JasmineCorp Directory   
  
Usenet News Group Archives!!!

Usenet Groups:

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Where the hell is Frank McCoy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: alt.support.boy-lovers
Posted by: wonderer
2008-03-03 13:17:22


"Baal" wrote in message
news:20080303121527.97650637C9@panta-rhei.eu.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Brandon D Cartwright wrote in alt.support.girl-lovers on Monday 03 March
> 2008 03:32 in Message-ID: :
>
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 07:53:19 +0000 (GMT), Baal
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 4s00th, you might want to read the transcripts of the 4-part CBC Radio
>>> /Ideas/ series, "The Trials of London" -- this series dissects one of
>>> Canada's largest 'child pornography' panics. The picture it paints of
>>> the London Police Service is not a pretty one, particularly in Part 4
>>> when it deals with some of the youngest victims--"victims as young as
>>> eight".
>>>
>>> These kids however, were not victimized by paedophiles,
>>
>> Sure they were...
>
> Brandon, READ THE FUCKING TRANSCRIPT. To make it easy for you, I'll post
> it, so you can read the relevant sections.
>
>>> but by the police
>>> who led one 8-year-old child to believe that the testimony they
>>> pressured out of him sent an innocent man to jail, and put two entire
>>> families through hell for more than a year.
>>
>> Adults getting sexually involved with eight year olds deserve whatever
>> they get..
>
> I have no problem with that, but there WERE NO adults involved with these
> two kids. The London Police alleged these two kids were lured into an
> apartment where they were accosted by one of the accused men. The only
> problem with that story was that the families had moved out of the area a
> year or so prior to the date of the alleged assault, and the kids had not
> returned to the area since the move. In other words, it was /impossible/
> for those kids to have been assaulted as the police described.
>
> In other words, the police were LYING.
>
> The police never told the families that the charges involving their kids
> were dropped, so when the kids and their parents attended court, the kids
> saw that the alleged perpetrator was found guilty and sentenced to jail.
>
> The kids _knew_ that the assault never took place, but at least one of
> them, under pressure from the officers, told them what they wanted to
> hear--
> the only reasonable conclusion they could come to was that the perpetrator
> was sentenced to jail due to their testimony.
>
> The guilt that the kids felt nearly destroyed them; that, and the fact
> that
> NO ONE believed them when they said NOTHING HAPPENED. The parents trusted
> the police; they believed what they read in the newspaper--both of these
> talked about "victims as young as eight" so it /must/ have been true.
> The kids just weren't "ready to disclose" as counsellors all-too-often
> say.
>
> Why is it, that when kids say they've been abused--people are all ears,
> and ready to believe them, and yet when they say they /haven't/ been
> abused, no one wants to listen? Why is it that their denials are dismissed
> with, "They're just not ready to disclose...."
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/shows/trials/index.html
>
> The Trials of London, Part 4.
>
> [...]
>
> Max Allen
>
> This is the story of a discovery. It began with a
> statement made by a person with inside information.
> This led to a search for inaccessible police documents,
> finding a misfiled court record, and following what
> turned out to be a very long trail.
>
> That trail ended when we found Janet McLean, who has
> five children, owns her own home and is the manager of
> a London business. One of her children, though never
> publically named as such, turns out to be the invisible
> poster child of Project Guardian. This is the famous
> eight-year-old in the oft-repeated phrase "victims as
> young as eight."
>
> Just minutes after we'd located her, Joseph Couture
> was at her door. Janet McLean had no idea why we'd be
> interested in something that happened over a year ago.
> But she invited Joseph Couture in to her house, and
> told him how her involvement began.
>
> In what follows, some names, particularly of Janet
> McLean's son, who we'll call Peter, have been
> electronically masked.
>
> Janet McLean
>
> I just got a phone call from the police last February.
> They asked me if I'd heard, at that time I think it was
> called the child pornography ring, they asked me if I'd
> heard of the child pornography ring. I said yes. Over
> the phone they told me that my son was identified as a
> victim, and then asked me to go to the police station,
> set an appointment to go to the police station the next
> day.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> Can you tell me about it?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> First of all, I think if your child's been victimized
