Here are a few of the many news reports, Freethinker.

Thank you.

You know me, Freethinker. I aim to please. You were right to ask for the sites and I didn't mind looking them up.

Ya cant always belive what you read. CNN says he climbed thru the bedroom window and the Post says the kitchen window. Whats up with that? If thats the only thing not lining up they did a better job then they normally do...

You don't want to be attacked, don't post like such a shithead

What part of "Feel free to continue attacking me..." didn't you get? Obviously I don't care whether you attack me or not. I'd prefer that you attacked what I'm saying rather than making it personal and calling me an asshole and a shithead, but if that's your thing, go for it.

No-one else seemed bothered by me expressing my opinions - I thought that's what this place was here for?

Anyway I fail to see how me saying some people's declarations in this thread make me feel nauseous is any different to some people saying they think the neighbour deserved what he got - except that I am saying it to their faces *shrugs*

Okay, the next time you post as you did, indicating that some people, (said right after one of my posts) make you nauseous, I will just post that some people (posted right after your post) are assholes. (Shrugs right back at you.)

Okay, the next time you post as you did, indicating that some people, (said right after one of my posts) make you nauseous, I will just post that some people (posted right after your post) are assholes. (Shrugs right back at you.)

Um, I hate to detract from your position that this thread is somehow all about you and what you think, but the post where I said some people's responses made me sick was NOT immediately after a post of yours.

You may be one of the people who share the ethical positions that make me feel ill (gee sorry for expressing my opinion and offending you), but you're not the only one, and I did not single you out.

You on the other hand did NOT post that "some people" are assholes, you specifically singled me out as being an asshole.

So in summary, your opinion is that anyone who posts somewhere after you do in a thread and disagrees with you or posts an opinion you don't like is an asshole. Got it.

Do you have any interest in discussing the actual topic of this thread, or do you just want to bash me because my screen name offends you? If so please take it to another forum. I'm here to talk about my opinions on the thread topic.

babyjesus,
one of us doesn't seem able to let it go and it isn't me. If you look at the series of posts between us you will see that my posts are only in response to yours. In between your posts I have continued to discuss the thread topic with the other posters. It is only when you address me or comment on me that I respond. Perhaps it is you who is unable to discuss the thread topic.

Regarding your so-called 'parents' comment, since I was the one who first mentioned the different stances of parents vs non-parents, yes, it was a reference to me no matter how you now try to back pedal.

I have demonstrated that I prefer talking about the topic. You seem fixated on talking about me. Get over it.

Posted by thebabyjesus (9/2/06 2:27 am)

The so-called 'parents' in this thread make me sick. __________________________________________________ _______
Posted by frogger in response to the above post. (9/2/05 6:33 am)

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebabyjesusThe so-called 'parents' in this thread make me sick.

People who sign on as, thebabyjesus, make me sick. I recall your post in the picture of Jesus fellating a pig thread. I didn't think much of you then and I think even less of you nowl (9/2/06)
__________________________________________________ ___________
Posted by thebabyjesus (0/5/06 5:48 am)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FroggerPeople who sign on as, thebabyjesus, make me sick. I recall your post in the picture of Jesus fellating a pig thread. I didn't think much of you then and I think even less of you nowl

Feel free to continue to attack me based on my name and a single tongue-in-cheek post from another unreleated thread rather than adressing what I actually said here if that makes you feel better
Posted by frogger 9/5/06 9:23 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebabyjesusFeel free to continue to attack me based on my name and a single tongue-in-cheek post from another unreleated thread rather than adressing what I actually said here if that makes you feel better

I'm not basing my opinion of you solely on your name even though it is needlessly provocative. I am basing it on your post in which you attacked those who disagreed with you. I will continue to consider you an asshole so long as you continue to post as you did. You don't want to be attacked, don't post like such a shithead.

Posted by thebabyjesus (9/6/06 2”19 am)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FroggerYou don't want to be attacked, don't post like such a shithead

What part of "Feel free to continue attacking me..." didn't you get? Obviously I don't care whether you attack me or not. I'd prefer that you attacked what I'm saying rather than making it personal and calling me an asshole and a shithead, but if that's your thing, go for it.

No-one else seemed bothered by me expressing my opinions - I thought that's what this place was here for?

Anyway I fail to see how me saying some people's declarations in this thread make me feel nauseous is any different to some people saying they think the neighbour deserved what he got - except that I am saying it to their faces *shrugs*
__________________________________________________ ________________

It is only when you address me or comment on me that I respond

Well, no. That's completely untrue, as you demonstrated with your quotes. Actually you responded to me with a direct comment about me when I had not mentioned you or commented about you specifically or quoted you at all. I have not made a personal attack on anyone, including you, despite your direct, personal attacks on my character. But that's okay, I don't mind.

