Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rapist - 'demands paternal visitation rights to the child he fathered with victim'

135

Comments

  • #102
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...Because he wanted to have sex with something/anything that was under age?
    Its not a stretch of the mind at all!

    A person just don't turn off their sexual urges by the way like flipping a switch.

    The risk is just too great!

    He liked the girl not her age, could you see it that way?


  • #103
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    He liked the girl not her age, could you see it that way?

    Better question - did the court?


  • #104
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    djk1000 wrote: »
    You said,



    Did I misinterpret that? It's a pretty clear view on the topic.

    Maybe to clarify, are you saying that a 17 year old boy having consensual sex with a 16 year old girl is the same as a man forcing himself on a women? Statutory rape being a degree of rape, no?

    he was convicted of satutory rape he therefore is legally a rapist, maybe a statutory rapist but thats what he is.

    i did refer to a 16 and a 17 year old in this thread, if you go read through the thread you'll find my views on that.


  • #105
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    dark crystal wrote: »
    No, he's a hebephile and that three year old won't be three forever.

    Also, I'm not assuming anything, but risk limitation is definitely the key here. He's a convicted sex offender, whatever way you look at it and only an idiot would leave their child unsupervised with a convicted sex offender.

    I don't think that's fair tbh. I'm assuming her age had nothing to do with the reason he was involved with her btw.
    If he is a pedophile then that's a different matter entirely.


  • #106
    Esoteric_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭Esoteric_


    Fancying a 14 year old is not paedophilia.

    Fancying pre-pubescent children is paedophilia.

    Fancying children who have started puberty makes him a hebephile, as a poster already pointed out.


  • #107
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    He liked the girl not her age, could you see it that way?

    If he really liked her, he could have waited until she was legal to have sex with her. That's what most responsible adults do.

    Would you say it would be alright if a 16-year old decided to have sex with a 9-year old because he liked her as a person?


  • #108
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    Better question - did the court?

    The assumption now seems to be is that he is a pedophile and was after her for that reason only, because of her age.
    I assumed her age did not matter to him, he liked her and maybe he did not know how old she was.


  • #109
    Dublin Red Devil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭Dublin Red Devil


    The title is terrible. they call him a "Rapist". He's not a rapist.

    Yes he should have visitation to see his child.


  • #110
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LyndaMcL wrote: »
    Fancying a 14 year old is not paedophilia.

    .

    Fancying ****ing one is most certainly paedophilia.


  • #111
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    14 years old is pre-Junior Cert. We're not talking about the 16/17 yr boundary here, the girl was a child.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Dublin Red Devil wrote: »
    The title is terrible. they call him a "Rapist". He's not a rapist.

    Yes he should have visitation to see his child.

    1. Legally he WAS/IS a rapist.
    2. If this was not true - he could sue every newspaper and media outlet in the world that stated he was one and wrong.
    Has he? No!


  • #113
    Esoteric_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭Esoteric_


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    Fancying ****ing one is most certainly paedophilia.

    No. It's hebephilia. The distinction between the two is that paedophiles have sexual attraction to children who have not yet hit puberty.


  • #114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    LyndaMcL wrote: »
    No. It's hebephilia. The distinction between the two is that paedophiles have sexual attraction to children who have not yet hit puberty.

    Never heard of that one, thanks.


  • #115
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    The assumption now seems to be is that he is a pedophile and was after her for that reason only, because of her age.
    I assumed her age did not matter to him, he liked her and maybe he did not know how old she was.

    He wanted sex with a person (any person?) that was simply under age!
    Title him all you want but (1) he broke the law (2) he was wrong morally by modern standards of understanding child maturity and (3) if age did NOT matter to him, why didn't he go have sex with someone older?

    Duh?


  • #116
    Dublin Red Devil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭Dublin Red Devil


    If this was an older woman. Say 17 years old. and she had sex/ conceived a child with a 15 year old male. Do you really think anything would happen. to the women? would she be accused of statutory rape and put in prison. I seriously doubt it.


