Canuck faces life sentence for nude girl webcam scheme More charges have been filed against a Montreal man accused of fiendishly using the internet to trick or coerce girls into posing nude for him on webcams. Daniel Lesiewicz, 27, of the Montreal suburb of Dorval, was arrested in March and charged with possession and production of child pornography, uttering threats and extortion …
Although a life sentence sounds a bit too much for the crime in question, no? Anyway, he does need some good punishment. Just what, I don't know...
@ C. Coley
"Surely everyone knows by now that "16 year old Christie" is some guy?"
Well, we now know that at least 12 people were NOT some guy... Do you think they were the last?
...which means that even though he might be convicted of hundreds of instances of the same charge all convictions will probably be served concurrently. In other words, the greater the number of victims, the shorter the time per victim.
Yes, it pisses us off. Wish we had the habit of consecutive sentencing as they do in some parts of the U.S. A five hundred year sentence without chance of parole for 480 years might be satisfactory.
@Cameron
"Surely everyone knows..."
If everyone knew all the things that 'surely everyone knows' then stories about people being taken advantage of would have vanished to the land of urban legend a long time ago. Unfortunately that is not the case. These kids have learned a hard lesson - and we should teach the victimizer an unsurvivably tougher one. Unfortunately that possibility is extremely unlikely here... Canada, eh.
Life? Seems a bit much, given that you could rape a woman or murder your drug dealer in cold blood and get less. Defining the level of crime by the nature of the victim is a dangerous precedent. And, based on the comments here, bloodthirsty revenge, however satisfying, isn't necessarily the best policy to have as a whole.
It's kind of disturbing how Reg commenters will steadfastly defend personal liberties and attack overreaching legislation which would curtail their rights, whilst simultaneously chanting support for reactionism that creates a climate which foments those very laws.
In other news - he was charged with "uttering" threats? So, if he'd bleated them, or sneered them, or yelled them, he'd be in the clear?
Odd indeed.
That is just so wrong on any number of levels!
To answer the opening question - I am not sure that teenage girls are brain-dead or under-educated. It is much more a matter of parental knowledge and control. As a father of teen boys and girls I spent sufficient time explaining the perils of trusting unseen and unknown people on the internet. They thought that the answer to their problem was asking "ASL" (Age Sex Location). It was with some pleasure that I was able to shatter those young illusions with the photo linked to by AC. If I recall right, the photo at that time was entitled "Hi, I'm Mandy and 16". The look of revulsion on their faces was a picture to behold. From that moment on ASL was not an option, and to date they trust no-one that they do not know.
It isn't hard for parents - all they need to do is a simple bit of research if they don't already know.
We hear a lot about these kids being "streetwise" so isn't it time, and our duty to help them, to become "netwise" in exactly the same sense?
"Life? Seems a bit much, given that you could rape a woman or murder your drug dealer in cold blood and get less. Defining the level of crime by the nature of the victim is a dangerous precedent."
About the victims being 14, I agree, this is greatly overrated. I think in some cases paedos that aren't out raping'n'pillaging should get counseling, chemical castration (which brings the sex drive down to 0), or the like rather than lengthy prison sentences. However, blackmailing for more photos, cracking machines to obtain more photos, etc. (at least 12 separate times!) shows someone with a definite lack of any sort of conscience to me. He should get a harsh sentence even if the victims had been adults. This is quite dangerous; he should be in prison either for life or until he gains enough of a conscience to ensure he doesn't do this again.
"Life? Seems a bit much, given that you could rape a woman or murder your drug dealer in cold blood and get less. "
Why does it seem a bit much? If he did it once and was caught he would serve some time (I would hope). If he re-offends, he would serve more time. If he re-offends again, he would serve more. He could spend most of his life in jail - all except the times he was out re-offending. But in this case he has committed a series of crimes without being caught. Should we reward him for that by giving him less time than he would have served if caught each time? Why? For successfully evading the police or reducing expense for the number of trials which would have been required?
These are serial crimes. Lock him up forever.
Sigh...
Paedophilia = sexual attraction to prepubescent girls and/or boys. DSM IV classes it as a paraphilia (a form of mental disorder).
Ephebophilia = sexual attraction to adolescents. DSM IV does not classify it as a paraphilia and it is common amongst adults of all sexual orientations and most cultures.
The youngest girl he tricked was 14 and whilst I certainly don't condone his actions it would still be nice if the Daily Mail mob didn't go around screaming "PAEDO! PAEDO!" at the top of their lungs every time one of these stories comes up.