Regarding your so-called 'parents' comment, since I was the one who first mentioned the different stances of parents vs non-parents, yes, it was a reference to me

You might think that, but no, it wasn't. Once aagin, this thread is not about you. Several people have posted comments about being parents and wanting to kill people, I responded with my feelings about their thoughts without mentioning anyone specific or making personal comments about anyone. Unlike you.

So, I'm sorry you don't feel that I am unable to "let go" of your personal attack on me, but you are the one that made it a personal attack, not me. Maybe I don't like it when I make a legitimate statement about my thoughts and feelings on a topic and someoone feels the need to then attack me on a personal level.

Well, the baby part of your name is right anyway.

Get over it.

The topic is about a lawyer who killed his neighbor, not thebabyjesus.

The topic is about a lawyer who killed his neighbor, not thebabyjesus

That's pretty funny, since you didn't address any of the issues that I raised, but rather preferred just to call me an asshole.

So, just to get this straight, when you call me a shithead and refuse to discuss the topics I mentioned, you're sticking to the subject, but when I complain about your personal attacks, I'm being a baby?

Once again, feel free to continue attacking me personally rather than addressing what I said.

Ooh, is this what they mean by deja vu?

And just what do you think should be done with the lawyer, baby?

And just what do you think should be done with the lawyer, baby?

As I've already stated, I think he should go to jail

Jail, yes. Prison, no.

Jail, yes. Prison, no.

Where I come from, they're more or less the same thing.

If by jail you mean temporary detention (where he is now), then I am confident (and hope) that it will lead to the more permanent form of incarceration that he deserves for the crime he committed, despite the negative impact that will have on his family.

While jail & prison may both be defined as incarceration, "jail" generally is accepted to describe a temporary lockup at the local or county level, and prison is a state or federal lockup and typically calls for a more permanant address change.

Just an update on the story. CNN is calling it a "mistaken slaying" which sounds a bit presumptive from reading the article.


http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/31/molester.mistake.ap/index.html

Just an update on the story. CNN is calling it a "mistaken slaying" which sounds a bit presumptive from reading the article.

Thanks for the update Leper. Presumptive in what way?

Soooo, the wife was suffering from post partum depression and told her husband a mistruth?

They said there was no proof of molestation... now the guy is going to jail for 12 years and another is dead.

Heres the original article

http://web.archive.org/web/20060901205955/http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/31/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

If it was a mistake,its VERY SAD.........

Thanks for the update Leper. Presumptive in what way?

It just sounds like they don't know if the lawyer was mistaken or not. The authorities simply say there is not enough evidence on the molestation charge. That doesn't mean nothing happened.

It just sounds like they don't know if the lawyer was mistaken or not.

They do refer to it as a "mistaken" slaying.


The authorities simply say there is not enough evidence on the molestation charge.

Actually they didn't say they didn't have "enough" evidence....they said they didn't have any evidence at all to back up the molestation claim.


That doesn't mean nothing happened.

From a legal standpoint, that's exactly what it means.

From a legal standpoint, that's exactly what it means.

Which means we were right from the get go!:thumbs:

They do refer to it as a "mistaken" slaying..

Right. That's what I'm objecting to.




Actually they didn't say they didn't have "enough" evidence....they said they didn't have any evidence at all to back up the molestation claim..

It just sounds as if the wife had some basis for believing so. If your spouse told you that she thought someone was molesting your daughter, but law enforcement said they didn't have any evidence, who would you tend to believe?

Anyways, they didn't address why the wife believed the neighbor was molesting their daughter in the article. Until they address that issue, I think calling this guy "mistaken" is somewhat presumptuous.

The only way that they could call the parents "mistaken" with confidence is if the wife acknowledged she lied.



From a legal standpoint, that's exactly what it means.

I'm not talking from a legal standpoint. The law simply cares if they can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal charges are thrown out all of the time because there isn't "any evidence" to support a criminal charge. That of course does not mean nothing happened. That's why legal findings are "guilty" or "not guilty" rather than "guilty" or "innocent." Legally speaking, there is no difference between someone who is possibly guilty and someone who is innocent. (unless you're trying to overturn a guilty verdict)

For example, if someone grabbed your two-year old daughter and stuck his hand down her pants and then released her, you would have "no evidence." Did a crime happen? Of course. Is there evidence of the crime? Unless there's a witness, no. Thus, legally-speaking, there was no crime.

The reality of law enforcement for child pedophilia is that there is no way to charge anyone unless there is physical evidence or there is a witness. The child's testimony alone is almost never enough, particularly when you're talking about a two-year old. That is a reality which I'm sure the lawyer realized.

