Just let me get one point very clear. I did not say DF was 'not guilty', it was the courts that found him 'not guilty'.

My only defence towards him is that he has done his time and therefore he should be left alone. Besides, he will always be monitored and, if he re-offends you can rest assurred he will never see the light of day again.

Check out Ludwig's link.

We don't want to know about al the dodgy customers running around the neighbourhood. You're better off leaving it up to the coppers to worry about or you'll end up with agoraphobia and an assault rifle made out of spaghetti cans and number eight wire.

Another pathetic, ignorant tirade by Rectub. Everything about it rubs off as a dumb kid having a whinge- no less when there already IS a discussion which you persistently post in and I'm basically repeating myself to address this new one..

Yes REctub, we only care about Fergusson- guilty or not, to the point we're not even interested in some other pedophile on the loose.

If there IS another one on the loose, then he needs to be stopped, and thrown in jail for the rest of his life until he is either confirmed by a psychologist to be safe and no threat to the public post-parole deadline (or proven innocent).

I like this bit:
"Besides, he will always be monitored and, if he re-offends you can rest assurred he will never see the light of day again."
"Don't worry- if he reoffends we WILL punish him AFTER the deed is committed" And monitoring him means less resources into monitoring or investigating other pedophiles.
It's worrying to read attitudes (or assumptions) like this regarding our criminal justice system. Also worrying is the "he's served his time"- which is nothing but "A judge felt 20(etc) years were good enough- and judges are always right, so he's cured- and if not, who cares"

I must say Rectub you have a rather strange discriminatory sympathy towards corrupt dealers and sellers, and convicted repeat child-abducting-pedophiles, and a shockingly indifferent attitude to everyone affected by them.

King Hazza,

in your post of Friday, 20 November 2009 at 8:17:36 AM you use these words:

"Don't worry- if he reoffends we WILL punish him AFTER the deed is committed"

You use them as a quote, and, in the context of your post, as a quote attributed to Rehctub in this thread.

Nowhere in this thread, prior to your posting of them, do those words appear in ANY post, let alone one of Rehctub's.



That sort of thing is called 'verballing', King Hazza.



'Verballing' was one of a number of techniques found to be routinely used by some corrupt police in NSW, I think by the Wood Royal Commission into Police Corruption, some years ago. Such 'verballing' was often used, oddly enough, in 'framing' suspects for offences in substitution for other offences of which some police 'just knew' the subject of the frame-up was guilty. The police may well have been right on some occasions as to certain suspects being guilty of crimes for which they had escaped conviction, but resort to 'verballing' as a tool in unsanctioned private revenge utterly degraded public confidence in the administration of justice in general.

Here on OLO, resort to such techniques is correctly identified as an 'ad hominem' attack: playing the man and not the ball. Should there be any doubt as to the intent behind the attack, your own opening words:

"Another pathetic, ignorant tirade by Rectub.
Everything about it rubs off as a dumb kid having
a whinge- no less when there already IS a discussion
which you persistently post in and I'm basically
repeating myself to address this new one.."

give you away.

Far from displaying any "rather strange discriminatory sympathy towards .....convicted repeat child-abducting-pedophiles ...", Rehctub was warning of one as yet unidentified such remaining on the loose with no apparent interest existing in his apprehension.

First learn to read, King Hazza, then show basic politeness posting.

If you wish to build credibility for your views on OLO, taking resort to ad hominems is not the way to go about it.

Fair enough Gump;

But for your convenience, I will now state that the "quoted" passages following Rectub's actual quotes are not quotes of Rectub but entirely my own interpretation of them. And quite frankly, I really don't see why either are so out of place with what he actually said. If he can convey something that contradicts them he is welcome to try.

Now- to address Rectubs' point- again- which he made in another topic too (which itself an exceptionally nasty accusation of indifference to loose pedophiles and use of mob violence- based on absolutely nothing);
How exactly do you gauge if people don't actually CARE about other pedophiles yet to be caught because everyone is currently focusing on the issues around Fergusson (being his temporary sentencing, conditions of release and implications for the public in allowing him- or any convicted pedophile- to take up residence nearby)?
What do you expect us to say in your case-
"He needs to be caught and imprisoned" is really the only practical thing that can be said. Now unless there is a legal bungle in preventing his imprisonment, then there is an issue to talk about.

But again- if anything I said takes him out of context I WILL apologise if he can actually convince me that was the case.

King Hazza: <"I must say Rectub you have a rather strange discriminatory sympathy towards corrupt dealers and sellers, and convicted repeat child-abducting-pedophiles, and a shockingly indifferent attitude to everyone affected by them.">

You express so succinctly an observation that had occurred to me as well.

Having been at the other site myself, I can see exactly the source of this one; Rehctub is sure he is on a winner here. While seeming to be concerned about a paedophile being loose in the community; he knows full well that the paedophile to whom he's referring was DF's partner and present at the last known occurance of child molestation.

One thought - on which I'd appreciate advice especially from anyone with legal expertise: In this most recent case, the judge noted that molestation had occurred; but reasonable doubt was raised because two potential offenders were present. If both 'potential' offenders deny culpability - does that mean that there is also a mutual case of 'beyond reasonable doubt' that serves to protect both?

Would the presence of two possible offenders have worked the same way in DF's first case if the police hadn't caught him red handed in the motel room?

We have seen something similar in the case re: Ms. Brimble. DNA of two of the men found under her fingernails; blood in the room; the rest of the evidence washed away when the men showered her and no explanation as far as I've read, as to who or why someone shaved some of her public hair. All that witnesses have been able to describe is, at the time of the estimated time of death, a room full of naked men. With none identified and each person able to deny doing anything untoward, is it, in the end, to an offender's advantage to perpetrate a crime in company with one or more other people?

I don't understand why the law can't charge the whole lot with the same offence. Can someone educate me on this aspect of criminal law; any other opinions on it appreciated too.