I am incredibly tired of seeing, even from the libertarian-happy communities I usually agree with, everyone jumping onto wanting to stone criminals because whose offenses are "gross", "creepy", or "affect the children".
Let's look at the actual DAMAGE done here. A serious privacy violation. Maybe some psychological harm (although how much difference could the guy have made on his victims who were already willing to expose themselves on webcams?). The biggest problem I see here is actually the unauthorized use of a computer charge - the computers he actually forced his way into, whereas the rest was just talking.
Now let's consider why we imprison people. There's punishment for the sake of crime deterrence - in which case the punishment should be proportional to the extent of the crime. Getting some underage girls naked in their own homes isn't life-worthy. There's getting the criminals off the streets to prevent them from acting again. Okay, so ban the guy from computing for a while (for life if deemed necessary), and make sure the shrinks say he won't move on to physical crimes.
A life sentence is not necessary just because the many fathers in the world think that their little girls are the most important humans to walk this earth, and are freaked out to think about anything sexual that relates to them. Base the punishment on the harm done, not the amount that the crime disturbs you.
If you're going to lock him for life for that, you need to find more severe punishments for "real" (in the physical sense) paedos, rapists, murderers, and I'm forgetting a few. The punisment should not depend on one's personnal emotional implication. You remember me of the persons who call death on the guy next door for strangling their dog.
Regardless of age - this is 14+ cases of blackmail and extortion, which, even at the low end of the possible prison terms, added up and served consecutively would go a fair way towards a life sentence. Plus several cases of unlawfully gaining access to a computer system - it all adds up. And that's before you take into account him obtaining pictures of these girls by mis-representing his identity - even if they were all adults, I'm sure there's at least a couple of charges per instance they could bring (identity fraud and sexual harrasment perhaps? I have no idea).
My point is that, even if these girls had been adults, if you take into account all the charges and add up the terms (i.e. assume they're served consecutively), it'd be coming up for a life sentence, surely.
@David Wiernicki and Chris Martin
I agree wholeheartedly. Problems like this cannot be legislated away. Even if you lock up this guy for life, now that his story has done the rounds there will be at least one horny punter out there going "what an excellent idea" and while he'll probably pause at the thought of the life sentence, he'll think "I won't get caught". And the cycle will continue. The only thing to do is to educate your kids. And talk to them.
Kids know not to get into a car with a stranger. Kids know not to talk to a stranger in the street. This is one more instance of that.
Sadly cynics apply here , for what the mass media prints or visually/verbally reports and what is actual reality in real life is two different things and the prosecutors always play the shock and awe media card prior to real charges are laid , for in most common law Westminster countries once the charges are finalised it goes into camera until the day the trial begins unlike the country to the south of the Canuck border where it is a virtual media hang from the nearest tree free for all from day one based on irrelevant speculative hearsay and is notorious for "strange fruit hanging from trees" and the miscreants in law offialdom responsible those dirty evil deeds remain free and uncharged !
As for the ages of the females in question unless appropriate legal documentation is provided it is a very questionable statement indeed and basically borderline propaganda at best ! For the adult female height bell curve over the age of fourteen can vary from under one metre or four feet (dwarf gene) to over 1.9 metre or six feet and both shape bone structure and body fat mass distribution is also variable thus some slim short under average height and stature females whilst over 21 can readily pass or look like fifteen year olds !
Alas , until his trial is finally convened and the full charges are then read out in court on the day the trial begins all else is but pure speculation until then !
For how soon many forget that the 21st century is the new age where propaganda rules the roost in all mass media absolutely like the weapon of mass deception thus seeing is believing !
Irrefutable documentary evidence is required before judgement can be passed as to the possible sleazebag nature of this miscreant or is it a duped minion ?
Oh where are all the cynics hiding in this world today , that be the question ?
This post has been deleted by its author
Fair play to him, an enterprising young man who should be commended on his ingenuity.
Just to break up the stream of inane "internet predator criminals are bad mnnkay" comments, next it'll be "paedos are bad", "I hate rapists", "castration is too good for em I say" fucking yadda yadda boring bollocks.
No, no, no. Don't you DARE try to minimise this.
This is nasty stuff, and it wasn't just spur of the moment, it was pre-meditated - the guy created a fictitios profile, befriended the girls, persuaded them to send him photos (and yes I do agree, that was a pretty dumb thing for the girls to do), THEN says, "Send me more or I'll post what I already have". AT LEAST 12 victims, as young as 14.
