Quote:
Originally Posted by tis
I am not standing up for anyone, but it is my understanding that Ed is a retired Merchant Marine and I guess that they make pretty good money so maybe he doesn't need to work. I also agree it seems that if they had an idea that he was the guilty one, that they would not let him have custody of the kids all this time. Maybe I am wrong.
|
No, I think that's quite right.
I've been through "the system", so that no doubt colors my opinions. If everything that had ever been said about me in motions and orders, or by a hostile lawyer, were printed in the newspapers, my neighbors would have got up a lynch mob.
DYS and the other elements of "the system" exercise enormous and largely unreviewable powers, sometimes for good, sometimes not so much.
If the DA had a shred of evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that Mr. Burns were guilty, the State would separate his children from him in the blink of an eye. I have assumed from Day One that he MUST either have a bulletproof alibi OR there must be physical evidence which would exonerate him.
Even IF "the system" were inclined to give fathers a break (absurd), just the agony those children would endure were their father to be arrested now would be enough reason to disallow this custodial arrangement.
For whatever reason, I think the State knows he's innocent.