SA Footy

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 01,00.html

BREAKING NEWS: Former St Peter's College chaplain and alleged pedophile John Mountford has reportedly been murdered in Libya.

Mountford, who was charged with but not convicted of sexual abuse at the Adelaide private school, was found stabbed to death at his apartment in the Libyan capital of Tripoli, where he had been living for some time.

Charges against Mountford in South Australia were withdrawn in August 2007 following concerns about the state of mind of his accuser, a former St Peter's student.

Mountford was charged with five counts of indecent assault, two of procuring the commission of an act of gross indecency and one of unlawful sexual intercourse.

When leaving Adelaide after the charges were dropped, Mountford said he was a homosexual but denied that he was a pedophile. He claimed the court case had cost him his life savings.

The victim received an out of court civil settlement from St Peter's College earlier this year.

Um, this is going to appear real callous, but maybe justice was done?

I just wonder if it was a random attack, or he was targeted specifically.

Good riddance

GWW wrote:I just wonder if it was a random attack, or he was targeted specifically.

It was alledged on radio that he may have been a target of extortion attempts by people over there that threatened to "out" his supposed background over here...

One would assume he did not come up with the goods ???

I wonder if he was actually guilty of the original charges...

About 20 years ago I was falsely accused of Rape and interviewed by the CIB, who were satisfied in the end that the woman's allegations were untrue.
Fortunately, I'd kept her earlier note offering not to make the allegations in return for enough money, and when they checked the CIB found she'd done that before with other guys, some of whom had paid rather than call her bluff and risk her being believed...

Trouble is for some people an accusation is all it takes and they're instantly guilty and will stay guilty regardless of the outcome.

A guy I worked with was accused of being gay by his 15yo step-daughter...she rang the boss and said her mum had walked in on him with another man. Being military he was automatically put on leave while it was investigated...if true he'd be dishonourably dismissed. All the other guys at work would have nothing to do with him, some even threaten to kick the **** out of him etc etc. Within a couple of weeks (the mother refused to call her duaghter a liar ad clear it up straight away) she admitted to making it up as revenge for not being allowed to go to a party but for a couple of the guys the damage was done...as far as they were concerned he was 'dodgy'...'no smoke without fire' and all that carp and refused to work with him.

Not saying Mountford is guilty or innocent as there are many reasons the charges could have been dropped. I think you'll find that being gay in Libya is not going to be a walk in the park...not the strictest Arab country but not far off.

Regards
JAS

Regards
JAS

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.

dedja wrote: 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.

My accuser claimed I'd threatened her too, and her note offered a pre-making allegations settlement - an earlier stage than out of court.
They only reason she didn't take it to a civil court after the police threw it out, was that none of the 3 lawyers [I later heard] she had gone to believed she had a case after the CIB had looked at it twice at 6 month intervals. The fact that her past similar approaches to several men had been revealed in the process helped too.

I didn't flee the country though. I was prepared to stand and fight it on principal rather than pay up to avoid publicity about something I hadn't done!
I had personal and business legal costs insurance as part of my insurance package - otherwise I may have had a problem and had to think about a pay-off for purely financial reasons..
$500K from the school sounds like a lot, but they may have been concerned the publicity and defence cost of even a false claim would cost them more.

Psyber, clearly your situation is much different but I accept the point you make.

I think the differences here is that its not just one isolated 'victim' who could have made it up or a single alleged incident, which seems to be what occurred in your case, but a long history of alleged abuses over many years. Now either this fellow is extremely unluckly that he has always been labeled as the fall guy, or there is something substantial to the allegations. Unfortunately it will be unlikely that we will ever know the truth.

I also understand the difficulty that those in some professions have with potential litigation. My wife is a physio who has the obligatory $10-$20M liability insurance coverage (just as well and its mandatory for her to practise) and I have friends in the medical field who have had to defend themselves against unsubstantiated legal claims.

Cheers ...

Yes I agree, dedja, if there were a string of such allegations, focussed on one alleged perpetrator, it does look highly suspicious.
However, there are a "me too" brigade who will join in when assertions go public, hoping to get some of the glory.. or some of the money...

The charge was"Pedophilia"

Try it against my kids and you would end up the same.

No regrets.

Dog_ger wrote:The charge was"Pedophilia"
Try it against my kids and you would end up the same.
No regrets.

I assume that's Paedophilia if translated in English instead of Yank lingo, and not someone who likes feet.
I'd probably do violence to one if I was sure he was one and not just accused of being one.

Do you have kids Psyber...?

Would you accuse them of making it up...?

You have no kids my friend.

I have 3 daughters and I've got to admit it would take a lot to hold me back if someone did anything to them ...

Dog_ger wrote:Do you have kids Psyber...?

Would you accuse them of making it up...?

You have no kids my friend.

You don't have to have kids to know that they are more than capable of making up the most horrendous accusations about people out of resentment or revenge (see my post above)...unfortunately there are also those who will assume guilt forevermore at the very mention of the word paedophile or even homosexual in association with someone even if they are eventually proved completely innocent.

Not for one moment saying that Mountford was innocent or guilty...only the judicial system can say that.

Regards
JAS

I didn't realise it was a crime to be a homosexual?

dedja wrote:I didn't realise it was a crime to be a homosexual?

At the time of the incident I quoted it was very much a crime in the military and would result in dishonourable dismissal with loss of gratuities and pension. It's only become legal (sort of) in recent years.

Regards
JAS

JAS wrote:

dedja wrote:I didn't realise it was a crime to be a homosexual?

At the time of the incident I quoted it was very much a crime in the military and would result in dishonourable dismissal with loss of gratuities and pension. It's only become legal (sort of) in recent years.

Regards
JAS

Sad isn't it what used to happen ... thankfully the world has moved on.

dedja wrote:

JAS wrote:

dedja wrote:I didn't realise it was a crime to be a homosexual?

At the time of the incident I quoted it was very much a crime in the military and would result in dishonourable dismissal with loss of gratuities and pension. It's only become legal (sort of) in recent years.

Regards
JAS

Sad isn't it what used to happen ... thankfully the world has moved on.

For once I agree with you...but as I said it's only 'sort of legal' even now. Technically/legally they're not allowed to discriminate or dismiss anyone for being homosexual...however...Queen's Regulations has always had and always will have the crime of 'Bringing the (Air Force, Army Navy) into disrepute'. It's been used as a fall back to get rid of anyone they consider undesirable who couldn't be got rid of any other way for decades if not far longer.

Regards
JAS