Dad kills neighbor accused of molesting girl

[yowolabi]

Exactly why vigilante justice is wrong.

"He puts it on my belly and nose".... why the hell would they assume that "it" means his manhood? And don't they watch over their kid enough to know that a neighbor isn't regularly coming to their child in the night and molesting her? The fact that they could think something like that is plausible says volumes about their parenting skills.

 

[Specop 007]

😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

 

[Vic]

<Nelson>HA HA!</Nelson>

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

so you still think the father was right to kill him? that the guy deserved to be killed? what?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Number1

Sounds like somebody's made up a story trying to get away with murder.

That makes no sense at all. I am unaware of any reason to believe Edington would have killed his own neighbor in cold blood, for no reason at all. Nobody is saying the kid didn't claim to be molested by James, just that it doesn't appear that James in fact molested her.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Number1

Sounds like somebody's made up a story trying to get away with murder.

That makes no sense at all. I am unaware of any reason to believe Edington would have killed his own neighbor in cold blood, for no reason at all. Nobody is saying the kid didn't claim to be molested by James, just that it doesn't appear that James in fact molested her.

to be honest i think the mother has more involvment then she is saying.


i would not be suprised to find out she has a boyfriend and did not want a divorce (a pre-nub?) so him going to jail was an idea. he probably has a temper and she figured he would do something stupid.

but who knows. All we know now is the guy did NOT mollest the kid and the father is now going to be found guilty of murder and sit in jail a long long time.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

That in no way mitigates what you said in the first place. I don't see any evidence that "the media" withheld information on this case, and in fact, contrary to your prior implication, it appears the available evidence indicates there never was any molestation, and that he killed an innocent man based only on the vague accusations of a 2-year-old.

As I read your initial post, you were saying that Mr. Edington had an obligation as a father to kill his neighbor. The reality turns out to be the opposite - his act will ensure that his daughter grows up marginalized and fatherless. He will spend at least her first 18 years in prison, and she and her mother will struggle without his income. Forgive me if I don't think his vigilante "justice" makes him Father of the Year.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

so you still beleive what the lawyer did was right? that 6 months probation is good? or what?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

That in no way mitigates what you said in the first place. I don't see any evidence that "the media" withheld information on this case, and in fact, contrary to your prior implication, it appears the available evidence indicates there never was any molestation, and that he killed an innocent man based only on the vague accusations of a 2-year-old.

As I read your initial post, you were saying that Mr. Edington had an obligation as a father to kill his neighbor. The reality turns out to be the opposite - his act will ensure that his daughter grows up marginalized and fatherless. He will spend at least her first 18 years in prison, and she and her mother will struggle without his income. Forgive me if I don't think his vigilante "justice" makes him Father of the Year.

I'm not trying to mitigate what I said in the first place.
What i said in the first place was based upon the information available at the time.

If you dont think someone can change their opinion on an issue after new facts are issued then carrying on the conversation is utterly pointless.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

so you still beleive what the lawyer did was right? that 6 months probation is good? or what?

In light of the new information, no. I still want to know the full story though.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

That in no way mitigates what you said in the first place. I don't see any evidence that "the media" withheld information on this case, and in fact, contrary to your prior implication, it appears the available evidence indicates there never was any molestation, and that he killed an innocent man based only on the vague accusations of a 2-year-old.

As I read your initial post, you were saying that Mr. Edington had an obligation as a father to kill his neighbor. The reality turns out to be the opposite - his act will ensure that his daughter grows up marginalized and fatherless. He will spend at least her first 18 years in prison, and she and her mother will struggle without his income. Forgive me if I don't think his vigilante "justice" makes him Father of the Year.

I'm not trying to mitigate what I said in the first place.
What i said in the first place was based upon the information available at the time.

If you dont think someone can change their opinion on an issue after new facts are issued then carrying on the conversation is utterly pointless.

and as we were saying the information came froma 2 yr old. anyone who would take anothers life on the word of a 2 yr old is insnae.


but now we know that the guy did NOT mollest the 2 yr old. we also know the father went off of what themother claimed the 2 yr old said. That the father broke into the house and killed the guy in cold blood.

I do wonder if there is going to be anything else with the mother. but so far we know one person is going to be in jail (hopefully) a long time.

