My first reaction is to always be like "that jerk did it and put him behind bars." Then of course I am wondering...did he really do it?
Now, as an abuse survivor I am very sensitive to people's stories. I usually err on the side of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. However, I am learning that I cannot believe everything I hear.
In fact, people get down on me that I don't watch the news every day. But I say why? It is a bunch of lies most of the time anyway. I watch it on occasion and catch it on the Internet but I don't take it too seriously.
(Probably going to ruin my chance at a journalism career if news companies read this. On the other hand if they are looking for an honest journalist I am there.)
Marginal errors have threatened to put people behind bars for a really long time. The media, the justice system, and those involved in cases like this better know what they are doing.
Shoddy investigation gives true cases a bad name! Cases that are kept secret that no one knows about.
If he did...
He deserves life behind bars...and so do the teachers that "fall in love" with students. The adults should know better.
If he didn't do it...
Well...he would have every right to sue. I realize now that I cannot always believe everything I hear.
You cannot always believe everything you hear. The versions of a made-up story is a great example:
The Point of This (Back to the R. Kelley Trial):
You cannot always believe everything you here. There are two sides to every story. I used to take sides all the time and lately am realizing that I should not.
This is sad that it has to be this way because well it gives true cases a bad name. The question is how does the public decipher the truth from the lies? Its almost as if they have to do investigations of their own.
For an illustration regarding jumping to conclusions read Two Sides to Every Story: How the Truth gets a Bad name"