...because the whole thing was concocted by Reno.

Actually, he was he three years old and tested positive for an STD after the encounter.

One week after Greg Wilkes tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat, without any interim treatment, he was tested again. This time the findings were negative.

The State Attorney's office also charged Snowden with sexually molesting Carol Banks, an 11 year-old girl.

At first she said that she hadn't been molested. Later she changed her mind and said that she had - 8 years earlier.

Snowden was also charged with molesting Leslie Blandes, a five-year-old who ended up with an STD.

Gardnerella vaginitas which may, or may not, be sexually transmitted.

There was no credible evidence against the guy but Reno did everything she could to convict him.

His conviction was thrown out. Not because there was, as you say: “There was no credible evidence against the guy but Reno did everything she could to convict him” but because F. Lee Bailey and his other attorneys got him off on technicalities. Here is the appeals case:

SNOWDEN v SINGLETARY

Far from proving his innocence, his appeal claiming that his due process rights were violated because: the court did not allow his attorney to sufficiently object to some jurors, an expert witness for the State destroyed evidence (the doctor did not keep the medical slides from which he had diagnosed the STD), the judge allowed hearsay evidence (four adults testified as to what the children told them), the trial court admitted expert witness testimony about the truthfulness of the child witnesses (don’t know what’s wrong with this but it apparently violated his due process), and the trial court allowed evidence of abuse against other children, that is, similar crimes evidence to be presented (again violating his due process).

The doctor not keeping the evidence and allowing other children to give evidence of his abuse is not exactly a ringing endorsement of his innocence even if his due process rights were violated.

In any event, I believe that you have proven my original point made in my first post which was: “Of course Anne and her supporters won’t care. Anything goes for them, even supporting serial child molesters.”

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals:

“The evidence at issue in this petition is testimony by an expert witness (Dr. Miranda) that 99.5% of children tell the truth and that the expert, in his own experience with children, had not personally encountered an instance where a child had invented a lie about abuse”

Had this guy ever even met a child?

“The case against Snowden was based almost entirely upon the stories told by three, young-children witnesses. The oldest, allegedly abused child (and the oldest child witness) was 6 years old at the time of trial; the abuse had supposedly occurred, at least, two years before the trial. The only physical evidence that a child might have been abused by anyone was that one of the children had been treated for an ailment which can be transmitted sexually, but is also transmitted by other means.”

How hard do you think it would be to convince a 6 year old that you had abused him 3 years ago?

“Witness credibility is the sole province of the jury. Very rarely will a state evidentiary error rise to a federal constitutional error; but given the circumstances of the trial underlying this case, we conclude that allowing expert testimony to boost the credibility of the main witness against Snowden-considering the lack of other evidence of guilt-violated his right to due process by making his criminal trial fundamentally unfair. So, we reverse the district court's decision and remand with instructions to grant Snowden's petition for relief, releasing Snowden unless the state affords him a speedy new trial.”

And from you: “Far from proving his innocence…”

That’s not how it’s done in this country Locke. Could you prove that you didn’t abuse a 3 year old child 3 years ago?

Maximus

When I wrote that Coulter’s supporters would even defend serial child molesters I had no idea that people on this blog would jump in and do exactly that. Your evidence that Snowden was innocent consist of the facts that the case was based almost entirely upon the stories told by three, young-children witnesses and one of then, a six year old, had a sexually transmitted disease which may have been transmitted by other means.

You ask: “Could you prove that you didn’t abuse a 3 year old child 3 years ago?” I think that would be easier than defending against allegations from three different children, one of whom ended up with an STD.

Here is what Coulter wrote: “Charged by Reno’s office in 1984 with child molestation, Grant Snowden was convicted on the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred.”

Is it still your contention that Ann’s statement is an accurate reflection of the case? Or was what she wrote closer to how Mr. Johnson described her columns in his letter to the editor: “based on half-truths, inaccurate accounts, or outright fabrications.”?

Your evidence that Snowden was innocent…

I never provided any evidence that he was innocent.

Are you from this country Locke? Are you older than ten? Can you read? If you answered yes to these questions then why can’t you understand the simple concept that in the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty? In order to prove a person’s guilt there has to be sufficient evidence. The prosecutor has to provide that evidence. It didn’t exist. Do you have the brainpower to understand that?