  • #117
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,520 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    This person is not a pedophile, he could be classed as a Hebephile.

    I think pedophiles are a whole extra level of screwed up because they prey on pre-pubescent children.

    I know it's not good to try and rate these things on a scale, but you have to admit there's a difference between say, that English teacher who ran away with a student (secondary school) and a person who abuses a child who doesn't even understand what's happening to them.

    Edit: had this reply open in a window for ages and had forgotten about it. It seems the same point has been made many times over at this stage.


  • #118
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    He wanted sex with a person (any person?) that was simply under age!
    Title him all you want but (1) he broke the law (2) he was wrong morally by modern standards of understanding child maturity and (3) if age did NOT matter to him, why didn't he go have sex with someone older?

    Duh?

    You don't know that and it's unfair of you to assume he only went after her for her age.


  • #119
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    Biggins wrote: »
    if age did NOT matter to him, why didn't he go have sex with someone older?

    Duh?

    the fact he was going out with an older girl at the time of the offence tells a story in itself, as another poster has already pointed out


  • #120
    Esoteric_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,255 ✭✭✭✭Esoteric_


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    You don't know that and it's unfair of you to assume he only went after her for her age.

    He could have gotten sex from someone his own age, or even waited til the CHILD was of a legal age to engage in sexual activites, if he actually cared for her.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    davet82 wrote: »
    the fact he was going out with an older girl at the time of the offence tells a story in itself, as another poster has already pointed out
    LyndaMcL wrote: »
    He could have gotten sex from someone his own age, or even waited til the CHILD was of a legal age to engage in sexual activites, if he actually cared for her.

    Yep - but clearly some don't want to see that.


  • #122
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,520 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    davet82 wrote: »
    the fact he was going out with an older girl at the time of the offence tells a story in itself, as another poster has already pointed out

    It does suggest he was looking for something else other than a regular adult relationship. Maybe like these people you hear about who have a spouse and a family but seek something else separate to it all. Everyone is surprised that someone who 'seemed so normal' could be capable of it.


  • #123
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    LyndaMcL wrote: »
    He could have gotten sex from someone his own age, or even waited til the CHILD was of a legal age to engage in sexual activites, if he actually cared for her.

    I don't disagree with any of the points made bit I think we are assuming he went after her because of her age and that's probably not the case.
    Calling him a rapist pedophile etc is way of the mark as well.
    It could be a simple case of them liking each other and I'm not convinced she is as innocent as the story is claiming. I'm aware of her age etc but I bet she was mad about him at the time.


  • #124
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    ...I think we are assuming he went after her because of her age and that's probably not the case.

    Says who?
    You or the court who (we can assume) spent a great amount of time on this case and see greater evidence?
    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    ...I bet she was mad about him at the time.
    ...And your evidence for even thinking this is where?


  • #125
    Giselle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Giselle


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    Calling him a rapist pedophile etc is way of the mark as well.
    It could be a simple case of them liking each other and I'm not convinced she is as innocent as the story is claiming. I'm aware of her age etc but I bet she was mad about him at the time.


    It doesn't matter how innocent, knowing, slutty or gagging for it she was. And lets not discount the possiblity that she may have been a vulnerable kid desperate for attention and he may have groomed her. Lets not assume the convicted rapist is the REAL victim here.

    He knew she was a kid and he, as an adult, had sex with her.

    He knew it was wrong but went ahead, she probably knew it was wrong but that she could handle it. She'll find out over the next few years whether or not that was true.


  • #126
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    kowloon wrote: »
    It does suggest he was looking for something else other than a regular adult relationship. Maybe like these people you hear about who have a spouse and a family but seek something else separate to it all. Everyone is surprised that someone who 'seemed so normal' could be capable of it.

    i accept that point about the 'bit on the side' but their relationship sounds alot less innocent in this case because of it imo


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    Says who?
    You or the court who (we can assume) spent a great amount of time on this case and see greater evidence?