 

[onebeeer2many]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
I don't think anyone blames the guy too harshly if the molestation thing is true. The problem is that we can't be sure it's true.... and there's no way the father could have been sure before he went Batman on his next door neighbor.

I love the Batman refrence that is great!!!!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

That in no way mitigates what you said in the first place. I don't see any evidence that "the media" withheld information on this case, and in fact, contrary to your prior implication, it appears the available evidence indicates there never was any molestation, and that he killed an innocent man based only on the vague accusations of a 2-year-old.

As I read your initial post, you were saying that Mr. Edington had an obligation as a father to kill his neighbor. The reality turns out to be the opposite - his act will ensure that his daughter grows up marginalized and fatherless. He will spend at least her first 18 years in prison, and she and her mother will struggle without his income. Forgive me if I don't think his vigilante "justice" makes him Father of the Year.

I'm not trying to mitigate what I said in the first place.
What i said in the first place was based upon the information available at the time.

If you dont think someone can change their opinion on an issue after new facts are issued then carrying on the conversation is utterly pointless.

My point is that your intial reaction was stupid, pretty much by definition, just as Mr. Edington's reaction to the accusations was stupid (though obviously his had much more dire consequences). There is no way that vague allegations by a 2-year-old could motivate a reasonable person to commit murder. This is one of the many reasons vigilante-ism is a bad idea IMO - as imperfect as our justice system is, at least it has a fact-finding component. Edington acted on emotion, and he'll be paying for the rest of his life, as he should IMO.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007
😕

Locked doors FTW??

Like I said long long time ago in the thread, theres alot we aint gettin in the story. Looks like we got it part of the rest of the story at least.

Would be nice to get the rest.

Here's what you actually said:

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Still happy with your initial take on this one, tiger?

Absolutely I am. Why wouldnt I be?

Oh, I know why. Because your using selective qouting... Missed this one a ways back didnt you.

Originally posted by: Specop 007
The media, as usual, only reports what they want you to hear. And I bet theres a hell of a lot we arent hearing about exactly what this guy did.

That in no way mitigates what you said in the first place. I don't see any evidence that "the media" withheld information on this case, and in fact, contrary to your prior implication, it appears the available evidence indicates there never was any molestation, and that he killed an innocent man based only on the vague accusations of a 2-year-old.

As I read your initial post, you were saying that Mr. Edington had an obligation as a father to kill his neighbor. The reality turns out to be the opposite - his act will ensure that his daughter grows up marginalized and fatherless. He will spend at least her first 18 years in prison, and she and her mother will struggle without his income. Forgive me if I don't think his vigilante "justice" makes him Father of the Year.

I'm not trying to mitigate what I said in the first place.
What i said in the first place was based upon the information available at the time.

If you dont think someone can change their opinion on an issue after new facts are issued then carrying on the conversation is utterly pointless.

My point is that your intial reaction was stupid, pretty much by definition, just as Mr. Edington's reaction to the accusations was stupid. There is no way that vague allegations by a 2-year-old could motivate a reasonable person to commit murder. This is one of the many reasons vigilante-ism is a bad idea IMO - as imperfect as our justice system is, at least it has a fact-finding component. Edington acted on emotion, and he'll be paying for the rest of his life, as he should IMO.

In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

What ****** facts are we missing? IT was proven he did NOT MOLLEST THER CHILD. IT has been proven the lawyer went out and KILLED A INNOCENT MAN.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

Ridiculous. The point is that Edington didn't know if his daughter had been molested - all he had was her say-so (and even that was completely unclear). If he came home and the daugher were bleeding from her vagina, and James had confessed, we'd have a different situation all around. Instead he flew off the handle (which was apparently OK with you when the story broke, but isn't now), and an innocent man is dead.

I don't think my analysis of this case would change by much, regardless of whether James was guilty of molestation - either way, it would be an unjustified murder. James' guilt wouldn't even be relevant to the sentence IMO - what would matter is the quality of the information Edington relied on when he decided to kill him.

 

[SilthDraeth]

All of Spec's replies have been perfectly in line in my opinion.

Now I want someone to prove to me this:

How can police find evidence of molestation if the molestation was in fact "he puts it on my tummy and nose". Now I do not know exactly what they do in trying to find evidence of child molestation besides doing a physical exam. Everything else is based on testimony. For example. If some molester grabbed your kids crotch, and then jacked off, and you caught it on camera, then you would have undeniable evidence that it happened. But if there was no camera, and your 2 year old, or 4 year old what have you, came to you and told you that the action had happened, or alluded to it. All you would have would be a verbal accusation with no "physical evidence" to go bye. On the other hand, had he actually did anything forcefully, then there would be physical evidence that an action had taken place.