P.S. I re-read the article again, just to be sure I'm not missing anything. The interesting thing I saw this time around is that the judge says "Something was set into motion in this man's mind -- real or perceived. It was very real to him." From that statement, it's clear that even the sentencing judge doesn't know if the molestation was "real" or "percieved." How the reporter in this story can feel certain one way or another when the sentencing judge doesn't, I do not know.

It just sounds as if the wife had some basis for believing so. If your spouse told you that she thought someone was molesting your daughter, but law enforcement said they didn't have any evidence, who would you tend to believe?

That would depend on what my spouse had related to me.


Anyways, they didn't address why the wife believed the neighbor was molesting their daughter in the article.

Except insofar as the article stated she wasn't "cooperating" with the investigation, and her doctor said she was suffering from postpartum depression.


Until they address that issue, I think calling this guy "mistaken" is somewhat presumptuous.

I can see your point there. I tend to agree as well, since there is a legal definition of "mistake" when used as a defense to criminal prosecution, and if it was used in this case, the jury didn't buy it.


The only way that they could call the parents "mistaken" with confidence is if the wife acknowledged she lied.

If they're not talking, we'll never know what passed between the parents in this case. Perhaps it will come out during the civil trials if the lawsuits go forward.


If someone grabbed your two-year old daughter and stuck his hand down her pants and then released her, you would have "no evidence." Did a crime happen? Of course. Is there evidence of the crime? Unless there's a witness, no.

Leper, you seem to be saying here that despite the fact that we have no evidence that a crime was committed by the deceased in this case, we should somehow give consideration to the thought that a crime may have been committed anyway. IMO, the statements attributed to the parents of the little girl regarding the fact that the dead guy was a molester, should be given no credence whatsoever. Until the parents come forward with whatever evidence they may have, this should be treated as the crime it was. A man was attacked and stabbed to death in his bed. I'm not sure I think 12 years in prison is enough.

and her doctor said she was suffering from postpartum depression.

Once again, no idea why the reporter included this fact except to try to imply that the mother was crazy....another reason why I don't like the way this story is written. Of course, last I read about it, postpartum depression does not cause people to hallucinate.



I can see your point there. I tend to agree as well, since there is a legal definition of "mistake" when used as a defense to criminal prosecution, and if it was used in this case, the jury didn't buy it.

There was no jury. He pled guilty to a lesser charge.



If they're not talking, we'll never know what passed between the parents in this case. Perhaps it will come out during the civil trials if the lawsuits go forward.

Well, what they have said is that the two-year old somehow indicated to the mother that there was "inappropriate contact." The mother told the father over the phone (she was out of town with the daughter at the time) and the father immediately went over to the neighbor and stabbed the neighbor to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathon_Edington

Cooperating with an "investigation" may very well be inadvisable for any defendant or any defendant's wife, since an "investigation" usually involves police trying to assemble enough evidence to present a rock solid case against the defendant.


Leper, you seem to be saying here that despite the fact that we have no evidence that a crime was committed by the deceased in this case, we should somehow give consideration to the thought that a crime may have been committed anyway.

Yes, I think it's reasonable to believe a crime may have been committed even though police say there is "no evidence." Many, if not most, crimes are committed without leaving any evidence.

A man was attacked and stabbed to death in his bed. I'm not sure I think 12 years in prison is enough.

Maybe. It also might be too much.

As my responses indicate, I am sypathetic to the father in this case. No doubt he acted illegally and should be punished, but I think he was reasonable to rely on statements by his wife about the neighbor, who already had a questionable history, molesting his child. If you re-read the original article, the father and mother had already been complaining to the police and landlord about the victim exposing himself...in addition, there is another neighbor who said the victim was out in public, intoxicated and cursing at children, and the victim had run his car into a neighbor's house and had an arrest record for DUI. Thus, before the wife even said anything, the father already had reason to believe the guy was a pervert and alcoholic.

Although it must be discouraged by the law, I am an advocate of vigilante justice. Sometimes an individual is certain that a crime was committed but will be unable to convince twelve strangers that a crime was committed...that is when vigilante justice is appropriate. And vigilante justice can range from punching someone to stabbing someone to death.

Once again, no idea why the reporter included this fact except to try to imply that the mother was crazy....another reason why I don't like the way this story is written. Of course, last I read about it, postpartum depression does not cause people to hallucinate.

Perhaps not, but according to another article:

"Earlier, standing before Judge Richard Comerford Jr. to be sentenced on the charge of first-degree manslaughter, Edington referred only to a letter he had written the judge when asked if he had anything to say. In that letter, Edington takes responsibility for killing 59-year-old Barry James, but adds that he fatally stabbed James on Aug. 28, 2006, after his wife told him James had molested their 2-year-old daughter.

