The verdict came at the conclusion of a two-day trial.
During the first day, the woman, 20 now but 15 at the time and a friend of Russow's daughter, testified Russow molested her and that she discovered Russow was also having an affair with her mother.
Russow's attorney, Jonathan Pierce, said the woman was lying and members of Russow's family testified things did not take place as the woman said they did.
22 comments:
Sickening that this individual will not have to pay for what he has done. My condolences to all victims of rape. The system has given you one more reason not to come forward.
Miscarriage of justice. Let's focus more on her story and what she has been through. Typical of the small Russow posse to attack the victim in order to change the narrative. My thoughts are with her and her family. It has to be a scary thing that you have to live in the same area as the monster who did this to you.
How do you know he is guilty?
How do you guys know hes guilty. Could it not of been a vindictive teenager upset that her parent was having a affair. Not trying to argue seriously curious if hes truly guilty then he deserves to rot.
That could be said for any case ever tried in the history of court cases. I know him and what he is. How do you know he's not?
6:55, cute response. The fact is he was found not guilty by a jury that heard the evidence. If the people posting here know something that was not brought up in court that proves he is guilty, why did they wait to come forward? And why do it anonymously on a blog rather than in court where it matters? If he is guilty of the charges and he is now free, the people posting here are to blame for not coming forward.
Of course it could also be that no one posting here has any real idea about the facts of the case and they are all just slandering a man.
Ray, I am glad someone on here has some sense.
Ray, do you really believe that this teenager fabricated this entire story, that it lasted for 4 plus years, she never wavered, no one ever broke her, the story didn't change, she didn't fold under cross-examination in a court of law, and ultimately endured all of this humiliation just to "get back" at someone? Really? Do you know any teenagers? That would be wildly improbable.
It would also be wildly improbable for a jury to not believe a teenager in that position if it were believable. So what we have here are two wildly improbable scenarios but one of them has to be true. So how do you or I, people not involved, have any right to call him a rapist or her a liar? Short answer is, no one posting here knows the truth. Everyone has an opinion but no one knows.
Look up the definition of slander. Stating one's opinion that the guy did in fact do what he was accused of in a court of law is not slander. It is simply saying that after hearing the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution and the testimony of the girl, I (and most everyone else aside from his small band of bullies) believe he did in fact rape this girl as she stated. Most everyone has never had a doubt. As long as I have known him, everything that has come out of his mouth is either nonsensical or an outright lie. Karma has a way of circling back around on you.
Again 5:31, if you have some revelation of evidence that would have swayed the jury, it is on you and "everyone else aside from his small band of bullies" that he is free because you refused to step forward with your evidence. If you have no evidence to back up your belief, then it is just that, a belief. Not a fact. The only fact that you and your pitchfork mob chanting "guilty" needs to know is, he was found not guilty in a court of law. (Since you wanted to talk about courts)
Just so you are aware, I wasn't using the word slander as a legal term. I never suggested anyone was breaking a law. One can slander a person without involving laws.
And once again 1:06, and I will try to simplify this for you, what I and many others have stated is that just because you have been acquitted in a court of law does not mean you are not guilty of the crime. There are many reasons why people are acquitted and it is sad that because he was able to hire a more experienced attorney than the prosecution, he was able to get off. Be that as it may, I have to say there are many in the Diamond community that have enjoyed seeing his demise. He will be forever known as a child molester.
It is sad that you think that all it takes is a an "expensive lawyer" and you can get a way with rape. I am so sad for you that you have no faith in our judicial system. If you read the article and understand what you read, you will see that he was found not guilty by a jury. A jury. That means his "expensive lawyer" must have tricked 12 people who are un connected to this story to find him not guilty. Just because you dislike a man does not make him guilty of rape.
So you believe OJ was innocent?
I think that I have no opinion on O.J. I was not there when the murders were committed. The only people who were there are the two are dead and whoever the killer(s) is. The jury found him not guilty. That is the only fact that matters. Whatever your opinion or my opinion is, it isn't a fact. It is just an opinion. Just like Russow. Unless he told you he is a rapist or you were there and saw him rape or he raped you, your opinion your opinion that he is a rapist is nothing more than opinion. It is not a fact. If you know that it is fact, again, it is your fault he is free because you did not come forward with your evidence proving him guilty. So sleep well knowing that you either do not know what really happened or sleep well knowing it is your fault he is free.
Ok well I will let it go as you continue to do a very poor job of skirting around the issue, fail to answer a direct question, then try to change the narrative. The world is made up of opinions. Jurors give their opinion. It doesn't mean their word is the gospel, it just means this is their opinion at the moment. And, because they were randomly plucked from society to give their opinion, they are given merit. Sorry but I was taught to think critically, to challenge, and in Lehman's terms...call B.S. where I see it. You apparently do not know much about the judicial system or the law in general. Evidence does not PROVE someone guilty, it merely suggests the presence of guilt. Having heard everything presented, most believe that he is absolutely guilty of the crime in which he was charged with. Oh, and I sleep well every single night. Unfortunately there is a victim in all of this that will not. My thoughts are with the victim of this crime, not the perpetrator.
Oh, and you said that in the case of OJ:
"The jury found him not guilty. That is the only fact that matters."
Are you kidding me with that comment!? If someone slaughtered members of your family and a person was acquitted, that would be all that mattered to you, that they were found innocent???? That is an incredibly ignorant statement that validates my decision to end the conversation. It simply isn't worth the time.
You are an idiot. You simply think you know more than the evidence given at a trial and because you don't like a man you can't believe he was found not guilty. The fact of that you seem to think it is a bad thing that a jury is "randomly plucked" shows what a complete and utter moron you are. You are the very reason that a jury is "randomly plucked". It is done that way to help prevent preconceived prejudices against or for the accused. If you had been selected to be on the jury that served at Russow's trial, you would ha e voted guilty before any evidence or testimony was presented. Your disdain for that process is laughable.
Again, it is your fault that you choose to withhold evidence that allowed the jury to make an uninformed decision.
As for me changing topics, you are the one who tried to bring O.J. Simpson into this. In any event, I did not skirt the issue. Learn to read... er, nevermind. Doesn't matter if you can read because it is obvious you are completely unable to comprehend.
12:03, if you had made any valid points your remarks about jury selection negated them. The other guy wins your debate. Both of you, go hug your families.
Lol @ 4:31...dynamite drop in....uh not! 12:03 destroyed the other imbecile. 2:15 just becomes frustrated at not being able to formulate a legible and valid response, calls names and walks out of the room. My family is fine, go hug your own.
Valid response to what?
8:16, I am so pleased that you liked my joining the feckless "debate". I suggest that you go back and read the entire thread, if you care enough to post about it. Both are all over the place but when one starts whining about the jury being made up of people who are random, he has no credibility. I have read plenty of dumb things on this blog, but that was one of the dumbest.
Why don't you and I let them finish their "debate" and you and I can debate how stupid that particular comment is?
Ray, these people hate Johnny Russow. They don't care about justice.
Post a Comment