JAS wrote:For once I agree with you...
LOL, glad to hear ...
by dedja » Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:48 pm
JAS wrote:For once I agree with you...
by asert » Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:57 pm
Dog_ger wrote:The charge was"Pedophilia"
Try it against my kids and you would end up the same.
No regrets.
by ORDoubleBlues » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:02 am
dedja wrote:Yes, true, the man was never convicted of the crime he was acused of, but he wasn't acquited as well as the prime witness declined to give evidence due to stress and the charges were withdrawn.
I agree with the notion of a presumption of innocence, but this man was investigated by the Mullighan Inquiry, St Peters College paid $500K in an out of court settlment for an abuse claim, and there were allegations that he threatened the key witness in the legal action against him. He then fled the country in dubious circumstances.
Now there is a Lawyer in Adelaide who was charged with manslaughter for killing a cyclist in a hit run accident but ended up getting a $300 fine. Now he wasn't convicted of the higher offence but I think there is no doubt that the individual is guilty of that higher crime.
There is ample 'evidence' to imply that Mountford was indeed a seedy & slimy character I believe.
The best result would have been for the legal action against him to have run its natural course but unfortunately the Law doesn't always oblige.
by Psyber » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:18 am
I have an adult step-daughter who was a teenager when I met her Mum.Dog_ger wrote:Do you have kids Psyber...?
Would you accuse them of making it up...?
You have no kids my friend.![]()
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |