Comments on: DNA Evidence Clears Molino Man Charged With Molesting Young Girl

By: Molino 96 Dodge

Molino 96 Dodge — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 02:49:37 +0000

Reference to Esc Deputy, in most cases however, when DNA doesn’t match it means not guilty. Your a cop (and obviously one who’s drank the coll-aid) but be for real, what’s the percentage of cases where DNA doesn’t match where the accused is still the one who committed the crime ? What 1, maybe 2% ?
And it’s definitely not the same for everyone. In our legal system everyone looks out for each other and defense attorneys are not what you see on Law and Order AT ALL.. They have to bow down like anyone else. My lawyer in 1994, now the State Attorney, knew then he would be the next in line when Golden stepped down and everyone else knew it also. Hard to believe ? How come when they had the election, ole Bill ran unopposed (Dem or Rebublican). Win by default, sweet. No they just knew this good ole boy would run things business as usual.
Besides, people (juries) wanna believe those who are supposed to be the good guys. A correctional captain once told my grandparents a complete lie that they believed for the sole reason he was a correctional captain and purported himself to be a good guy which is the problem nowadays. People wanna do the right thing but it’s hard to tell who’s who nowadays. Oh btw, my old man was a cop for the county here from 68′ to 99′ so I know a little about how things operate within but for you cadets maybe reading, watch out for the cool-aid. You won’t be you anymore.

By: perdido fisherman

perdido fisherman — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:57:29 +0000

@God knows, You are delluded if you think a child of this age cannot make up a story like this and the “professionals” that you have so much confidence in, have been known to lead children during questioning resulting in false charges and convictions. Maybe you should look up the Mcdougal case, where a whole day care facility was charged with molestation and tried through the media and public opinion (that’s just one example of many cases). Don’t be so quick to believe everything a child says or to have so much faith in “professionals” who like to make themselves look important even at the expense of someones innocence. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t believe them, but keep an open mind.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 10:48:34 +0000

REGARDING:
“They always seem to doubt the child no matter what”

They’re actually SUPPOSED TO, not just a child but any accuser.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
If this seems unreasonable, what if I accused YOU of assorted horrible crimes?
Wouldn’t you want me to have to prove my accusations?

David for justice

By: Patsy

Patsy — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 04:52:29 +0000

I do know WE have to protect our children, because most of these so called childrens advocates dont do the right thing for these children , they need to adopt some new rules . Been there, Done that. They always seem to doubt the child no matter what

By: David

David — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 15:16:57 +0000

People are not ‘cleared’ to prove innocence: Under the law, people are innocent until proven guilty. The notion that one has not been proven “innocent” is wrong and does injustice. The idea that a he-said, she-said, with a kid involved is in and of itself sufficient to generate probable cause is insanity. Anyone who has had children knows that even young ones are capable of dishonesty. The system is not perfect: It is broken.

By: god knows

god knows — Thu, 04 Sep 2014 02:53:04 +0000

Well jvst maybe the d.n.a was messed up by the law and his lawyer ran away with it…no 6year old is gonna make this up..the 5dollars and all come on they talk 2 these kids with trained professinols i know i had one put in prison 4 touching my child for 20years he only did 7 and got out go figure

By: John

John — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:42:12 +0000

Good he was cleared now to all the Linch mob they need to make a public apology to this man for all the hate and judging they showed just saying

By: Puddin

Puddin — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 22:29:58 +0000

So sad, that mans life is ruined. Even though he has been found innocent, no one that knows will ever look at him the same way again. There will always be that tiny seed of doubt. Too bad there isnt a way to keep an accused persons identity secret until after they have been convicted.

Prayers go up for the little girl. Someone must have hurt her. I hope they find the real culprit soon.

By: XD9RACER

XD9RACER — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 22:20:20 +0000

Not so much in this case but in cases where the person / persons were so-called found guilty and later on DNA said NOT GUILTY or DID NOT DO IT INNOCENT need to be compensated big time like the 2 men that will be released today after 30 years in prison. A fund needs to be developed from a deduction in the pay of every COP, PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE to go into a pool where when a person is later proven NOT GUILTY or INNOCENT this fund will go to compensate the wrongful convicted at a rate of $ 1,000,000.00 per year tax free and on top of that the PROSECUTOR will in turn do the time in prison the wrongful convicted did and this will stop these sorry PROSECUTORS from making a name for themselves by just wanting to send SOMEBODY to prison. There should be no more defendants found NOT GUILTY or INNOCENT from DNA because it has been used for many years now and should have exonerated all the real NOT GUILTY by now. I’m not saying it should stop but get them all done.

By: Esc LEO

Esc LEO — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:47:08 +0000

I do not know this man and was not involved in his case. I will only point out two things. First, the term “cleared” by DNA is not entirely accurate. While DNA does, in some cases, prove a person did not commit a crime, that is not always the case, and it may not be the case here. We know from the story that DNA was not his. That does not mean he did not commit the crime. It means that key piece of evidence needed to convict him in court is gone, and so the PROVABLE part of the case is gone. Having charges dropped or being found not guilty does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean a person is proven “innocent”. Only that the state cod not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were guilty. Maybe this man is guilty and maybe he isn’t. Only he, the girl and God know.

Second, to address the comments about the “shoddy” investigation. Keep this in mind: the place to prove a case is in court. It is only law enforcements job to start that process. And in order to start that process, the level of proof that is needed is “probable cause” or in other words, if you look at the information and evidence available and you can say he “probably” did it, THAT is enough for an arrest and to start the court process. It would be great if DNA was done in a day, but if a little girl gives a convincing story about being molested, and law enforcement waits months for DNA evidence, how would the public feel if he molested another girl in that time? How many of you read the articles a month ago about the men who were arrested in the online underage sex sting, and posted comments about them needing to be castrated, or sent away for life? They didn’t have a trial yet either. The process is the same for everybody. Sometimes people are not convicted of what they are accused of. That is just how the system works. Just like some people that are truly guilty get off from time to time. The system isn’t perfect but that is what we have.