in his defense, the granddaughter had some smoking hot knees

Thank you. I'm going to steal that and use it.

I also give props for citing game theory and seeming to type this from Rikers. No doubt put there on some trumped up BE charge.

I obviously have no idea as to the specifics of the case, and hence no real clue as to whether he was guiltily or not, but this comments doesn’t make sense. OP’s point is that the parents of the victim no longer believe that he was guilty. Yeah, people tend to be loyal to relatives accused of crimes, but usually not when the crime involves the molestation of one’s child.

I'd have to agree with this.

So Johnny you'd be completely happy leaving any young relatives you have under his sole supervision?
Dave Ulliot wouldn't.

From the interview.

"We were in the cab of a one-ton pickup. I said, we've got to put this thing in four-wheel drive or we are going to be out here all day [and get stuck]. I reached down there like this to shift and put it in four-wheel drive. My grandbaby was there and she had one leg [near the gear shift]. I reached over and patted her on the leg and said, "I'll bet that feels good."
She said "Yeah," and giggled. We were all in there together. The sexual harassment that occurred, I can't imagine it. Never in my life have I touched the - I'll use the words - the genitals, the breasts, kissed her on the mouth, squeezed her breasts, petted her inappropriately, except just clowning with her.
I've never touched her wrongly in my life"

Maybe I'm reading too much into the bolded but this just doesn't sound appropriate to me; coming from a grandfather to his grand daughter.

Are you really this delusional? You make me absolutely sick. You think that defending a convicted sex offender is showing "courage"? Just because you are friends with this convicted pervert, doesn't mean that he doesn't get off on feeling up little girls. There is no honor in defending these kinds of people, so just stop.

PS- Do you really think that these incessant, drool oozing cries for attention that you call threads display your "writing skills"?? You have the grammatical structure of an elementary school student, and the spelling skills of one too. Maybe netscape navigator doesn't have a spell check plug in.

There is nothing "courageous" about defending convicted sex offenders and other scumbags like Dutch.

He pleaded "no contest" to assault. Big difference.

Yep, Slim did not plead guilty to anything mentioning sex in any way or he would be a registered offender. He pled guilty to simple misdemeanor assault. I do not see how touching a kid's knee means much. It was a TV watching 12 year old who saw a chance for her 15 minutes of fame.

Folks who have known each other 50 years hear all the gossip. People in Las Vegas have lots of working girls all around. Slim had no rep as a weirdo. Several of the old gamblers are married to one woman for a long, long time. Slim, Benny Binion, Doyle, Johnny Moss.

Slim is unpopular with some because of his brags, and stories, but that has nothing to do with this case, except for his fame. Fame made him money and a target, but also a target of a politicaly motivated prosecutor. Remember poker is illegal here. Slim is a gambler who flaunts his love of poker with the most conservative, law and order folks alive. I have pled guilty to playing poker, a misdemeanor equivilant to Slim's charge in this case. Everyone on here who has played poker where it is illegal has committed a crime. But it is not a crime to you. It is prosecution that is persecution, just like in Slim's case. Be more open minded.

Used to be poker and barking iron were crimes in Texas. Now it is legal to carry guns, and folks are armed to the teeth. It is still illegal to play poker. You are speaking up for that legal system without every viewing it from the wrong side of bars.

He was in his late 70's when this happened, there's a good chance he doesn't know if he did it or not, never mind us trying to figure it out.

True. I draw the inference of guilt from the conviction. To demonstrate the conviction was wrong, I want to see something verifiable. Quotes from family saying it was nothing, testimony from the sentencing, or whatever. We have Slim saying he touched a knee. What'd the kid say? There's absolutely nothing solid in this thread as a basis for sympathy. If people want to defend slim with credibility, why aren't they drawing on the court record, or anything at all besides campfire stories?

Yes, Texas and every other state sometimes convict wrongly. But sometimes they're right. So we need to look at the specifics.

The level of persuasion ITT gets down to this: Slim is a colorful character. Our memory of his delightful persona is poisoned by the kid thing, so isn't it time stop thinking about that.

I doubt know what he did, or if it merited legal involvement. I just know the defense of him here is being done by 911 truthers on vacation.