From your post – You [Maximus] ask: “Could you prove that you didn’t abuse a 3 year old child 3 years ago?”[Locke replies] I think that would be easier than defending against allegations from three different children, one of whom ended up with an STD.

You don’t sound too sure of yourself, Locke. And you never answered the other question I asked – how hard do you think it would be to convince a 6 year old child that you had abused him 3 years ago? Would you bet a life sentence that kids tell the truth 99.5% of the time as the prosecutor’s “expert witness” testified?

I guess you still think that Richard Jewell was guilty too. He was another one of Reno’s “guilty” perps who was tried in the media. At least she apologized for that one.

Get a grip, Locke. Your hatred of conservatives has turned you into a babbling fool – again.

Maximus

Born and raised right here in this country. At least four times as old as ten plus a little and yes I am literate. Also, I can understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Snowden was found guilty. In the SECOND child molestation against Snowden, (based only on a single child’s allegations he had gotten off in another case) the State Attorney's office had a Doctor interview Leslie Blandes, a five year old, who alleged that Grant had penetrated her vagina with his finger and placed his penis inside her vagina and in the mouths of her and her six-month old brother. To establish a pattern of conduct, they also got testimony of the original child who had tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat, and a six-year-old who claimed that Snowden molested her when she was three. Leslie Blandes was diagnosed by a doctor at the Rape Treatment Center as having Gardnerella vaginitis. On March 7, 1986 the jury returned a guilty verdict on all five counts of sexual battery.

Coulter’s quote: “Charged by Reno’s office in 1984 with child molestation, Grant Snowden was convicted on the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred.”

Sounds to me exactly like Mr. Johnson described her columns in his letter to the editor: “based on half-truths, inaccurate accounts, or outright fabrications.”?

Your quote: “In order to prove a person’s guilt there has to be sufficient evidence. The prosecutor has to provide that evidence. It didn’t exist.”

You also write about me: "Your hatred of conservatives has turned you into a babbling fool." Not true. Your assumption that Snowden is a conservative just because he was convicted of child molestation may not be true. Frankly, I do not know. He may be a liberal. The only partisanship here is your whitewashing the allegations against him just to support Coulter and to bash Reno.

Grant later got off on technicalities, but in order to defend Coulter, you have apparently taken the position that allegations of child molestation by three children, two of which ended up with STD’s does not constitute evidence of anything but Janet Reno’s abuse of her office.

And I’m the babbling fool?

…for proving my point.

“Your assumption that Snowden is a conservative just because he was convicted of child molestation may not be true.”

Your hatred of conservatives has turned you into a babbling fool – again.

Maximus

Nope, that won’t fly. It was you who assumed Snowden was a conservative and it was me who said I didn’t know. Please re-read what you wrote.

However, I admit that you have cleverly danced around the central issue I was responding to which was your challenge to give just one example of Coulter’s columns being, “diatribes that are often based on half-truths, inaccurate accounts, or outright fabrications.”

Given all of the evidence in the cases, multiple allegations from numerous children some of whom ended up with STD’s, are you still contending that Coulter’s statement: “Charged by Reno’s office in 1984 with child molestation, Grant Snowden was convicted on the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred” is true?

Or is it inaccurate or based on outright fabrications?

“Nope, that won’t fly. It was you who assumed Snowden was a conservative and it was me who said I didn’t know. Please re-read what you wrote.”

I tried to find something in my posts that could have led someone to believe that I was assuming he was a conservative. There’s nothing there. Kind of like the time you said that I had called for the torture of Jack Murtha. It hadn’t happened.

I’ve already addressed the points you keep bringing up, like the STDs. Read my first post on this blog. The 11th circuit also addressed that issue as well as all of the other evidence that was manufactured.

But, I admit you may have one valid point - It was more than “…the manufactured testimony of one such child, who was 4 years old when the abuse allegedly occurred.” as Coulter stated. There was some other manufactured evidence as well. I guess that could be counted as a half-truth.

Good day,

Maximus

I interpreted your accusation that I hated conservatives, when all I had done was comment about Snowden, as implying that I hated Snowden because he was a conservative.

However, I believe we can agree we will not change each other's minds on this and that we have more than beat it to death. I propose a truce and wish you and your family a happy weekend. Soon, Ann will write another column and I look forward to clashing ideas with you again.

Let me leave by saying that in my opinion, you upheld your side well.

Peace
Locke

This one's gone full circle.

Have a nice weekend.

Maximus