So back to the original story.
1. Girl tells mom that "he puts it on her tummy and nose" and says it happens in the "stary night"
2. Mom tells dad.
3. Dad kills man.
4. Confirmed there where prior allegations (police reports) that the man was in some way indecent and was visible through windows.
5. Police interview little girl (MacNamara confirmed that investigators interviewed the girl but declined to release further details.)
6. Police find no evidence.

Now look that over closely. The SAME little girl you guys are saying you CAN NOT TRUST over police evidence, PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE to the police via interview. Anyone else want to comment on what is wrong with this picture.

I do agree something is screwed here.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
All of Spec's replies have been perfectly in line in my opinion.

Now I want someone to prove to me this:

How can police find evidence of molestation if the molestation was in fact "he puts it on my tummy and nose". Now I do not know exactly what they do in trying to find evidence of child molestation besides doing a physical exam. Everything else is based on testimony. For example. If some molester grabbed your kids crotch, and then jacked off, and you caught it on camera, then you would have undeniable evidence that it happened. But if there was no camera, and your 2 year old, or 4 year old what have you, came to you and told you that the action had happened, or alluded to it. All you would have would be a verbal accusation with no "physical evidence" to go bye. On the other hand, had he actually did anything forcefully, then there would be physical evidence that an action had taken place.

So back to the original story.
1. Girl tells mom that "he puts it on her tummy and nose" and says it happens in the "stary night"
2. Mom tells dad.
3. Dad kills man.
4. Confirmed there where prior allegations (police reports) that the man was in some way indecent and was visible through windows.
5. Police interview little girl (MacNamara confirmed that investigators interviewed the girl but declined to release further details.)
6. Police find no evidence.

Now look that over closely. The SAME little girl you guys are saying you CAN NOT TRUST over police evidence, PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE to the police via interview. Anyone else want to comment on what is wrong with this picture.

I do agree something is screwed here.

I take it the child has probably recanted, and/or the police have found that her allegations are impossible in terms of the time and place she claims/claimed they occurred.

I wouldn't expect there would be physical evidence, based on the nature of the child's specific allegations - ordinarily the police would have the child interviewed by a trained forensic pediatric psychologist or psychiatrist. There are specifically-identified criteria for verifying or discrediting children's accusations of molestation (as we all know, children can and do routinely like). This is a bit of an imprecise science, but a science nevertheless.

My point, thoughout, is that Edington simply didn't have sufficient evidence to know what if anything had happened to his daughter. I am not trying to demonize him, but he acted out of emotion and acted, IMO, in a stupid and irresponsible way. His family can look forward not only to raising their daughter with him in prison but, more than likely, to losing whatever assets they still have in a wrongful-death suit by the James family. This is the consequence of acting with your heart and not your head, and engaging in vigilante violence. Dumb dumb dumb . . .

FWIW, I imagine I have more experience with child molesters than anyone on this board, and God knows my blood boils when I think about these kinds of cases, but I still feel strongly that Edington acted very very foolishly.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
All of Spec's replies have been perfectly in line in my opinion.

Now I want someone to prove to me this:

How can police find evidence of molestation if the molestation was in fact "he puts it on my tummy and nose". Now I do not know exactly what they do in trying to find evidence of child molestation besides doing a physical exam. Everything else is based on testimony. For example. If some molester grabbed your kids crotch, and then jacked off, and you caught it on camera, then you would have undeniable evidence that it happened. But if there was no camera, and your 2 year old, or 4 year old what have you, came to you and told you that the action had happened, or alluded to it. All you would have would be a verbal accusation with no "physical evidence" to go bye. On the other hand, had he actually did anything forcefully, then there would be physical evidence that an action had taken place.

So back to the original story.
1. Girl tells mom that "he puts it on her tummy and nose" and says it happens in the "stary night"
2. Mom tells dad.
3. Dad kills man.
4. Confirmed there where prior allegations (police reports) that the man was in some way indecent and was visible through windows.
5. Police interview little girl (MacNamara confirmed that investigators interviewed the girl but declined to release further details.)
6. Police find no evidence.