There has been a hell of a lot of damage done, potential for a lot more if this scumbag was allowed to continue, and your answer is ban the guy from computing for a little while?
There's a REASON that crimes like this disturb most people, and if you can't understand that then you need to start thinking about your own values.
And your last comment - "A life sentence is not necessary just because the many fathers in the world think that their little girls are the most important humans to walk this earth, and are freaked out to think about anything sexual that relates to them". SOMEONE has to think these girls are important enough to look after and protect from morons like this guy, so yeah, as a father of an 11 year old girl you bet like hell I'll protect her.
Most of the comments made here have been made within the context of the story as presented. The courts will not be doing so and will take into account more facts than are available here.
Having said that: Within the context the reaction to the idea of harm being done to the vulnerable is natural - and say what you will, teenagers are often irrational hormone-driven creatures and as such they are vulnerable. Parents who think they have instilled some kind of wisdom, or at least caution, into their teenagers should keep that in mind. They should also keep in mind that, unless the child is a complete moron, they know what to say to keep Mum and Dad happy and off their backs.
I have had the misfortune of seeing the bodies of rape-murder victims (one was only seven years old). It is an experience that demands that mere 'clerical' assessments of crimes against vulnerable people (as in oh, come on, how much harm is 'really' done) be put aside and society allowed to demand retribution for crimes it considers especially repugnant. Taking advantage of people not equipped to always make sane, sensible, mature choices is one of those crimes.
Some think the justice system is, or should only be, about reforming criminals, about returning them as 'productive' members of society. I think this is wrong. The justice system also has a duty to the victims and whalesong just won't cut it. Society must be able to feel that punishment, including permanently banning someone from participation in civilised society, is possible.
Of course it's disturbing. Of course it shouldn't happen, and this guy should be in some serious shit for it. But realize that humans have a irrational views on sex, and when we're talking about how a government should impart justice, we need to look past what what disturbs us and look dispassionately at the situation. Compare this guy, looking at a girl, to someone who punches a girl in the face. The former may cause psychological problems, and the latter causes physical damage. This guy spends more time in prison not because the girl is worse off, but because we hate him more. Justice served?
In Canada there is no set definition of a Life Sentence, as the sentance can and will usually include a "minimum before parole can be considered" clause. If they consistently fail to convince the parole board to let them go then a life sentance is life.
STOP: Clubbing seals was stopped in Canada many years ago. Any pictures of it that are purporting to show the hunt as it is today are pure propaganda.
Who is doing greater harm? A guy who coerces underage girls into posing naked in front of a web cam and making threats via email to further coerce them to continue to do so OR a guy who coerces underage girls into marriages and pregnancies?
Anybody who thinks a life sentence is justified for this Canadian scumbag must also support life sentences (or worse) for every adult on that Zion Ranch in Texas who was in any way involved in letting underage girls get pregnant by adult sect members, be it their parents for allowing it, be it their so called "spiritual" husbands for taking underage "spiritual" wives, be it their elders for tolerating (and possibly encouraging) the practise.
If you are not also in favour of coming down just as hard (if not harder) on those ranchists, then you are nothing but hypocrites. Hypocrites should never ever be listened to, they have nothing of any value to say.
"we need to look past what what disturbs us and look dispassionately at the situation"
Yeah, I love that approach. Remove the human element, the passion, the caring, from the decision making process. Would you really want to live in world like that?
"Compare this guy, looking at a girl, to someone who punches a girl in the face. The former may cause psychological problems, and the latter causes physical damage."
Ri-i-ght. Who gives a shit about a psychological problems? No physical damage (or no property damage, to put it another way) so no problem. Or to put it still another way - no *visible* problem so no *serious* problem, right?
The man's a fountain of empathy.
In Canada where I'm from life doesn't really mean life - it means a max of 25 years in prison and then only if you are a pain in the ass in prison. If you participate in the rehab programs, lay low and don't cause any trouble he'll be out in a heck of a lot less than 25 years. Also anytime he spent in jail waiting for trial is counted as double time. So if he was in jail for 2 years until found guilty he's gets 4 years of time served.
'In other news - he was charged with "uttering" threats? So, if he'd bleated them, or sneered them, or yelled them, he'd be in the clear?'
Er, David, "utter" simply means to speak or bring forth. So all of those actions you mentioned are forms of uttering. Perhaps you read "mutter"?