    ...And your evidence for even thinking this is where?

    The court is allowing him visitation rights.

    Your evidence for thinking he was after her only for her age is where ?
    You are the one assuming this you are not willing to consider her age had no bearing on the fact he liked her.


  • #128
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.

    Your evidence for thinking he was after her only for her age is where ?
    You are the one assuming this you are not willing to consider her age had no bearing on the fact he liked her.

    we can only speculate tbh, imo it was neither the girl or her age just a chance to have sex regardless maybe, only he knows really i guess.


  • #129
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,520 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    davet82 wrote: »
    i accept that point about the 'bit on the side' but their relationship sounds alot less innocent in this case because of it imo

    That it wasn't an exclusive 'relationship' does make it seem more dodgy.


  • #130
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    davet82 wrote: »
    we can only speculate tbh, imo it was neither the girl or her age just a chance to have sex regardless maybe, only he knows really i guess.

    She knows what happened also I'm not disputing the fact he was older and of course he should not have done it but sometimes these stories are not as clear cut as they seem.
    Would it make a difference to your opinion if they were still together ?
    Would you still think he is a danger to young girls?


  • #131
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.

    Your evidence for thinking he was after her only for her age is where ?
    You are the one assuming this you are not willing to consider her age had no bearing on the fact he liked her.

    ...On the original court examining and thus sentencing he got and the reasons for it!

    As pointed out already, if he JUST REALLY cared for her, then her age would have been older when first sex occurred - but no, he wanted sex with someone that was under-age.
    He had sex with her shoving aside any other care he might have for her!
    Real 'Care' went out the window as her underwear came off!

    I'm willing to consider the court judgement and their decision to come to the one they did in sending him away for his crime.

    Anything else after that is just wrong (in my mind) hypotheticals that so far have not been proven in any shape or form.
    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.

    Really?
    I think you need to read the article again.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...On the original court examining and thus sentencing he got and the reasons for it!

    As pointed out already, if he JUST REALLY cared for her, then her age would have been older when first sex occurred - but no, he wanted sex with someone that was under-age.
    He had sex with her shoving aside any other care he might have for her!
    Real 'Care' went out the window as her underwear came off!

    I'm willing to consider the court judgement and their decision to come to the one they did in sending him away for his crime.

    Anything else after that is just wrong (in my mind) hypotheticals that so far have not been proven in any shape or form.

    Again you are insisting the only reason he wanted sex with her is because she was underage, you have no proof of this.
    How do you know he did not care for her? Your underwear comment is just to hype up your post.


  • #133
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    She knows what happened also I'm not disputing the fact he was older and of course he should not have done it but sometimes these stories are not as clear cut as they seem.
    Would it make a difference to your opinion if they were still together ?
    Would you still think he is a danger to young girls?

    i told you my opinion was that he was probably chasing sex (mostly likely anything with anything with a pulse) but he broke the law which would concern me and if it was my child/grandchild that was around somebody that was convicted of statutory rape i'd be gravely concerned.

    if the were still together (which they never were) i'd still have the same concerns


  • #134
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    Again you are insisting the only reason he wanted sex with her is because she was underage, you have no proof of this.
    How do you know he did not care for her? Your underwear comment is just to hype up your post.

    Fine - please show us where he cared for her!
    Please do.

    I am stating opinion that if he cared one small bit for her - he would have not had sex with her given her age.
    I am stating opinion that the court has come to this decision and looking at the facts as they were presented to them - and thus came to the laying of a penalty and awarding a sexual deviant classification based on those facts.

    However of you somehow amazingly know different, know an insight into this case that perhaps even his lawyers don't know - maybe you should be ringing them with your evidence!

    You sure can't produce it here!

    Hell, you can't even read the article right!


  • #135
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bleedin heart liberals don't need proof, and can post hypotheticals.


  • #136
    Gauss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 550 ✭✭✭Gauss


    Biggins wrote: »
    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    Again you are insisting the only reason he wanted sex with her is because she was underage, you have no proof of this.
    How do you know he did not care for her? Your underwear comment is just to hype up your post.

