Just how bad is this man?

In 1987 he kidnapped a girl aged 6 and her bothers, 7 & 8 from NSW and flew with them to Brisbane, then molested them in a motel for three days.

Was it really a kidnapping? Did the children go with him voluntarily? Otherwise, how did he get them through an airport? Did he really molest them repeatedly, or what?

Ferguson copped a 14 year jail term for this, which apparently included sodomy. The severity of the sentence was partly due to his extensive criminal record.

So it would be interesting to know just how bad this particular offence was.

Ferguson has never admitted any guilt over this. Upon his release from jail in 2003 he announced an intention to find the girl, claiming that she could help have the conviction overturned.

In 2003 he tried to establish a business to teach children about ‘stranger danger’. Was this an honest attempt to rehabilitate himself and contribute positively to society? We don’t know. But it seems that everyone can only see it in a negative context and condemn him for it on the grounds that he must have only had ugly motives.

continued

Also in 2003 the police watched him visit a school in Sydney and deliver a charity pamphlet. He was charged with non-compliance with the Child Protection Offenders Registration system. He got another 15 months jail.

15 months for that? That sounds a bit over the top.

In 2005 he was charged with indecent treatment of two girls in Dalby. But as Judge Botting declared last week; the crown’s case is weak on this matter. So there is a whole lot of doubt about it.

He is condemned by all for his total lack of remorse. But could it be that he really is not guilty of the magnitude of offences that are attributed to him? Guilty of some pretty bad stuff yes, for which he certainly should show remorse. But perhaps in his head is the idea that if he shows ANY remorse he will be effectively admitting guilt to a level of offence far in excess of what he feels should be attributed to him.

By all accounts he is low lifer, well and truly. But perhaps not as bad as many people think…. perhaps…..just maybe.

Now, before you lot jump down me blimmin throat and accuse me of being paedophile sympathiser; let me say that all I’m doing is trying to inject a bit more information that a lot of people who outrightly condemn him don’t know about, and thus provide and a bit more food for thought and debate.

One solution

Stop going soft on criminals

make chld sexs attacks a capital offence and top the bastard.

That will guarantee he molests no more.

And whilst we are about it, second offence drug dealers - top them too.

Well I'm with you ludwig, perhaps there is more to the story than we are aware.

I have heard that the incident in 2005 was a set up and that there is money involved and rather than pay the debt owed to him it was better for the little girls mother to cry wolf as, being as well known as he is, thanks to the media, who are the authorities likely to believe.

What people have to accept is that the law is the law and when a jugment is made and the recipient does the time, no matter what the crime, then that person deserves the right to a normal life.

How many of us thought that the corby girl was guilty, yet recent revalations may suggest that she was set up.

The fact is that the media has a right to present the news however they do not have the right to pass jugment on people.

Remember, everyone is suposed to be inocent until proven guilty and, thanks to the idiots out there, we will most likely never get to know if DF is inocent or guilty.

The people who think that 'he's done his time, let him be' etc are forgetting that he's just been let off fresh charges (without knowing if guilty or not) by a sensless judge who feared that he would not get a fair trial.

If he fiddled with my kids, there would be no question of what to do with him. He would be dead.
Posted by Austin Powerless, Friday, 4 July 2008 1:11:01 PM

AP
You just don't get it do you. Judges by law have to pass a judgement based on factual evidence, without emotion.

This judge did not make a judgement on DF because people like you have already found him guilty yet if not for the media coverage it is most likely that you would'nt even have known who denis ferguson was.

It is people like you, people who have pre-judged the guy who have set him free while people like me now have to accept that he is free to do as he pleases and may nevr face court again unless caught red-handed.

I hope you and your mob of linchmen, and there are many of you, are proud of yourselves!

"We all need to accept in the police and every other profession from the church (especially) to medicals and beyond, that people change and some who end up bad were OK when they went through the selection process."

This, amazingly, is Col, on another thread. Yes, it's quite a lapse from his usual jackboot style.

"Make child sex attacks a capital offence and top the bastard....And whilst we are about it, second offence drug dealers - top them too."

This is Col, true to form.

Col, you browbeat us incessantly on the virtue of individual rights and how they should always take precedence over consideration of the common good. Where's your broken record defence of individual rights now? Is it rights for all or only for those you deem worthy?

Thank you, Ludwig, for some excellent background information on Ferguson. I too would like to know if he is the monster he's been painted, or whether he's been crucified to a much greater extent than his actions deserve. I've long thought it could be the latter, but I'd really like to know for sure. There are certainly far too many unanswered questions for people like Col to have any right at all to call for his topping at this early stage, if at all.

Rights, Col, rights, individual rights. I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time you've used the words 'individual' and 'rights' in the same sentence. Don't think you've done it on this thread though.