McCains Manager Arrested For Child Molestation

ALien · 02-08-2009, 08:04 PM

Quote:

This is pretty sick as far as Republican scandals go.

A wide-ranging investigation has been launched into allegations that a well-known Pueblo resident has molested many boys over the years, including most recently when he was the manager for Sen. John McCain's presidential-campaign office in Pueblo.

Under investigation is Jeffrey Claude Bartleson, 52, who was arrested Jan. 29 and then re-arrested Wednesday after a campaign worker in the McCain office told police she believed Bartleson molested one of her sons.

{snip}

According to the woman, she and a co-worker were planning in October to attend a Sarah Palin rally in Colorado Springs but wanted to travel to the Springs the night before. She told police that she mentioned the planned trip to Bartleson. He offered to keep her 5-year-old son overnight in Pueblo and then drive up to Colorado Springs the next day and meet them there.

She accepted Bartleson's offer. The woman said that her son told her that while at Bartleson's home, Bartleson insisted on giving him a bath, during which he was sexually molested. Later, said the child, Bartleson forced him into Bartleson's bed, where he once again was molested.

In interviews this week with investigators, the child said that when he tried to get away from Bartleson, he kept pulling him back into the bed. He was finally able to leave when Bartleson fell asleep.

And it happened to a family going to a Palin event.

kidflash2008 · 02-09-2009, 08:50 AM

This is a very strong charge. Unfortunately, children that age can be manipulated to make those kinds of charges. A person cannot defend themselves against such charges, as everyone will believe a small child over that person. Due process is almost impossible in these types of cases.

Mingus · 02-09-2009, 03:09 PM

Umm... I'd like to cite Michael Jackson. At this point, people have come to the common sense conclusion that nobody goes around for 10 years accusing somebody of the same crime. Michael's own estate is/was easily interpreted by adults as a way to entice children to his estate, where he could do what he allegedly pleases. We assume Jackson molested kids, and I wouldn't be surprised if this fellow is found guilty too.

kidflash2008 · 02-10-2009, 10:44 AM

I must point out a jury of 12 people did acquit Michael Jackson of molestation charges. I am not saying whether they did or did not, but these are very serious charges and the person facing them should get their day in court. They are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. That is what our justice system is all about. If not, we might as well become a totalitarian state with "show trials", where the condemned get televised trials and executions.

This is not a popular charge to stand up to, but it should be treated just like any other charge.

Mingus · 02-10-2009, 12:37 PM

In the absense of being a part of the legal process, I think the Court of Public Opinion is very much a more reliable system. It pegged OJ years ago, then the book came out (or was going to).

kidflash2008 · 02-11-2009, 08:52 AM

The court of public opinion can be wrong and is subject to be manipulated by the prosecution. Most people who are accused wisely remain silent before their cases are heard. Anything they say can be turned against them, so they usually listen to their lawyers. The prosecution, on the other hand, will hold news conferences and talk about how guilty the defendant is. The prosecution also has unlimited funds and means at their disposal to get a conviction.

The first trial against OJ was lost because of the inept prosecution. The second trial had the evidence on video, so it was hard for the prosecution to muck that up.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-09-2009, 08:50 AM	#2
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	This is a very strong charge. Unfortunately, children that age can be manipulated to make those kinds of charges. A person cannot defend themselves against such charges, as everyone will believe a small child over that person. Due process is almost impossible in these types of cases.

02-09-2009, 03:09 PM	#3
Mingus Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 325	Umm... I'd like to cite Michael Jackson. At this point, people have come to the common sense conclusion that nobody goes around for 10 years accusing somebody of the same crime. Michael's own estate is/was easily interpreted by adults as a way to entice children to his estate, where he could do what he allegedly pleases. We assume Jackson molested kids, and I wouldn't be surprised if this fellow is found guilty too.

02-10-2009, 10:44 AM	#4
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	I must point out a jury of 12 people did acquit Michael Jackson of molestation charges. I am not saying whether they did or did not, but these are very serious charges and the person facing them should get their day in court. They are innocent until found guilty in a court of law. That is what our justice system is all about. If not, we might as well become a totalitarian state with "show trials", where the condemned get televised trials and executions. This is not a popular charge to stand up to, but it should be treated just like any other charge.

02-10-2009, 12:37 PM	#5
Mingus Investigator Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 325	In the absense of being a part of the legal process, I think the Court of Public Opinion is very much a more reliable system. It pegged OJ years ago, then the book came out (or was going to).

02-11-2009, 08:52 AM	#6
kidflash2008 Senior Investigator Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,699	The court of public opinion can be wrong and is subject to be manipulated by the prosecution. Most people who are accused wisely remain silent before their cases are heard. Anything they say can be turned against them, so they usually listen to their lawyers. The prosecution, on the other hand, will hold news conferences and talk about how guilty the defendant is. The prosecution also has unlimited funds and means at their disposal to get a conviction. The first trial against OJ was lost because of the inept prosecution. The second trial had the evidence on video, so it was hard for the prosecution to muck that up.