Well the easy defense is that he wasn't convicted of anything close to child molestation; obviously the burden of proof wasn't compelling enough to convict him.

People on here over and over and over continue the BIG LIE. If you repeat over and over that Slim is a CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER, you need to get a half-bright grown up to read you this thread and spoon feed it to you. He plea bargained. He was not convicted of anything, and certainly not as a sex offender. THE REASON FOR A PLEA BARGAIN IS TO GET A LESSER CHARGE, AND AVOID BEING A CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER, A MUCH MORE SERIOUS CHARGE. NOT EVERYONE CHARGED IN AMERICA IS GUILTY. We have this innocent until proven guilty tradition. Now write something about CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER. but it is a lie. There is a reaaon for a plea bargain.

Actually, by accepting the plea bargain, he was convicted of assault.

Your other point is valid, however. He was accused of a sexual assault, but he was not convicted of one, so calling him a convicted sex offender is out of line.

Let's be real for a second. Does this look like the kind of man who would touch an innocent child?

So you'd be happy to leave your 12 year old female relative alone with him Johnny?

His wife believed in him so much that she divorced him.

My apologies for wrongfully calling him a "convicted sex offender". Perhaps "man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a minor" would be more appropriate. Either way, he is a sicko not worthy of your defense.

How do you know that "all members of Amarillo Slim's family, including her parents, stand behind Slim". Did you interview all members of his family? And the reason that people believe he is guilty of this is because he was accused of it AND HE PLED GUILTY. Get over yourself old boy

Except you are talking in nothing but generalities and offer no information about the specifics. You say some people bargain down from sex offense to simple assault, and hint this was the case with Slim. Okay, what act was he convicted of? Not the law, what did he do? How about some info from the actual court proceedings rather than generalities about how people often get done wrong. Bargaining down to a lower charge is sometimes done by innocent people who don't want to take chances. But it's also done by guilty people taking advantage of DA being overworked. You've provided absolutely no reason to assume the former. And why are we supposed to overlook a mere assault on a 12 year old just because it's not as bad as sexual assault?

And we haven't forgotten you've provided no evidence (let alone proof) that the family supports him and the kid recanted. There should be also sorts of stuff to provide us from the public record, you have nothing. I just wrote The Smoking Gun. Maybe they'll do your research for you.

Still wrong. His conviction was for some form of simple assault, not sexual assault. There is zero in his actual conviction/criminal record that is a sexual offense.

no your wrong, his original charge was indecency with a 12-year-old child. His plea was reduced to misdemeanor assault. Stop sticking up for a shady degenerate gambler.

Wait, how am I wrong? His CHARGE is not the same as his CONVICTION/RECORD.

Yes, he was charged with a sexual crime. However, he was only convicted of an assault (not sexual assault), ergo calling him a convicted sex offender is factually incorrect.

I'm not sticking up for him, I'm correcting a factual inaccuracy. I have no firm opinion on whether or not he was guilty of the original charge.

This case totally aside, anyone who thinks a conviction in our criminal "justice" system has any correlation to innocence or guilt knows absolutely nothing.

I don't think you understand what the word "any" or "correlation" means.

20 years ago I was with a friend in a small town in Montana. He had <1/2 a gram of weed in his car. We were both arrested. I was given a choice, plead guilty to possession of a narcotic and spent 1 day in jail. The sheriff (i can't remember if the Judge was too) was up for reelection and needed to be tough on crime. My other option was to spend $10,000 on a lawyer and be facing minimum 6 months to 5 years if found guilty. I was in the car so there was some connection and I did not have $10,000 to pay (a bribe to) the judges drinking buddy to be my lawyer.

I still have a criminal record for possession of a narcotic. It reads the same as if I had heroin, speed or crack. I have to deal with it every time I go through customs.

To make a long story short. I got out of jail and moved to Canada. I now have a lot of respect for the Mexican style of justice, when it comes to minor infractions of the law. Just pay your bribe on the spot and be over it. Its really no different in the US. You just pay more money to lawyers and they get the wealthy out of trouble. In Mexico its quicker and cheaper.