Friend put it to her kid to describe the kids friend on some chat room as if they were in front of them, she knew only 5-6 in real life and the other 5-10 were just chat friends.
Still it is a bit like getting asked for a dodgy photo in the playground, only the very slow of thought are likely to give it up, as for posing naked...
I'm sure the "hang-draw-n-quarter them" crowd will approve of the Taliban approach to protecting young girls from sexual harm. Make them socially invisible, and punish them mercilessly if they're not. And any men who transgress sexually will be hanged in public at Old Trafford. Not to mention a good old-fashioned stoning for ditto women. Yay.
And to lessen the lure of lust the elders will excise the clitoris just to make sure that hanky-panky doesn't happen.
Sex is for procreation, period. The Pope has told us so, so it must be true.
No computers. No visible flesh or hair. No colour. No dancing. No gym or swimming. No music. No curtains.
The Flesh must be tamed! The Devil exorcised!
Paris, cos like the Great Whore of Babylon she's doing her bit to scare us off sin!
""we need to look past what what disturbs us and look dispassionately at the situation"
Yeah, I love that approach. Remove the human element, the passion, the caring, from the decision making process. Would you really want to live in world like that?"
Isn't that what the law and courts are supposed to do? To make decisions objectively without allowing instinctive emotional reactions to get in the way?
Look at the alternative; Would you want to live in a world where justice is decided by the Daily Mail editorial?
'Give me more of the very pictures you don't want published, or else...'
There can't be a tighter loop than this, and I'm shaking my head wondering why the first to hear this threat didn't immediately see the treadmill nature of the method - then tell the guy to get stuffed or ask whether he'd prefer to go to the police directly or have the police directed to him.
Ph ... I won't go there.
Is anyone actually taking a step back and looking at the whole picture.
I think you will find, that in fact it is likely the blackamail part that is an agrevating factor in this.
If you walk into a bank and say hand over all you money or else, and they do. You will be done for theft and maybe threating behaviour at most (if anything at all!), maybe a few months
If you walk into a bank, point a sawn off shotgun in someones face and say "hand over or your money or else". Your looking at armed roberry, possesion of a firearm, threats to kill somewhere around 10 to life.
The crime is not so much tricking girls / women in posing nude, the real crime is blackmailing them into repeating it, therefore, effectivly removing any form of consent.
...and parents not educating their kids on the ways of the net are setting them up for evolution in action. Just like the real world, really... Yes, that's a car, don't step in front of it if it's moving or could be moving. Yes, that's a chat room, don't give any personal details and don't upload nude pictures to anyone. Can't imagine why that's so hard to understand...
I'd certainly like to live in a world like that- where the punishment would fit the crime and where people weren't able to be strung up just because someone with a silver tongue claimed that at some point in the past someone looking very much like the accused once could have looked at his daughter once and so this guy's a paedo.
Just remember that in other countries, people get just as passionate about women being out on the street alone, or daring to learn. Would you like it if Graham's daughter was to be locked up for daring to talk back to a man who could effectively goad crowds?
Also, if the girls took a "hell, that really was stupid" attitude to it they'd have learnt and very little psychological damage would occur; they've not been harmed and by the sounds of the article they'd not even been in any physical danger. Being portrayed as poor, fragile little victims who've had their innocence torn from them by the evil man will probably do more damage. And by absolving them of any responsibility you take away their ability to learn from their mistakes. Don't stop supporting them- by all means, give them support if they want it. Just don't force it on them.
This guy's done wrong and should be punished for it. But he's not molested these kids so he's not caused that much risk of psychological damage, and there's also no physical - or even financial - damage been done. No lives have been lost or- and if this is treated correctly- hugely damaged. So in any measurable way there's been very little damage. So yeah, lock him up for a few years. Take his Internet priviledges off him for 20 years, fine him the cost of getting new internet connections and a couple of years connection fees for the girls (and the other associated costs of putting this right). And punish him for the extortion. But don't put him in the same league as people who actually rape and murder people.
I work with girls of that age and despite being comfortable with IT and being very smart they are shockingly unaware of online safety. We do our best to educate them but it isn't easy trying to convince a teenager that they are in danger - you think you are invincible at that age.
It really wouldn't be that hard for a determined adult to outwit a young girl with comparatively little life experience.
