you are wrong in the 70's if you were a kinder garden or preschool teacher there was some crazy things being acused against them latter on after a few years in jail they were let out of jail lifes ruiened (SP) because of faulse things said and were talk a lot of peoples lifes up in smoke.

Was that pig-latin?

[Northman]

Do I have to be on the Supreme Court to ask questions about what happened?

Not end of story, no more than it would be for anyone else falsely accused and sitting in a prison cell for it.

Regards,
m.


Woah, who was falsely accused in this situation? It seems to me that you have already claimed that these people are innocent without anything to back up that claim. Just assumptions on your part.

[Bladerunner]

Was that pig-latin?

lol...the Mane shouldn't take it personally, 56Crash's posts on the KFFL site are equally cryptic...

you have to use night vision to get them...don't actually look directly at the words, just kind of let them fade into your peripheral vision and let the general meaning soak in.

[Northman]

I'll remember that next time I read in the newspaper about someone being released from Death Row because new evidence proved the wrong person had been convicted and sentenced.

Regards,
m.


And what percentage is that? Mistakes happen but in this case you've already decided that these individuals are innocent and you havent even seen the evidence yourself to make that determination.

[TheReverend]

lol...the Mane shouldn't take it personally, 56Crash's posts on the KFFL site are equally cryptic...

you have to use night vision to get them...don't actually look directly at the words, just kind of let them fade into your peripheral vision and let the general meaning soak in.

Like the magic-eye paintings... got it... brb while I try

[sisterhellfyre]

And what percentage is that? Mistakes happen but in this case you've already decided that these individuals are innocent and you havent even seen the evidence yourself to make that determination.

Actually, Anubis, I havent decided anything. I don't know if the folks accused down in Texas are innocent or guilty of anything. As I see it, I'm just resisting the rush to judge and condemn them to years of torture, life in prison, firing squads, etc as some have suggested. I've said it over and over again, that IF they actually did commit these crimes, they should be put away for a long, LONG time.

I'm just not satisfied that the jury verdict means the crimes actually happened as described by the prosecution.

You're right, the questions I've asked could be asked about many cases in our legal system. As someone pointed out along the way, we've got a pretty darned good system. I agree very much with that assessment! It's just that mistakes do still happen at both ends of the spectrum, for false exonerations or false convictions. I think the questions still need to be asked, and should be asked, ESPECIALLY in a case that bears so much similarity (at least on the surface) to so many others that resulted in false convictions.

Regards,
m.

[Northman]

Actually, Anubis, I havent decided anything. I don't know if the folks accused down in Texas are innocent or guilty of anything. As I see it, I'm just resisting the rush to judge and condemn them to years of torture, life in prison, firing squads, etc as some have suggested. I've said it over and over again, that IF they actually did commit these crimes, they should be put away for a long, LONG time.

I'm just not satisfied that the jury verdict means the crimes actually happened as described by the prosecution.

You're right, the questions I've asked could be asked about many cases in our legal system. As someone pointed out along the way, we've got a pretty darned good system. I agree very much with that assessment! It's just that mistakes do still happen at both ends of the spectrum, for false exonerations or false convictions. I think the questions still need to be asked, and should be asked, ESPECIALLY in a case that bears so much similarity (at least on the surface) to so many others that resulted in false convictions.

Regards,
m.


The fact that people on a message board (this one included) get riled up over any report is not out of line or a bad thing. Reports like this are bound to get an reaction from anyone. It shows that people give a damn and when it comes to children it does spark a deeper anger. Maybe you consider yourself the greatest person alive because you dont react right away to reports like this or anything else. If so than thats fine, good for you. But, to come out of the box and make claims yourself when you have nothing to back up your statements is just as careless.

Now maybe down the road something will come out that some of these people (maybe all) are found innocent or there was some misjustice. But, this is the initial report and at some level you do have to take it as fact because thats all you have to go on for the moment. To automatically write it off and say that it was a witch hunt and all that is pretty naive on your part. I have no problem with you having questions about it but trying to make excuses about unfair persecutions and witch hunts is a stretch when you yourself dont have any evidence to back up that claim in this instance. I personally dont see anything nothing wrong with people expressing their anger on issues like this because it at least shows they give a ****.

People who are imprisoned and then found not guilty later because of the ability of DNA or some other piece of evidence is a very small percentage and doesnt support this massive conspiracy theory about witch hunts and unfair justice as a whole. Mistakes happen in all facets of crime and punishment all over the world. America is not the only place where misjustice happens and even though you may think the circumstances are unclear you really dont know that they "arent" guilty either.

