| Subject: Re: Open letter to YoY, Sing, Lee, and the less-than-sincerely confused, but mostly YoY |
Author:
Higgins
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:25:53 10/17/11 Mon
In reply to:
Reader
's message, "Re: Open letter to YoY, Sing, Lee, and the less-than-sincerely confused, but mostly YoY" on 08:43:04 10/17/11 Mon
The use of "Child Abuser" was a word play based on the fact that children were involved and, from a parental perspective, being abused by the courts (specifically Judge Humphrey as it's representative). It is a calculated bit of rhetoric to elicit an emotional response, not an accusation of the actual crime of child abuse. Clearly it got an emotional response.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be at the trial. I, too, would like to know what could possibly have justified the verdict. I can only presume that it was the product of 1)the shear mass of presentation by the prosecution overwhelming the core fact that everything on Dan's blog is protected speech (as seems to happen on this discussion board), 2) lack of adequate response by the defense, and 3) a lack of critical thinking or real understanding of the protections Americans enjoy under the Constitution. Since we don't know who the jurors were, we won't ever be able to find out. Maybe they were a collection of Aaron's family and friends?
On that topic -- I wonder what non-prejudicial explanation was given to the jurors to explain why they were being held incognito. After all, anyone who has ever watched a crime flick "knows" that the only time juror identities are protected is when they are in jeopardy of being KILLED by some mafia don or drug king pin! Could this "precaution" have prejudiced the jury? Could that be the real reason for the verdict?
The reporting, which I believe to be reliable, was that in every instance and for every "witness" the response to "Did Dan ever DO anything to threaten you?" the answer was NO. Case Closed.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 