Like I wrote in the first instance, this had more than a little resemblance to
McMartin and the bogus charges there.
So you finally get your day in court and present your case. You are found to be
not guilty. Your good name is restores and then you wake up the next morning to
and article which says, in effect "well--the jury found him not guilty but
here's a few reasons that you the reader should still look at him with
suspicion." This is shoddy journalism, Des News. I'd like to join the
chorus of posts on this and demand that this man be given a new article. You
were spot on the case to report the disgusting nature of his accusation, now
behave like adults when you report the events of his exoneration.
Still sounds suspicious.
Judge not.From an authoring point of view, I could easily see myself
writing the same article- "An accusation was made, physical evidence could
potentially support it, a not-guilty verdict was returned."Whether the jury wouldn't give their reasons to the press or for the sake
of respecting the privacy of a man who likely wants this to disappear as
it's likely affected his life irreversibly already... I can see why there
isn't more information.We may live in an online and nosy world.
That doesn't mean a lack of information is inappropriate. I acknowledge the
seeming 'lack of more story'. However, I don't acknowledge the
entire world having the right to hear it. Everything in the comments about
'portraying him as guilty' is all speculation and illogical. A better
article could have been written. But better comments could have been also.Judge not.
Four days. That is a long trial. So who gave this girl medication?
I'm not saying the friends dad did, just want to get to the bottom of what
caused the evidence the hospital found matching the allegation. She is in
I have to agree with the majority of others posting here. Although the
defendant was found "not guilty" the reporter appears to have been found
"guilty" of poor reporting by a jury of readers. Shame on the editors
for allowing this poor poor example of news reporting. The Deseret News should
have higher standards than this.
I think it is significant that the jury delivered their verdict within a couple
of hours. It tells me the prosecution didn't make much of an impression on
them. None of the news outlets I've read from appear to have covered the
trial so we don't have the info the jury was given. It appears the only
source used by the media was the charging document which certainly is not the
last word in a trial. It would have been nice to have some insights on what
transpired in the court.
OK......where is the rest of the story??
Their article sounds like they disapprove of the Jury's decision.
Obviously the "evidence" mentioned was not proven, and may have not been
as convincing as the article states, nor indicative of actual abuse and not
other causes. Obviously their evidence did NOT meet the standard to convict,
and perhaps, they believed that he did NOT do what he was accused of. We
should Honor the Jury's decision, important in our form of government and
I knew there would those who disagreed when I said that a person is found NOT
found "innocent", but "not guilty". Some would suppose that
because we are "innocent" until "proven guilty", that the
verdict should either be "guilty" or "innocent". From what
I've read, that's not how the courts operate. The burden on the State
is to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Having a reasonable
doubt that the State did not prove absolutely that someone is guilty does not
mean that a juror must believe that the person is innocent; it only means that a
juror has not found the person to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.We, who have raised children, may have faced those types of situations in a
family. We discover that some cookies are missing. We see crumbs leading to a
child's bedroom. We smell cookies when we enter the room. The child
denies eating the cookies. His wet toothbrush shows that he recently brushed
his teeth. We might not be absolutely certain that THAT child ate the cookies.
There is no evidence that proves "cookie eating" beyond a reasonable
doubt, but is he "innocent"?
Doubtful 2 -- what that knowledge first hand or was it something you heard from
the rumorsphere? If you had knowledge first hand, you should have gone to the
police. If not, you should remain silent
No matter how much we may disagree, Not Guilty is the same as Innocent and
should be treated as such. So basically, in the courts mind, what was alleged
didn't happen.OJ was found Not Guilty despite all the evidence
to the contrary, but technically because if the Not Guilty verdict he was found
to be Innocent. I disagreed with that verdict but it is what it is.
Mike Richards,Your post is interesting but I have to wonder,
aren't the accused supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
So if found "not guilty"....
Will he be allowed to return to teaching? If not, why not?
Having some knowledge of the case at the time it happened, I will always believe
this child molester escaped justice. I hope he quits teaching now that his
suspension is lifted. It's too bad it took so long to go to trial.
This is one of those guilty-until-proven-innocent situations. Regardless of the
actual truth or facts of the matter, there goes his reputation and who knows how
many dollars on legal expenses. Often, there are NO winners in court. Anyone
working with youth in today's world must be a little paranoid, because all
it takes is one allegation and you're essentially toast.
Sometime the DN rejects my comments for reasons that don't make any sense
to me. It seems that DN articles are also approved using nonsensical
reasons. This article is clearly written in a way to cast doubt on the verdict
or is tragically incomplete! Either way it should not have been approved in its
I agree that the article was poorly written, with the "twist" coming at
the end. Surely the reporter and the editor knew better than to publish that
story as written.There is one misconception that needs to be cleared
up. The jury found the defendant "not guilty". He was not pronounced
"innocent". There is a huge difference between "not guilty" and
"innocent". "Not guilty" simply means that the jury did not
agree with the State when the State claimed that the crime had been committed.
"Innocent" would mean that defendant had done nothing that the State
claimed that he had done. A judge instructs a jury to arrive at a verdict based
on the evidence presented in court. If there was no evidence or if the evidence
was poorly presented, and if the jury followed the judge's directions, the
jury would have had to find the defendant "not guilty".
I emailed the author. It looks to me like she didn't upload the entire
story. Unless it is just very poor reporting.
You know it is a great article when more of the comments are about how bad the
article itself is. The writer and DN were very irresponsible with this
approach. All this article did was make it seem like they let a guilty man go.
It would be helpful to add some information as to why he was found innocent and
if you don't have that info at least don't just state the evidence
So the court finds the man "not guilty," but the DN decides to cast
This article seems a little incomplete to me. Just seems strange to say he was
cleared by the jury and to end with alledged evidence against him. I don't
know either party involved or the full story but it seems to me that his
reputation doesn't need to take anymore lumps by basically saying
"well, he was cleared, but we'll only describe how he got here in the
first place, not the evidence that helped the jury make a decision". Not a
good situation for any one involved because it puts both the child's and
the teacher's reputation on the line. Hope it works out as best as possible
for all involved.