On Oct 14, 7:04 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
> news:m3k7f4di7jctnlscltnvoubbp6he91csvs@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:51:13 퍝, "mert1639"
> >  wrote:
>
> >>> There are many situations in which a person must touch a child,
> >>> especially in an unfamiliar and cramped environment that has hazards.
> >>> Touching even a bottom may be perfectly reasonable in many
> >>> circumstances, and an *inadvertent* touch in that area is even more
> >>> possible.
>
> >>Can you please tell me why somone would have to put their hand up a girl's
> >>skirt on a steam engine?
>
> > How short was the skirt - was it necessary to make any conscious
> > effort to touch her underneath, or could it have been inadvertent?  As
> > I said, I would need more details to be entirely convinced.
> > Especially as at least one juror who *did* hear all the facts remained
> > unconvinced.
>
> I've no idea as I wasn't there or in court.  All that I can say is than in
> my time on engine cabs I haven't touched anyone's bottom.
>
> >>I think this is called clutching at straws.  I must ask, what are your
> >>motives for wanting to defend this sex offender?
>
> > What is your motive for wanting him to be one?
>
> Beacuse ISTM that he is guilty.  I have spoken to people who work at his
> railway and they think he is the same.

Belief is not truth.

WM