"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
...
> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> NOT GUILTY
>>
> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly guilty
> of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total mystery
> how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost the
> definition of bad.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world who
find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious therapy,
but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be your cup of
tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.

As to the not guilty, there's plenty of evidence that the general public did
not see that the jury did, so I have to believe there is a reason he was
acquitted based on that.

It's easy to say that people with money get acquitted, and it is true, but
not for the reasons most people would think. It happens because people with
money can afford a good defense. They can afford to have good attorneys,
invesitgators, rebuttal witnesses, etc. The problem lies not with them but
with the way trials are filled with witnesses and experts that are there
solely because they are being paid to be.

kimberly
>
>