Do you think he was innocent?

by silentlambs 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  silentlambs

  . http://www.gctelegram.com/news/2002/march/2/story5.html

  Man acquitted of molestation charges
  
  BY JACLYN O'MALLEY
  Date Posted on Saturday, March 2, 2002 10:05:50 AM

  A 71-year-old Garden City man was acquitted Friday afternoon on charges he repeatedly sexually molested his young granddaughter and two great-granddaughters.

  Arthur Cruz exchanged hearty handshakes and bear hugs with numerous family members who have been supporting him in the courtroom throughout the trial. When the not-guilty verdict on five counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child was read, his supporters gasped with delight and shed tears of joy.

  Meanwhile, Cruz's 15-year-old granddaughter sat with a relative and sobbed. The girl's companion cried and said she, too, had been victimized by Cruz and can't believe he was freed.

  Cruz's twin 9-year-old great-granddaughters also had testified he sexually assaulted them numerous times when they were younger. They were not present for the verdict. Their mother was, and she celebrated the acquittal in the hallway with Cruz and his clan.

  The 15-year-old came forward last summer. She said Cruz sexually molested her when she was a 10-year-old spending summer vacation at his home. The incidents surfaced when she reported another family member sexually abused her.

  Around the same time, the twins confided in a fireman that they were being abused by Cruz.

  Cruz's defense depended on the jurors finding the girls' testimony not credible enough to convict him. He countered their claims by saying the twins made it up because they were mad he took their pet dog, and saying that the 15-year-old wanted to use it to back up claims against another family member.

  All three girls testified to similar events. They said Cruz assaulted them when no one else was around - usually when a family member was caring for Cruz's sick wife in another room. He tried to kiss them, would shove his hands down their pants and fondle their genitals, they testified.

  They all claimed Cruz told them if they said anything about the fondling, no one would believe them.

  In an interview after his arrest, Cruz told a detective he didn't know any of his grandchildren and was stunned anyone would put a Jehovah's Witness in jail.
• 

  Naeblis

  With no evidence to look at, how do you expect an answer?
• 

  VioletAnai

  I tend to give 3 children the benefit of the doubt!!!!!!! rather than a conniving adult. Children generally don't come out and accuse someone of abuse if there is no reason for it. Yes, my cousin's in-laws coached their daughter into accusing him cause they were gunna lose custody of her to him cause of neglect. The court could clearly see she was copying her parents and the case was thrown out of court. That is an example of one child and her parents. Have these girls parents interferred with investigations or was it lovely innocent granddad, who'd never even think about touching a single hair on his little girls heads.

  I will always believe a child. Look at the child, see how it reacts to the situation, to the verdict. You can generally tell from body language or even behaviour if someone has interferred with your kid. There are the classic signs and then there are the subtle signs where you have to open your eyes and quit being so self-centred and actually take a look at your kid and focus on how they are feeling and reacting to life around them. Then you'll know whether a person is guilty or not of touching a child.
• 

  anewperson

  Naeblus/Watchtower Poser, you attacked me and here you attack 3 molestation victims. They are the witnesses or evidence, more than enough. Question is why he got off.
• 

  safe4kids

  Anew,

  I don't see Naeb's post as an attack, merely a statement that he doesn't have enough information to make a judgement. Who can know based on the above information if the guy was guilty or not?? I certainly don't although I tend to agree with Violet that the fact that three children accused him is hard to overlook. Generally, children tell the truth and don't make false claims of abuse, although it does happen on the rare occasion. What's really sad is that if the girls were telling the truth, and I would be surprised if they weren't, not only were they let down by the judicial process, their own mother let them down!!! Not being believed is one of the worst things that can happen to an abuse victim...I can't even imagine the damage this will inflict on those girls. I hope the families get them counseling...probably not gonna happen tho

  Dana
• 

  Seeker

  Look at the child, see how it reacts to the situation, to the verdict. You can generally tell from body language or even behaviour if someone has interferred with your kid. There are the classic signs and then there are the subtle signs where you have to open your eyes and quit being so self-centred and actually take a look at your kid and focus on how they are feeling and reacting to life around them. Then you'll know whether a person is guilty or not of touching a child

  None of which was possible to do from reading that newspaper account. I agree with safe, it is more likely than not that the children were telling the truth, but as with all court cases on any subject we can't possibly know for sure unless we are in the courtroom hearing the evidence as jury. A newspaper account does not proof make.
• 

  MadApostate

  Man, 71, arraigned for sex charges
  
  
  By The Telegram
  Date Posted On Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:05:34 PM
  
  Arthur Cruz, 215 Inge Ave., was arraigned on five counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in Finney County District Court Tuesday afternoon. Allegedly, Cruz had sexual relations with three children younger than 14, between 1997 and 2001. Each count represents a separate alleged incident.

  If Cruz is convicted on all five charges, his maximum sentence under Kansas sentencing guidelines would be nearly 41 years.

  Choosing to stand mute and not enter a plea, the court entered a not guilty plea on Cruz's behalf. By not voicing a plea, Cruz reserves the right to appeal possible issues, or believed defects in his preliminary hearing. If he had entered a plea, he would have waived the right to appeal any issues from the preliminary hearing.

  Through an interpreter, Cruz was informed he has a jury trial scheduled for Feb. 27, 2002.

  Cruz remains free on $2,500 bond.

  In other business, Cruz pleaded not guilty to a misdemeanor driving under the influence charge. He was given a December trial date for that case.
• 

  Abaddon

  The emotional reaction in these situations is to look for the nearest tree and some rope, or find a handy can of gasoline and a Zippo, or a nice, sharp knife and a torniquet (if you didn't want to actually kill the person).

  However, rules of evidence are there to protect you, when you just happen to look like a guy on a CCTV camera killing a convenience-store clerk, for example, and at times they do mean that guilty people go free, which is especially awful when it involves the abuse of children.

  As this instance involves more recent events, and obviously isn't false-memories induced by therapy, then, statistically speaking, the guy is probably guilty. Children rarely lie about such a thing. But rarely is another way of saying they sometimes do.

  You can't put someone in jail because it's statistically likely he is guilty, or because the alleged victims show distress when someone is let off. The words are 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And they have to, obviously, apply to everyone, even those accused of the most henious crimes, otherwise they are meaningless and the judicial system becomes even more of a joke than it is.

  Of course, some people are of the opinion that some crimes are so bad that perhaps different standards of evidence should apply. They are completely entitled to that opinion, but the fact that rules of evidence need to be as they are is amply illustrated by the fact that, for example, more people have had the death penalty overturned (i.e., they didn't do it) than have been executed since judicial killing stared in the USA again.

  The crimes committed against people are awful, no one will argue that. But this does not justify the state removing neccesary safeguards and becoming guilty of commiting the crime of unjustly convicting people for crimes they did not commit. Ever thought about what it must be like to be unjustly labelled a pedophile?

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  BluesBrother

  I just want to say how encouraged i am to read the balanced and reasoned replies to this thread . sometimes it seems that the very word "abuse" would get a man hung drawn and quartered .

  Horrible though it is we must be fair. Although I would like to castrate those who are really proven guilty.
• 

  Naeblis

  Anewperson, just when I think you can't get more ridiculous you come through!! Thanks for the laugh.