Now look that over closely. The SAME little girl you guys are saying you CAN NOT TRUST over police evidence, PROVIDED THE EVIDENCE to the police via interview. Anyone else want to comment on what is wrong with this picture.

I do agree something is screwed here.

1) since that could mean a bunch of diffrent things its insane to try to guess what it could be.

2) mom tells dad that 2 yr old said something. again remember she is 2 years old.

3) that is not in doubt. dad goes and kills on the words from a 2 year old. now think on that. kills a man from what a 2 year old said.

4) He was walking around INSIDE HIS HOUSE naked. ok. thats wrong? well fck then you better arrest me, my wife etc for it. we have walked around the house naked a lot. why were they spying on him anyway? they should have been arrested for being a peeping tom.

5) they can't release many detials since she is a minor. they did say there was NO EVIDANCE.

6) key point. NO EVIDANCE. well besides the fact the lawyer went and killed the man in cold blood.


yes it is the same little girl. but i am willing to bed they did a phsycial exam and found nothing. They may have also talked to her more then the mother did.

sad story. A innocent guy is killed and a man is siting in jail depriving his daughter of him being around.


how you guys can still justify what he did is beyond me.

 

[randay]

evidence

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Specop 007In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

What ****** facts are we missing? IT was proven he did NOT MOLLEST THER CHILD. IT has been proven the lawyer went out and KILLED A INNOCENT MAN.

Do you actually read the stuff you post and do any type of critical thinking whatsoever??

Originally posted by: waggy

cnn link

FAIRFIELD, Connecticut (AP) --
MacNamara confirmed that investigators interviewed the girl but declined to release further details.

For all YOU know little girl said "He broke in the house and raped me multiple times" and the DA just decided not to press charges so that he COULD press charges against the lawyer to send a message to would be vigilantes.

BUT WE DONT KNOW.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Specop 007

In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

Ridiculous. The point is that Edington didn't know if his daughter had been molested - all he had was her say-so (and even that was completely unclear). If he came home and the daugher were bleeding from her vagina, and James had confessed, we'd have a different situation all around. Instead he flew off the handle (which was apparently OK with you when the story broke, but isn't now), and an innocent man is dead.

I don't think my analysis of this case would change by much, regardless of whether James was guilty of molestation - either way, it would be an unjustified murder. James' guilt wouldn't even be relevant to the sentence IMO - what would matter is the quality of the information Edington relied on when he decided to kill him.

So because we dont have all the facts in the WoT you dont have an opinion on it right? Because we dont have all the facts in the 9/11 incident you dont have an opinion on it right? Because we dont have all the facts in the NK nuclear test you dont have an opinion right?

As you say, you have your opinion and I have mine. Based on the initial information I still say good stab at that time. In light of new evidence I have changed my opinion, but I still want all the facts.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Specop 007In your opinion.

I would have supported the guy 100% if the charges had been true. Are you saying that from now on everyone should withhold their opinions until 100% of the facts are in view? In that case, we'd STILL be waiting to rule on this article as we STILL dont know all the facts.

So I say again, based on the information from the original article I still support everything I said at the time.

And I still want the entire story here. Something doesnt add up.

What ****** facts are we missing? IT was proven he did NOT MOLLEST THER CHILD. IT has been proven the lawyer went out and KILLED A INNOCENT MAN.

Do you actually read the stuff you post and do any type of critical thinking whatsoever??

Originally posted by: waggy

cnn link

FAIRFIELD, Connecticut (AP) --
MacNamara confirmed that investigators interviewed the girl but declined to release further details.

For all YOU know little girl said "He broke in the house and raped me multiple times" and the DA just decided not to press charges so that he COULD press charges against the lawyer to send a message to would be vigilantes.

BUT WE DONT KNOW.

my god. .. wow. talk about denial.


"Police have concluded that a 2-year-old girl was not molested by a neighbor whom the girl's father is accused of stabbing to death in rage, a police official said Thursday."

you miss that part?

or "We're confident this 2-year-old was not molested," said Capt. Gary MacNamara


of course they are not going to give further detials. they are delling with a minor. Also they are invistigating the mother so that may have something to do with it.

damn face facts. you were wrong. The lawyer killed a innocent man. there is no fcking conspiricy to "send a message" to anyone.