Judging from the ratio of male/female murderers, perverts, etc. it would appear that testosterone is a dangerous drug. As such, it would seem prudent to restrict its manufacture to those who are suitably licenced. Demonstrated inability to behave in a socially acceptable manner while under the influence of testosterone should result in automatic cancellation of the licence, and confiscation of manufacturing "equipment".
...the fact remains that the girls/women in question were willing to send revealing phtographs of themselves to a compolete stranger.
AFAIK the age of consent in Canada was 14 until March 2008, when it was raised to 16, so presumably at the time of the offenses the girls were all of legal age anyway.
Certainly, the man has done wrong and deserves to be punished, but a life sentence ought to seem excessive to anybody capable of thinking rationally about such matters.
The parents of the girls in question ought to shoulder some of the responsibility as well, for allowing their children unrestricted and unmonitored internet access, seemingly without warning them of the dangers of trusting strangers online.
The internet is not a suitable place for children. IF you would not allow your child to walk the streets alone at night, then you should not allow your child to browse the net alone and unmonitored, for it is just as dangerous, if not more so, do to the fact that their guard is down.
I can't figure out how some of the writers have conflated severely punishing someone who has deceived and blackmailed vulnerable people with taliban like oppression of women... or the idea of finding some crimes especially repugnant comparable to tabloid hysteria and lynch mobs. Sounds a tad irrational.
Some things *are* repugnant to a civilised society. Failure to recognise that or eliminating that from our considerations is to reduce the human-ness of our world.
Yes, taking the emotional factor into consideration is messy and dangerous and difficult. Deal with it - don't run away from it. Eliminating emotional considerations from our reasoning is simply taking the easy way out and, more importantly, lessens us all.
And hormonal cycles in women lead you to become ever more relaxed and totally not psychopathically enraged about just about nothing?
Also by that logic if you couldn't keep your kids in-line and behaving properly you'd have your kid license and manufacturing equipment removed.
And finally, the girls were legal at the time and are all still alive and unharmed. Which means there's no murder or even [much] perversion involved. But lots of teens-posting-nude-pics-to-anyone-who-asked. So quit men-bashing!
"Yeah, I love that approach. Remove the human element, the passion, the caring, from the decision making process. Would you really want to live in world like that?"
Yes, I'd fucking love it. Passion where it belongs - i.e. art, love and faith - and not within five million miles of where it doesn't, i.e. law, science and business. It would be a world with far fewer lynchings, far fewer genocides, far fewer stupid laws named after a photogenic victim, far fewer pork barrel raids on the taxpayer's purse justified by appeals to emotion. Without giving up any of the stuff that passion is good for.
Dispassionate does not mean "nihilistic" or "uncaring". It simply means recognising that passion is a poison when making serious decisions, and ignoring it. Good decision-making depends on the data available and the ability of the mind to process it. Passion neither gives you better information nor does it improve your ability to add up. At best it adds a random element, at worst it leads the mind down very dark paths (like "string em all up").
"Yes, taking the emotional factor into consideration is messy and dangerous and difficult. Deal with it - don't run away from it. Eliminating emotional considerations from our reasoning is simply taking the easy way out and, more importantly, lessens us all."
Well put, seemingly reasonable, complete nonsense. Passion is easy, making decisions based on fact and reasoning is hard. It takes time and it involves taking responsibility. Anyone can shout "you can't put a price on life", recognising that you can't set tax to 100% to pay for universal healthcare and working out where you *should* set it is something most people find distasteful. If it isn't, then why, when we have a system that supposedly represents the popular will, do we restrict democracy to the occasional choice of a select few people to make those decisions for us? Why don't we make the decisions ourselves? Because we don't want to.
of a time in the UK when a Sunday newspaper (very loose definition) started publishing the names & addresses of convicted paedophiles. This directly led to a mob attaching the home of a paediatrician. We all know, of course, that a mob raises the average IQ of its members, don't we? </sarcasm>
A dispassionate view of the alleged acts and their consequences will go a long way to provide 'justice'. It should also be noted that, in perspective, he didn't rape, maim or kill. The photos were originally taken by the girls themselves and handed over by the girls themselves.
They too should share some of the blame for this state of affairs for without their original willingness to do these things then he could not have progressed to the blackmail / extortion stage. But no, these girls will be (wrongly) told that they are 'victims' and that no blame attaches to them. Well maybe they were victimised, but they need to accept part of the blame to be able to learn that they have done wrong. For if they have / accept no blame then, surely they didn't do anything wrong.
