I guess I'm wondering why we (the public) feel we have the right to be priviliged to all the crucial evidence in a case. Is it not common practice for police to withhold evidence from the public? Maybe they don't want to parade around detailed evidence of a 4 year old girl's sexual assualt? Who in their right mind would want to see/read that?

I think it's pretty cool he beat him to death with his bare hands.

I guess I'm wondering why we (the public) feel we have the right to be priviliged to all the crucial evidence in a case. Is it not common practice for police to withhold evidence from the public? Maybe they don't want to parade around detailed evidence of a 4 year old girl's sexual assualt? Who in their right mind would want to see/read that?

 

Who said we have a right?

 

The point being made deals specifically with the court of law where those details would be brought forth.

Honestly, if the only evidence that comes available is what we have looked at in this thread thus far, how do you vote if you're a Grand juror? Even more difficult, if you're a juror determining guilt or innocence?

If I were a juror and there was no physical evidence it would come down to the prosecution connecting the dots. The prosecution would have to come up with a motive or something else to try and discredit the father's story. If it's simply the father's word versus nothing else I would have to vote to for the father.

If I were a juror and there was no physical evidence it would come down to the prosecution connecting the dots. The prosecution would have to come up with a motive or something else to try and discredit the father's story. If it's simply the father's word versus nothing else I would have to vote to for the father.

 

Yep. It is such a sensitive issue. If this man assaulted his daughter, and the father caught him in the act, then everything is right in the world. If the father lied to cover up a murder, then he is the lowest of the low. Either way, it is up to believing the father and the little girl. I'm not sure that you can coach a 4 year old's testimony. Either way, I feel very bad for the little girl.

I would call it the LAW of the Land , I protect my daughter and my family . I would also protect anyone else's daughter or son from such a beast . No Kid deserves to be mistreated in any way . The father done what any decent human should have done in my opinion if he witnessed. My thinking would be I would careless what they done to me when I protected my child .

I guess I'm wondering why we (the public) feel we have the right to be priviliged to all the crucial evidence in a case. Is it not common practice for police to withhold evidence from the public? Maybe they don't want to parade around detailed evidence of a 4 year old girl's sexual assualt? Who in their right mind would want to see/read that?

 

Typically I don't think those details are released so you are right IMO.

Who said we have a right?

 

The point being made deals specifically with the court of law where those details would be brought forth.

 

You apparantly think so. They said they have no reason to believe that his story isn't true. To most logical people that would seem to mean they have evidence supporting his claims. You obviously don't think that's good enough. You want to see the evidence.

You apparantly think so. They said they have no reason to believe that his story isn't true. To most logical people that would seem to mean they have evidence supporting his claims. You obviously don't think that's good enough. You want to see the evidence.

 

I don't want to see the evidence. I want to make sure we don't rush to judgement based off of a statement that doesn't tell us anything definitively.

 

As I've said if the evidence is there to show there was an assault then no charges should be filed. You can't tell that from the statement made.

 

If you made me guess this is 100% legit and the guy got what was coming to him. I just have never been a knee-jerk take-it-at-face-value guy.

I get it and, if what is reported actually happened, I can't find fault with the dad's actions.

 

However, I am curious from a pure legal standpoint what law would protect him.

 

If I had to guess, the law is written that father had the right to beat the rapist up to the point where the rapist was no longer a threat (beaten unconsious???) but no to the point of death.

 

Saying that, due to the emotions surrounding this, ie a 4 year old being raped, only the most liberal juries was find him guilty.

way to go dad. I have a 10 year-old daughter and if a man touched her in an inappropriate manner, I'd do the same thing.

I'd be curious what theguru would do.

 

I could see a whole line of wristbands: WWtGD?

I don't want to see the evidence. I want to make sure we don't rush to judgement based off of a statement that doesn't tell us anything definitively.

 

As I've said if the evidence is there to show there was an assault then no charges should be filed. You can't tell that from the statement made.

 

If you made me guess this is 100% legit and the guy got what was coming to him. I just have never been a knee-jerk take-it-at-face-value guy.

 

So you don't believe the police? You think they just took his statement for truth and didn't investigate? That's the way you're coming across.

 

What do you want them to do? Do they need to come out and say "There was evidence a sexual assualt took place"? Is that what's needed to appease you here?

So you don't believe the police? You think they just took his statement for truth and didn't investigate? That's the way you're coming across.

 

What do you want them to do? Do they need to come out and say "There was evidence a sexual assualt took place"? Is that what's needed to appease you here?

 

Are you paying attention?

 

I said we can tell NOTHING from the statement. It can be interpreted many ways. That doesn't mean I do not believe them. I think they are rightfully being tight-lipped.

 

However, some on here read into it more than I do. That's been my stated point over and over and should be obvious.

I doubt an indictment---depends how hard the prosecutor puts on the evidence.

If an indictment is returned, the father could successfully argue in court extreme emotional disturbance, I would think, or something of that ilk.