"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard for conviction in a criminal trial. And since the evidence was a "he said, she said" kind of evidence, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that "not guilty" would be the result. Why it took 30 hours is anybody's guess; maybe the food was good.

Every time I look at a picture of that poor, sick man I wonder what happened. The cute little 8-year-old boy I knew (I taught at a school he attended for a short time) was just as normal--seemed just as normal, anyway--as mom's apple pie. It's even hard for me to connect that these are the same people. He had medium brown skin, round cheeks and a cheeky attitude, as did his brother. Their behavior wasn't bad, but was about what you'd expect from boys at the ages of 8 and 9. I never saw the underlying insanity to come, nor did any of my colleagues.

Another topic: would any of us, were we given to sleeping with underage boys, be given the benefit of the doubt? Would not that act, in and of itself, have been enough to convict of some kind of misdeed towards a minor? Corrupting his morals or something? Just wondering....