[BroncoBuff]

I'm starting to wonder why you picked this particular crime/ group to adopt.
HMMMMMMM?
Sorry, but that innuendo is WAY over the top tgn ... that's a borderline accusation which she does NOT deserve. Imo you should withdraw that.

And I think hellfyre too, you're going a bit far with the righteousness ... they were convicted, after all. And there's no indication yet that there was error in the jury instructions, or evidenciary rulings, not yet anyway. Five minutes for deliberation and verdict in MVMO case is bizarre, but it will be reviewed. For now though, the verdict deserves our deference. That's how we roll in the USA.


But she is right about the extraordinary level of rage that comes with child sex abuse cases ... you guys' hostile responses actually PROVES HER POINT! She's absolutely correct that this area is rife with false allegations, quack psychology, false memories, and coerced testimony. The stories are legion of lives being destroyed through falsely coerced memories of abuse.

The seminal case of abuse of process in child-sex cases is the McMartin Day Care case in L.A. in the 1980s. It was an enormous MVMO case that featured bizarre testimony of ritualistic abuse, including lengthy descriptions of bizarre underground tunnels leading through locked doors to satanic-like ritual rooms. All these stories were deduced from the children by psychologists, and all these stories proved to be false. There were no convictions, and forensic psychologists after the fact came to the consensus conclusion that no abuse had actually occurred. http://www.religioustolerance.org/tunnels.htm

ANGER is the enemy of justice.

[TheReverend]

Nope, still not making any sense.

[TheReverend]

But she is right about the extraordinary level of rage that comes with child sex abuse cases ... you guys' hostile responses actually PROVES HER POINT!

With very good reason.

[BroncoBuff]

The first suggestion of underground tunnels and secret rooms may have emerged in 1994 during the interview of a former student by CII. He said " ...like somehow I can't remember. I'm not sure about. Ah, there was a room I wasn't suppose to go in or something....I'm making this up. I'm not sure. Yeah, I can see it, I think." At the preliminary hearing, he testified how Ray Buckey and the other teachers took him to play "Naked Movie Star" (kiddie-porn) games every weekday. In reality, Ray was not at the school until after the boy had graduated. He recalled that the secret room was the size of a classroom was located to the east of the school building and was accessible by a trap door and tunnel.
Ray Buckley was a strange guy, no doubt. But he was not a molester, and his life was destroyed.

[~Crash~]

Was that pig-latin?:SUYFAHa!

by the way spell check is easy being human must be more hard ahole:thanku:

[Northman]

Ray Buckley was a strange guy, no doubt. But he was not a molester, and his life was destroyed.


Ill ask again, what percentage of "innocent" people are tried and then released. 10%? 20%? 90%? Bad things happen to people everyday whether they deserve it or not. When it becomes a point that it happens a very high level i will get concerned. As ive already pointed out, injustices happen from time to time but you dont start claiming that everyone is innocent based off a few bad moments here and there then it just becomes ridiculous on your part.

[sisterhellfyre]

And I think hellfyre too, you're going a bit far with the righteousness ... they were convicted, after all. And there's no indication yet that there was error in the jury instructions, or evidenciary rulings, not yet anyway. Five minutes for deliberation and verdict in MVMO case is bizarre, but it will be reviewed. For now though, the verdict deserves our deference. That's how we roll in the USA.

Thanks, Buff, and I'll go with that in the spirit offered. Along with so many others on this thread, I may have gotten carried away in the heat of the moment and my own rhetoric.

I think I've made my argument about as clearly as I can, and I think the time has come to leave it alone for a while and let my own temper cool off too.

Regards,
m.

[BroncoBuff]

Nope, still not making any sense.
With very good reason.
Okay ... let's get some truth out here about the realities of this horrific crime: It is widely accepted in psychiatric circles that the psychological damage done to children in sex-abuse cases is far LESS about the abuse, and far MORE about the break in parent-child trust and sharing. If the child reports the abuse immediately, there is usually little residual damage. But if the child does not report it, and it continues, THAT is the problem. The break in parent-child trust. I have also read that a parent's overreaction to the discovery of abuse, and police and investigator's strident questioning of the child is often more damaging than the actual abuse, too.

You want to fry the perpetrators, and SO DO I! But try to put your anger in a box and trust the system to work. Anger NEVER helps anything in the search for truth and the administration of justice.