    Fine - please show us where he cared for her!
    Please do.

    I am stating opinion that if he cared one small bit for her - he would have not had sex with her given her age.
    I am stating opinion that the court has come to this decision and looking at the facts as they were presented to them - and thus came to the laying of a penalty and awarding a sexual deviant classification based on those facts.

    However of you somehow amazingly know different, know an insight into this case that perhaps even his lawyers don't know - maybe you should be ringing them with your evidence!

    You sure can't produce it here!

    Hell, you can't even read the article right!

    You don't know whether he cared for her, simple as that. Stop pretending you do.


  • #137
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,407 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    davet82 wrote: »
    we can only speculate tbh, imo it was neither the girl or her age just a chance to have sex regardless maybe, only he knows really i guess.

    Nail on the head, he could have fancied the girl, she could have fancied him, maybe he only fancied her because she was 14, maybe he only fancied her she was really good looking, maybe he thought she was just great in general, maybe he intimidated her. Nobody really knows.
    Biggins wrote: »
    .


    Really?
    I think you need to read the article again.

    From what I read the court have placed him in a situation where he is legally allowed to request visitation rights.


  • #138
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Whatever about this case, I think that "Statutory Rape" is a terrible name for what the guy did. Rape is one of the worst things that a person can do to another and the word "Rape" should be reserved for that. If we start watering down the word so that it's used to describe lesser crimes, then the word will no longer create the feeling of disgust and outrage that it used to.


    Even now, whenever we hear of a convicted rapist, we've started to do a double-take. We ask ourselves "Did he rape her or was he a 16 year old boy riding his girlfriend of the same age?". Previously, a convicted rapist would be seen as just that - a rapist.

    This nonsense about statutory rape has created a bizarre situation where a rapist might not really be a rapist. This only minimises the crime of Rape which benefits rapists and harms their victims.


  • #139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    It also makes the 20, 30 or 40 year old think twice before he has sex with a 15 year old.
    So there are benefits to having it called statutory rape.


  • #140
    fasttalkerchat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,652 ✭✭✭fasttalkerchat


    tmc86 wrote: »
    F*ck that, think how traumatic it would be for the mother.

    It was consensual sex with a minor. Are they still together?


  • #141
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    Fine - please show us where he cared for her!
    Please do.

    I am stating opinion that if he cared one small bit for her - he would have not had sex with her given her age.
    I am stating opinion that the court has come to this decision and looking at the facts as they were presented to them - and thus came to the laying of a penalty and awarding a sexual deviant classification based on those facts.

    However of you somehow amazingly know different, know an insight into this case that perhaps even his lawyers don't know - maybe you should be ringing them with your evidence!

    You sure can't produce it here!

    Hell, you can't even read the article right!

    Can you produce evidence he was only after her because of her age ?
    Can you produce evidence he did not care about her?

    I read the article right the court choose to allow him apply for visitation rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    First paragraph:
    A man who raped a 14-year-old girl and got her pregnant is now allegedly demanding visitation rights for the child.

    No court allowing there.
    The victim’s mother told Fox 25. 'She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?'

    Note the question mark - not a statement of fact.
    No court allowing there.
    The law requires him to pay child support — but also entitles him to seek visitation rights.
    Now the man has allegedly asked for visitation rights

    No court allowing there.
    The man's legal representative refused to comment on the requests to see his child.
    Still no court allowing there given.

    He has the right to see - but has not got those rights yet.
    Originally Posted by HeyThereDeliah
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.
    No - it has not allowed them yet.
    Originally Posted by Gauss
    You don't know whether he cared for her, simple as that. Stop pretends you do.

    ...And you can show/prove he did care for her as can HeyThereDeliah???
    Stop pretends you do about all this "care" ?


  • #143
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    This isn't a Cinderella case, she was clearly underage and he knew it and proceeded.

    The reason it's called statutory rape is because the child is considered incapable of giving consent in the same way that a drugged woman is considered incapable. Furthermore, the power dynamic between the adult and child is so massively skewed that there cannot possibly be an associated "relationship" of equals to speak of.

    Around 30% of the boys involved in Catholic sex abuse cases were between 15 and 17, and plenty of those would have been "consenting" in so far as they were able. And yet, there is still no debate over whether or not those priests were sex offenders or rapists, or whether the boys were victims or not.

    There's no debate here. Guy's a rapist. What the hell does the child have to gain from having him in her life?


  • #144
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    Can you produce evidence he was only after her because of her age ?
    Can you produce evidence he did not care about her?

    I read the article right the court choose to allow him apply for visitation rights.

    Aaa... so you have changed you wording now!

    Got it!
    Originally Posted by HeyThereDeliah
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.

    So you admit - the court has NOT given him visitation rights as you previously tried to say?


  • #145
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Why, why , why.....delilah.:pac:


  • #146
    HeyThereDeliah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 967 ✭✭✭HeyThereDeliah


    Biggins wrote: »
    Aaa... so you have changed you wording now!

    Got it!



    So you admit - the court has NOT given him visitation rights as you previously tried to say?

    Do you usually get this worked up over a few choice words ?


  • #147
    davet82
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,753 ✭✭✭davet82


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    Whatever about this case, I think that "Statutory Rape" is a terrible name for what the guy did. Rape is one of the worst things that a person can do to another and the word "Rape" should be reserved for that. If we start watering down the word so that it's used to describe lesser crimes, then the word will no longer create the feeling of disgust and outrage that it used to.

    i think anybody that grooms a minor for sex and refering them to something other than a rapist is insulting to their victims.

    a 50 year old man in a relationship with a 13 year old girl, lets say for example, which is consensual is wrong and shocking and disgusting and is rape, statutory rape.

    Thats the other side to the to the arguement.


  • #148
    Gauss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 550 ✭✭✭Gauss


    Biggins wrote: »
    First paragraph:
    A man who raped a 14-year-old girl and got her pregnant is now allegedly demanding visitation rights for the child.

    No court allowing there.
    The victim’s mother told Fox 25. 'She decided to keep her baby. And now she has to hand her baby over for a visit with her rapist?'

    Note the question mark - not a statement of fact.
    No court allowing there.
    The law requires him to pay child support — but also entitles him to seek visitation rights.
    Now the man has allegedly asked for visitation rights

    No court allowing there.
    The man's legal representative refused to comment on the requests to see his child.
    Still no court allowing there given.

    He has the right to see - but has not got those rights yet.
    Originally Posted by HeyThereDeliah
    The court is allowing him visitation rights.
    No - it has not allowed them yet.
    Originally Posted by Gauss
    You don't know whether he cared for her, simple as that. Stop pretends you do.

    ...And you can show/prove he did care for her as can HeyThereDeliah???
    Stop pretends you do about all this "care" ?

    I never said I know. That's the point, we don't know.


  • #149
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    HeyThereDeliah wrote: »
    Do you usually get this worked up over a few choice words ?

    So you admit you were wrong rather than change the subject?


  • #150
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,237 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »
    It also makes the 20, 30 or 40 year old think twice before he has sex with a 15 year old.
    So there are benefits to having it called statutory rape.

    There's that benefit to it alright but I don't think it outweighs the damage done by having the word "rape" used for things that aren't really rape according to the definition that most of us use. Unlawful Carnal Knowledge is a pretty good one and has been around for some time.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Gauss wrote: »
    I never said I know. That's the point, we don't know.

    So we have to rely on the decision then of the court and the evidence put before it.
    Nowhere is it stated that "care" was proven and no where is it stated that the court adjusted its sentencing due to supposed care - but people are now introducing supposed "care" without a further shreds of evidence.

    Amazing that!
    Pulling something out of thin air!
    Good magic trick.


Advertisement