In response to
"I was figuring it would be in the article, if she was claiming anything specific."
by
ty97
|
yup. the way it's worded it comes off that it's simply being presumed the kids were exposed simply by being in his presence.
Posted by
znufrii
Feb 11 '09, 06:31
|
without any actual proof or indication that they were ever at any substantial risk. it's the same mindset that JackDawson's pro bono case is trying to combat.
|
Responses:
|