[TheReverend]

Okay ... let's get some truth out here about the realities of this horrific crime: It is widely accepted in psychiatric circles that the psychological damage done to children in sex-abuse cases is far LESS about the abuse, and far MORE about the break in parent-child trust and sharing. If the child reports the abuse immediately, there is usually little residual damage. But if the child does not report it, and it continues, THAT is the problem. The break in parent-child trust. I have also read that a parent's overreaction to the discovery of abuse, and police and investigator's strident questioning of the child is often more damaging than the actual abuse, too.

You want to fry the perpetrators, and SO DO I! But try to put your anger in a box and trust the system to work. Anger NEVER helps anything in the search for truth and the administration of justice.

The first part you quoted wasn't directed at you, just the magic eye posting of 56. :wave:

The first paragraph is disheartening... it makes it sound like because someone raped a kid, if it's reported immediately, it's not so bad. I guess part of it's being a parent... the idea of something happening to your child is so reprehensible and disgusting... anyone involved in anything damaging to a child should certainly fry.

The second paragraph is counter productive to what you've said earlier. We are putting faith in the systems results that Sister and you are arguing against.

[BroncoBuff]

Ill ask again, what percentage of "innocent" people are tried and then released. 10%? 20%? 90%? Bad things happen to people everyday whether they deserve it or not. When it becomes a point that it happens a very high level i will get concerned.
Actualy, the sad part is that more than 90% of child sex abuse is never known. And curiously, as with rape, often sex abuse is not reported to police. Most of it is in the family.


As Ive already pointed out, injustices happen from time to time but you dont start claiming that everyone is innocent based off a few bad moments here and there then it just becomes ridiculous on your part.
What?! NOBODY SAID THEY WERE INNOCENT! We've expressed concern that - based on a crazy-bizarre 5-minute verdict, and crazy-bizarre idea that there were 50 adults in that small town who willingly watched a pair of drugged 6-year olds perform sex acts - that this was a rush to judgment.

Slowing down and setting anger aside is NOT weakness, and it's not a statement that they are innocent. What it is - is the American way. Please calm your anger and trust the American system of justice to work.

[TheReverend]

:SUYFAHa!

by the way spell check is easy being human must be more hard ahole:thanku:

Relax, dude. It's all good. Who needs any form of punctuation, anyways?

[Northman]

Please calm your anger and trust the American system of justice to work.

It did, they were found guilty.

[Beantown Bronco]

So what you're saying, Beantown, is that you don't ever question what you read in the newspapers?

I never said that. I said that it's crazy to say we are "rushing" to judgment when we are talking about acts that occurred 4 YEARS AGO. After 4 years of gathering evidence and trying the actual case, a jury came to the conclusion that the defendants were guilty. Yes, that's good enough for me. All the newspapers are doing is reporting what came out in trial. There is a reason why, before and during trials, the media is required to say that the defendant "allegedly" did certain things; and, after the trial, they can then say definitively that they did or did not do those things. For 99% of the public, the results of the case are good enough to form a conclusion about what really happened. For the other 1%, we're talking about either the family of the convicted defendant which refuses to believe it even after the conviction or someone who has lived through a similar case that had a different result...so now all similar cases must have that same result or the person just can't deal.

I have known several instances where children came up with lies on their own or were coerced into making statements of abuse against others. You know what? Not one of those ever resulted in more than a simple questioning of the people accused. Why? Because it's fairly easy to poke holes in children's "sex abuse" stories, especially when they are that young; and even non-experts can tell when children are not telling the truth about these types of acts.

If someone in authority presents something to you as "established proof," that's good enough?

Not always, but in this case, and in the case of our judicial system as a whole, yes. Sure, people are wrongly convicted on occasion. But it's extremely rare, especially for criminal cases that require the extreme burden of proof that "reasonable doubt" cases demand. I have worked in law firms for 10 years now and it's clear to me that people underestimate just how hard it is to get a conviction nowadays....

[Northman]

I never said that. I said that it's crazy to say we are "rushing" to judgment when we are talking about acts that occurred 4 YEARS AGO. After 4 years of gathering evidence and trying the actual case, a jury came to the conclusion that the defendants were guilty. Yes, that's good enough for me. All the newspapers are doing is reporting what came out in trial. There is a reason why, before and during trials, the media is required to say that the defendant "allegedly" did certain things; and, after the trial, they can then say definitively that they did or did not do those things. For 99% of the public, the results of the case are good enough to form a conclusion about what really happened. For the other 1%, we're talking about either the family of the convicted defendant which refuses to believe it even after the conviction or someone who has lived through a similar case that had a different result...so now all similar cases must have that same result or the person just can't deal.

