Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, February 13th, 2016 11:28am PST - promote requested by artician.

I find cenk and his crew difficult to listen to, but I watched long enough to listen to the actual 'meat' of their discussion (the first 20 seconds of video). They stated that the judge threw it out because the kid was unable to describe in detail what had happened. They then went on to describe how a kid that young might have a hard time testifying, and for the rest of the 12 minutes of video (I assume) added as much knowledge to the matter as any other group of people sitting around drinking beer.

IF cenk and his crew, the judge, the lawyers, or anybody in that courtroom had taken introductory level psychology in college (and I think they must have!), they would know that kids are the most unreliable witnesses possible. Their testimony should absolutely not be used as credible, because they will say whatever nonsense. For whatever deficiency anyone's college had in basic human psychology, if anyone had the computer skills to go to WIKIPEDIA, all of this could have been avoided: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory_(child_testimony).

With all the access people have to knowledge these days, the most tragic part is that nobody involved in this thought to actually verify their laymen ideas. The critical thinking skills displayed here is in high disproportion to the level of education.

Then perhaps you missed the part where they said there was physical evidence of the abuse, and 'proof' the cop burned the child's diapers to destroy the DNA evidence?

I agree, eye witness testimony is well proven to be unreliable, more so when it's from a toddler. The inability of a toddler to describe events should not invalidate a case if there's other incriminating evidence, however.

The fact that the father was imprisoned for a full year for speaking out inappropriately in court shows some serious bias on the part of the judge. It makes me wonder why, and hope it will be investigated...but I doubt it will.

The problem with this is not so much the child's testimony. The problem is that the girl was molested, physically confirmed by the hospital, and there was evidence that the police official burned her clothing/diaper after the fact. If the offender had not been a former high ranking official, but instead just a regular person, then the circumstantial evidence would be sufficient to continue the case.

The judge did order the defendant to stand trial for a much lesser charge of lewd molestation. Clearly this was a case where the buddy system came into effect. Corruption exists even now in the legal system, but I had hoped that it had changed in the years since I had an issue with it.

When I was just turned 17, many years ago, I was dumb enough to help a friend retrieve a deer he had illegally shot. He was not strong enough to pick it up into his truck. I wasn't a hunter, so I didn't take into account that he might have broken the law. In any case, we were both arrested after he tried to flee the scene in the truck and outrun the game warden. When we went to trial, I was shocked to learn that I was being charged with the poaching of the deer and fleeing the police, both misdemeanors with high fines, and my friend was only charged with crossing the center line and speeding (in his flight attempt). My PD told me to take a plea and get reduced fines, so I did. My friend got even less in the way of fines and only traffic violations on his record. After the fact, when I got him alone and beat the crap out of him, he told me that his dad was a coffee buddy of the precinct judge and that was why he skated on the charges.

It is these types of situations that make it necessary for courts to be monitored by another method then just appellate courts, especially since most cases that appear before the higher courts are denied out of hand the majority of the time to avoid setting precedents.

You and @newtboy are definitely right; this is a case of extreme bias and corruption, instead of lack of understanding.

Also, thank you for sharing your story! It's really eye opening.

I sure hope there's a civil suit.

Against the Judge? Because that would be awesome!

I can't give enough credit to the family of the victims in cases like these for not killing the person who did it. If you had the machine roll over you like that and the law of the land allowed someone who hurt your loved ones to walk away.. well i don't know if i'd be able to stop myself ensuring he got some kind of justice. It's incredibly important that justice is done and seen to be done (as Lord Hewitt said) so that people can rely on that over exacting revenge.