There is a lot of speculation going on here....we're ready to convict and sentence based on "evidence" gathered on a TV show. I suppose speculation is all that's really available at this point and this case evokes high levels of emotion....but still, we have to be careful not to "convict" this guy with no real evidence. I agree that it looks really, really bad for him and that the appearance is one of guilt, but that's no basis for condemnation. We simply don't know if he's guilty or not....and we don't know how guilty his ex-wife and ex-mother in law are. There is the possibility that this is all a product of fabrication and coaching on their part.....not really a high probability, but possible. It's happened before. The fact is that realistically, whether he's actually guilty of the very serious crime he's accused of or not, his life is essentially ruined now. His face will forever be associated with someone who molested his own child, whether he actually did it or not. If he did, in fact, molest this child, then we don't have an applicable punishment that is sufficient or severe enough for him.
My own (admittedly uneducated) opinion is that child molesters of the type that he is accused of being cannot be rehabilitated sufficiently to ever be trusted around children again. You simply cannot live in our society without coming into contact with children. Therefore, if these people are convicted by evidence, my opinion is that they should never see the outside of a prison again.
We cannot, however, publicly convict him or his ex-wife or mother-in-law....we simply don't have enough information. Polygraph tests are not infallible, as has been proven by this case. That is why they have historically not been admissible as evidence in many criminal proceedings....they are simply not reliable enough to base a conviction on, but are convincing enough to lay people to be very inflammatory and to wrongly prejudice a jury.
However, the interest of the child MUST be first and foremost. This child should NOT be exposed to this situation again until a thorough investigation has been completed and this man completely cleared of all charges. I think that she will bear up MUCH better under the "stress" of not seing her father for a while than she would under the stress of continued molestation (if it has, in fact, occurred). I would think that Jeremy would see the wisdom of this and cooperate fully, guilty or not...after all, he does profess to have the child's interest at heart.
I believe an investigation will eventually bring the truth out. No matter who the guilty parties are, Jeremy or his exes, they should be prosecuted to the absolute maximum extent of the law. Either way, they have harmed this child.
Dr. Phil follows up with Krista and Bonii's quest for the truth, to find out if 3-year-old Kaylee is being molested by her father, Jeremy. Jeremy maintains his innocence even after a polygraph test showed him to be lying. He took another lie detector test at his hometown police department, and brought the results for Dr. Phil to review. What does an independent polygrapher say about this second test? Then, Jeremy asked to undergo hypnosis as another means of getting closer to the truth. Were there any new revelations? And, Jeremy had agreed to supervised visits with Kaylee, but when he got home, he changed his mind, so Krista denied him visitation. They end up facing off in front of a judge. Did Krista serve jail time or let Jeremy see Kaylee? Is Jeremy being falsely accused, or is this little girl still in harm's way? Talk about the show here.