I have known several instances where children came up with lies on their own or were coerced into making statements of abuse against others. You know what? Not one of those ever resulted in more than a simple questioning of the people accused. Why? Because it's fairly easy to poke holes in children's "sex abuse" stories, especially when they are that young; and even non-experts can tell when children are not telling the truth about these types of acts.



Not always, but in this case, and in the case of our judicial system as a whole, yes. Sure, people are wrongly convicted on occasion. But it's extremely rare, especially for criminal cases that require the extreme burden of proof that "reasonable doubt" cases demand. I have worked in law firms for 10 years now and it's clear to me that people underestimate just how hard it is to get a conviction nowadays....


REP

[TailgateNut]

Sorry, but that innuendo is WAY over the top tgn ... that's a borderline accusation which she does NOT deserve. Imo you should withdraw that.

And I think hellfyre too, you're going a bit far with the righteousness ... they were convicted, after all. And there's no indication yet that there was error in the jury instructions, or evidenciary rulings, not yet anyway. Five minutes for deliberation and verdict in MVMO case is bizarre, but it will be reviewed. For now though, the verdict deserves our deference. That's how we roll in the USA.


But she is right about the extraordinary level of rage that comes with child sex abuse cases ... you guys' hostile responses actually PROVES HER POINT! She's absolutely correct that this area is rife with false allegations, quack psychology, false memories, and coerced testimony. The stories are legion of lives being destroyed through falsely coerced memories of abuse.

The seminal case of abuse of process in child-sex cases is the McMartin Day Care case in L.A. in the 1980s. It was an enormous MVMO case that featured bizarre testimony of ritualistic abuse, including lengthy descriptions of bizarre underground tunnels leading through locked doors to satanic-like ritual rooms. All these stories were deduced from the children by psychologists, and all these stories proved to be false. There were no convictions, and forensic psychologists after the fact came to the consensus conclusion that no abuse had actually occurred. http://www.religioustolerance.org/tunnels.htm

ANGER is the enemy of justice.


You're correct. I did step over the line, which I do quite often, but mostly in jest.

Anywhoo, I apologize.

[Rausch 2.0]

Does anyone else find it surprising that 50 to 100 people would watch this? A whole lot of people need to be going to jail.

If you're the kind of person that wants to see a 7-10 year old child raped you should be drug out into the street in your own neighborhood and shot in the face.

Just pull the body to the side of the road afterwards and let the insects and vermin eat you to forgotten...

[broncocalijohn]

Honestly, Reverend, no. It's not enough for me, and I think I've said pretty clearly why. At the very least I'd like to know what evidence the prosecution presented, where it came from, and how they got it. After that, I'd like to know more about the conduct of the trial. What were the judge's instructions to the jury? What were they allowed (or not allowed) to consider? Did the accused have competent defense in court?

There are a lot of factors beyond the brief account on Yahoo News.

Regards,
m.

You need to hang out with McGoofy because you obviously dont believe in the system we have in place. This is our system and all sides get to present their case. Sure innocent people get convicted, but what makes this one stand out? It seems you are backing the wrong type of people and leads me to believe you are into some type of swinging fun and these are your type of people. Shame on you. You have not given us any evidence to think otherwise that the jury was wrong. Without knowing details, we must go with the jury. You are one sicko in my book.

[sisterhellfyre]

You need to hang out with McGoofy because you obviously dont believe in the system we have in place. This is our system and all sides get to present their case. Sure innocent people get convicted, but what makes this one stand out? It seems you are backing the wrong type of people and leads me to believe you are into some type of swinging fun and these are your type of people. Shame on you. You have not given us any evidence to think otherwise that the jury was wrong. Without knowing details, we must go with the jury. You are one sicko in my book.

Ya know, there's just no possible response to that kind of innuendo, is there?

Regards,
m.

[BroncoBuff]

You have not given us any evidence to think otherwise that the jury was wrong.
HELLO? The jury came back in FIVE FREAKING MINUTES ... ring a bell? You definitely didn't read anyof my posts, bcj, and I have substantial experience in criminal law. If a jury came back in five minutes, even in a ONE defendant ONE count trial, something would be wrong. And this case was a multi-victim multi-offender case. I don't know Texas, but I do know how juries are instructed in California, and 5 minutes is not enough time to name a foreperson and line out the elements of the first charge ... much less deliberate on each defendant, take votes and sign verdict forms. In fact, I don't think they could've taken votes on each of thse defendants in that amount of time. Understand that this will probably be a powerful grounds for appeal .. and perhaps truly guilty people might get off, which nobody wants.