Their parents will be told that *they* should have done this that and the other to protect their kids. I expect quite a few of the parents had already done these things, so the 'advice' will only serve to heap blame on top of the guilt that the parents are already facing. And this is for trying to look after a shuffling, surly, uncommunicative bag of hormones who used to think you knew everything, and who now **knows** that you know nothing.
And the UK readers of these comments might want to be aware that from 8th May then they might be subject to this kind of mob hysteria. Hysteria generated by the media's desire to sell papers or advertising and will stoop to almost any depth to do so. Mob consisting of those who only hear what they want to hear. Protect yourselves, purge your HDDs & cache files today.
Btw; I am a father of three (2G/1B) and grandkids are ***the best*** revenge a parent can have. :)
How do you trick someone into taking nude photos of themselves?
<girly16-whoisreallyaman> Hello I am a 16 year old girl and I want you to send me a nude picture of yourself
<stupidgirl123> No!
<girly16-whoisreallyaman> Please.... I promise not to post it on the net
<stupidgirl123> Oh go on then, whats the worst that could happen.
I'm starting to think that natural selection is not working anymore
it all remids me a bit of a tim wilson song from the 90s...
unfortunetly being a parent a bit of bias on my part is shall we say unavoidable...
majority of the problem could had been avoided if the teens had been properly educated by their parents(sorry but these days its next to impossible to do so) with majority of parent/s either working 2 jobs and/or watching tv you kind of get the idea).
keep also in mind that ages 13 to about 19 are the most rebelious years of teens because of the group peer pressure and the so called i am cooler than you factor. in these cases its better to aproach problem from psychological point than educational in orther to get through that wall teens build around themselves.
another problem is that schools have a tendancy to kill common sense that we all learn before we even attend school(yay for liniar religious/state sanctioned brain washing centers)
in a way no matter what one may say or do there will always be instances of situations like this occuring no matter what one will do to prevent it from happening due to a natural gulibilty that majority of people seem to have.
our job as responsible adults( i hate being called that personaly) is to try to minimize of such instances from happening. such controls already exist in form of laws/punishment and state/religious organizations.
on personal note spank these kids because thay need it and beat the tar out of the asses that did that to the kids! why? because pain is a good teaching mechanizm that nature has evolved to prevent stupidity from happening.
"Yes, I'd fucking love it. Passion where it belongs - i.e. art, love and faith - and not within five million miles of where it doesn't, i.e. law, science and business."
Yep, the geek solution: compartmentalise everything. Reduce everything to the simplest possible elements, subroutines, whatever. They all seem to be looking for the security of a machine-readable algorithm. Dehumanise wherever possible. Welcome to the Borg.
Life is (wonderfully) more complicated than that - too bad so many tech-minded people find that alarming or perhaps distasteful. I guess you can take the geek out of Mum's basement but you can never take Mum's basement out of the geek.
I doubt that there will ever be a meeting of minds here - c'est la vie.
Justice exists to maintain social equilibrium. Not to satisfy one's bloodthirsty vengence instincts based on what one thinks is disgusting at a given moment. This is the lynchin'mob role. Let's burn the sorceress and lock the peeping Tom for life, rapists and murderers can go freely? Also, we should stone to death every individual who ever harmed a defenseless puppy. Cause these are so cute!
You pretend you saw bodies of raped kids. Then you say that this peeping guy desserves the same sentence as the one who raped and murdered underage kids? Really? Maybe you should have used the whitey squishey blobey thing that is supposed to be somewhere between your ears before saying that.
"You pretend you saw bodies of raped kids."
Whoa there, little fella. Don't assume that something that is beyond your experience can't have happened to someone else.
That's a part of my life I never want to relive.
...and once you have called someone a liar there is no point in any further talk.
Idiot.
Either me on you need better reading skills. Liar I didn't say -though the word "pretend" was probably badly choose. I intended it in the ethymological sense.
On the other hand, I did imply that calling for the same sentence to be applied to a kid's rapist and murderer and to this e-peeping Tom reflects a deep lack of thought.
"Officials had said Fritzl faces up to 15 years in prison if charged, tried and convicted on rape charges, the most grave of his alleged offenses under Austrian law. "
This is the guy who confessed to locking up his 11 year old and raping her, fathering 7 (6 currently living) children with her for the last 20 years, and keeping 3 of those children "upstairs" and 3 in the dungeon he fashioned........... So at least we know not to model ourselves after Austrian laws.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