> and you're going to find out about it, I don't think
> you should find out about it on the telephone. Prior
> to me getting home they had called three times, said
> they were police officers and were trying to reach my
> son, who at the time had just turned nine. So when I
> got home from work the kids had already been teasing
> [Peter] that the police were looking for him, and what
> did he do wrong? So there was already an atmosphere
> that he was guilty of something, because the police
> were calling. I just think the whole thing was handled
> very wrong.
>
> Max Allen
>
> So Janet took her son to the police station, where she
> was told he'd been "identified," and:
>
> Janet McLean
>
> And that they would have to talk to him. I wanted to
> go in with him; they wouldn't allow me. They said that
> if, after their investigation, I had to be in court, I
> wouldn't be allowed to be in court because I would have
> already heard what [Peter] said in the room. So they
> made me sit outside. I'm not exactly sure of the time,
> but I got there at five, and it was after nine pm when
> they came out.
>
> Max Allen
>
> Was Janet given the details of what was supposed to
> have happened?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> No. At this point I'm not l00 percent sure of what
> happened.
>
> Through talking to [Peter] there was a lot of denial--
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> What do you mean by denial?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> I said, Did some bad people touch you in places? And he
> screamed at me, "I was only a little kid! How do you
> expect me to remember anything?" And he stormed off.
> That was my kind of, okay, he's confirming. He didn't
> say "No, Mom, this didn't happen." He already had his
> "I was just a little kid, they can't ask me questions,
> I just can't remember anything." So he had already sort
> of confirmed the fact that he had been carrying this.
>
> I still don't know what I'm dealing with with this
> child. I tried to take him to counselling, and he
> became very depressed, very aggressive. During the
> counselling session, myself and the counsellor were
> talking and he was drawing pictures, and when she
> looked at the pictures afterward he had drawn himself
> in black, and knives going into him. He's talking about
> suicide. They said that if I forced him to go to the
> counselling I could have a serious situation. He began
> to hurt himself, physically. He would smash his head on
> walls, on floors, and try to cut himself.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> Why was he doing that?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> I'm not sure. They tell me because he doesn't want to
> deal with it at this point. I'm not sure.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> How do you feel about the charges being dropped? In
> both cases the charges were dropped against the men.
>
> Janet McLean
>
> In both cases?
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> Both cases.
>
> Janet McLean
>
> I wasn't aware of that. I was told that Mr. Seymour got
> two years.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> Oh, he went to jail, but not pertaining to an incident
> with your son. It was withdrawn in court.
>
> Janet McLean
>
> They're never made me aware of that. That makes me
> really angry. That makes me really really angry,
> because they told me he got two years for that.
>
> They never once have told me that they dropped those
> charges. That's disgusting. I can't believe that. I was
> under the impression that he had two years, or two and
> a half years. Wow. They never told me that. This is the
> first I'm hearing that.
>
> I don't understand. Why?
>
> Max Allen
>
> Three months pass since the police questioning of
> Janet's eight-year-old son. And then:
>
> Janet McLean
>
> Again a phone call. "We believe your older son's been
> identified."
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> How old was he?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> He's just turned seventeen, so he was sixteen. They
> made arrangements to come out--no, I was to take
> him there. Every time I was to take him there, he'd
> disappear. Like, there was no way he was going to a
> police station.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> He didn't want to co-operate?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> Not at all. Then they finally called and said that they
> would come pick him up. Now, he was only gone a short
> time; maybe just over an hour or so. Then they brought
> him back, and they said that he denied having any,
> whatsoever.
>
> Joseph Couture
>
> What incident was this supposed to pertain to?
>
> Janet McLean
>
> These were supposed to have pertained to some--this
> is what I got from the police: It was an incident at
> Aberdeen School with a guy who owns a duck. It's a
>

 

 

 

More >> 

Domain Registration:
.com .org .net
.info .biz .us