And PLEASE STOP IMPLYING that those of us who rightly point out that these crimes are prone to overreaction and misjudgment, or think this strange jury process should be reviewed, are child molesters. That's weak and low-brow of you. When you make such irresponsible and offensive inferences out of anger, you're merely reinforcing the point we're making! Such inferences ARE the problem. They prove reason and deliberation get thrown out the window on this topic, as the brain's amygdala system works overtime in a fit of close-minded, primitive anger. Seriously. Knowitall

[Northman]

HELLO? The jury came back in FIVE FREAKING MINUTES ... ring a bell? You definitely didn't read anyof my posts, bcj, and I have substantial experience in criminal law. If a jury came back in five minutes, even in a ONE defendant ONE count trial, something would be wrong. And this case was a multi-victim multi-offender case. I don't know Texas, but I do know how juries are instructed in California, and 5 minutes is not enough time to name a foreperson and line out the elements of the first charge ... much less deliberate on each defendant, take votes and sign verdict forms. In fact, I don't think they could've taken votes on each of thse defendants in that amount of time. Understand that this will probably be a powerful grounds for appeal .. and perhaps truly guilty people might get off, which nobody wants.

And PLEASE STOP IMPLYING that those of us who rightly point out that these crimes are prone to overreaction and misjudgment, or think this strange jury process should be reviewed, are child molesters. That's weak and low-brow of you. When you make such irresponsible and offensive inferences out of anger, you're merely reinforcing the point we're making! Such inferences ARE the problem. They prove reason and deliberation get thrown out the window on this topic, as the brain's amygdala system works overtime in a fit of close-minded, primitive anger. Seriously. Knowitall


Well, im a lawyer aside from my duties as kicker and i say your full of shiat. How you like them apples? ;)

[Beantown Bronco]

I don't know Texas, but I do know how juries are instructed in California, and 5 minutes is not enough time to name a foreperson and line out the elements of the first charge ...

In Mass, the judge takes care of all of this before the jury even begins their deliberations....could be the same in TX. Saves hours of deliberations, depending on how good the judge is.

much less deliberate on each defendant, take votes and sign verdict forms. In fact, I don't think they could've taken votes on each of thse defendants in that amount of time.

In this particular trial, there were only two defendants. The rest that were mentioned in the article weren't part of this trial. That might've helped. Even given that fact, the five minutes is still a bit extreme....I'll certainly concede that.

I'm guessing there was a bit of the "secret negotiations with NFL free agents before March 1st" going on here. Just like the league never questions how a FA can come to terms with a new team just minutes after they are allowed to even speak with them, I'm guessing the jury pool here talked about the case outside of the actual courtroom every night so they knew exactly how they were going to vote before they even broke to the actual deliberations. Sure it's not supposed to happen that way, and it would definitely get the verdict thrown out if it came out that they did it; but good luck proving it.

[BroncoBuff]

Well, im a lawyer aside from my duties as kicker and i say your full of shiat. How you like them apples? ;)

Really? Well, you're a better punter than lawyer. 8')

[Northman]

Really? Well, you're a better punter than lawyer. 8')

Ha! LOL

[BroncoBuff]

In this particular trial, there were only two defendants. The rest that were mentioned in the article weren't part of this trial. That might've helped. Even given that fact, the five minutes is still a bit extreme....I'll certainly concede that.
Two defendants makes things a lot different ... how many counts? Still, five minutes is nuts.

Even the OJ criminal jury was smart enough to wait a few hours - even after they had voted not guilty - to come back in.

[Northman]

Two defendants makes things a lot different ... how many counts? Still, five minutes is nuts.

Even the OJ criminal jury was smart enough to wait a few hours - even after they had voted not guilty - to come back in.


On a serious note, my best friend is a lawyer and although he says it did seem fast that it isnt really that uncommon. He said if the case is a slam dunk there would be no reason to not find a verdict that fast. And from what Bean was saying i guess they had what? 4 years to make a case? If it was really an open and shut case i dont think i would have a problem making my decision that fast.

[Beantown Bronco]

Even the OJ criminal jury was smart enough to wait a few hours

"What color were the jurors?" :wiggle: