-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Drooling Idiot wrote in alt.support.girl-lovers on July 1, 2008 20:24 in
Message-ID: <20080701202454.007$Zg@newsreader.com>:

[snip]

I've always been of the view that we should adopt the same procedures as
are used in Scandinavia--in other words, that the name of the accused should
not be published prior to conviction.

This is particularly true of sexual abuse/child pornography cases. Here in
Canada, the case of James LeCraw comes to mind. Mr. LeCraw was caught up
in the aftermath of Operation Snowball, our counterpart to Operation Ore
in the U.K. He was originally charged with making and possessing two images
of child pornography; please understand that, under Canadian law, even when
the computer /automatically/ makes a copy of an image, say by placing a
copy in the browser cache, the police nevertheless charge you with "making"
child pornography, as if you had taken the shot yourself.

On 03 Jul 2008 I stormed the castle called alt.support.boy-lovers and
heard XXX cry out in news:20080703093152.991$mg@newsreader.com...

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:33:06 +0000 (UTC), ThePsyko
itookmyprozac.com> typed furiously:

ThePsyko itookmyprozac.com> wrote in
news:Xns9AD056B5085EDLifeIsGood@nntp.petitmorte.net:

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.support.girl-lovers on July 6, 2008
22:39 in Message-ID: 4ax.com>:

You see something wrong with that?

I read a fair number of stories about this issue, and this is the /first/
time I've heard that allegation raised. Got any evidence to back this one
up, or did you just fabricate this out of whole cloth?

From my perspective it appears that you have a deep-seated /need/ to find
people guilty, lack of evidence notwithstanding.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

David wrote in alt.support.girl-lovers on July 8, 2008 03:15 in
Message-ID: 4ax.com>:

[snip]

C'mon David! Mr. Edington has now cottoned on to the fact that the original
story is not supported by the evidence. Therefore, he has come up with a
/new/ theory, which he outlined in a letter to the New York Post.

First, the police investigation was a sham; the police 'covered up' the true
facts of the case--for starters, the police /only/ investigated the /outside/
of the house for Mr. James' fingerprints--they failed to look /inside/ the
house for them.

They also failed to investigate the possibility that Mr. James may have had
a key to the house given to him by a previous owner or tenant--said key
allowing him to sashay-in at will through the front door to molest his
daughter.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.support.girl-lovers on July 8, 2008
05:11 in Message-ID: 4ax.com>:

[snip]

Exposing himself? What, by wearing underwear in his own house, yet? What
the fuck was Edington doing looking through his bedroom window? Yet another
exaggeration from a right-to-life nutcase, who couldn't even stand the mere
existence of a Planned Parenthood booth at a community college fair without
having to forcibly tear it down!

Brandon, why do you keep reposting this fucking crap over and over?

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:55:33 +0200 (CEST), Baal
nym.panta-rhei.eu.org> typed furiously:

"Baal" nym.panta-rhei.eu.org> wrote in message
news:20080708124553.7FF98C2E2B@panta-rhei.eu.org...