He wrote he totally trusts and believes his spouse. The letter also notes that Christina Edington refuses to work because she believes she has multiple sclerosis, even though doctors have not been able to confirm that."

Now, I don't know if this woman is having some mental issues or not, but I feel pretty confident I wouldn't kill a man based on a phone call from her.


There was no jury. He pled guilty to a lesser charge.

In that case, the judge didn't buy it. :)


Well, what they have said is that the two-year old somehow indicated to the mother that there was "inappropriate contact." The mother told the father over the phone (she was out of town with the daughter at the time) and the father immediately went over to the neighbor and stabbed the neighbor to death.

From the above article:

"State's Attorney Jonathan Benedict said the Edingtons, who were renting the Colony Street house, had been vacationing in Rhode Island. On Aug. 28, Jonathon Edington left for home before his wife and two children. He said when Edington got home, he received a call from his wife who told him their daughter just told her that she had been abused by James in their home and in his car.

That call, police said, triggered Edington's attack on James."

Also from the article:

"But Christina Edington filed a complaint, claiming James had molested their daughter only after James' death and her husband's arrest.

In the complaint, she contended her daughter told her she didn't want to go home from Rhode Island. When the child was asked why she didn't want to go home, the complaint states she motioned to her groin with two fingers and allegedly said, "Barry is this."

The complaint also states the girl told her mother that James had come into her room and molested her "on starry nights."


Yes, I think it's reasonable to believe a crime may have been committed even though police say there is "no evidence." Many, if not most, crimes are committed without leaving any evidence.

What about evidence that indicates the deceased didn't molest the little girl?

Again, from the above article:

"Benedict said Fairfield police conducted an intensive investigation into Christina Edington's claims and determined it was improbable that James, who was diabetic and couldn't walk without leg braces, could have pulled himself up the 4 feet to the Edington daughter's window, crawled in and molested the girl while her parents were home.

Christina Edington, who had a newborn in addition to her daughter, stayed home during the day. At the time, Edington was working part time so he could be home and help his wife, police said.

'It appears to be a tragic figment of her imagination,' the prosecutor said of the wife's molestation claims".


As my responses indicate, I am sympathetic to the father in this case.

I can tell. :)


No doubt he acted illegally and should be punished, but I think he was reasonable to rely on statements by his wife about the neighbor, who already had a questionable history, molesting his child.

I don't think that was reasonable at all. If we believe all news reports, his wife is a little "questionable" herself.


If you re-read the original article, the father and mother had already been complaining to the police and landlord about the victim exposing himself...

Well, I guess we don't really know what happened, but according to the article above:

"Benedict said sometime earlier Christina Edington had complained to Fairfield police that, from her kitchen window, she could see James wearing only underwear in his bedroom. He said police went to the James home and Barry James agreed to keep the blinds down in his room."

That's a far cry from "exposing yourself", and even farther from being a "pervert".


in addition, there is another neighbor who said the victim was out in public, intoxicated and cursing at children, and the victim had run his car into a neighbor's house and had an arrest record for DUI.

I got a DUI citation in 1989...I hope you don't think that makes me a child molester.


Thus, before the wife even said anything, the father already had reason to believe the guy was a pervert and alcoholic.

Alcoholic maybe...pervert? Not based on what I've read.

There is another perspective on the dead man...

"As if the brutality of your act were not enough, it got worse," said James' sister, Charlene Benoit. 'At our instructions, our family and friends turned to the local newspapers to read Barry's obituary. We crafted it to celebrate his life and accomplishments as well as provide details of his wake and funeral.

But this, too, was destroyed as we were met with the horror of banner headlines of your unfounded claims. As if taking his flesh were not enough, you went after his good name with your twisted accusations."

Added her husband, Robert Benoit: "The Fairfield police spent hundreds of hours trying to find the truth of those vile accusations that you made. And the truth they found was that the accusations were, in the words of the state's attorney, bogus. Whatever those twisted and delusional thoughts that were put into your head, you knew they were false, you knew they were fantasies. You should have known better."


Although it must be discouraged by the law, I am an advocate of vigilante justice. Sometimes an individual is certain that a crime was committed but will be unable to convince twelve strangers that a crime was committed...that is when vigilante justice is appropriate. And vigilante justice can range from punching someone to stabbing someone to death.

Vigilante justice is never appropriate. We have laws specifically to prevent men from making it up as they go along. This case is exactly why vigilante justice doesn't work.

The letter also notes that Christina Edington refuses to work because she believes she has multiple sclerosis, even though doctors have not been able to confirm that.

Now, I don't know if this woman is having some mental issues or not, but I feel pretty confident I wouldn't kill a man based on a phone call from her.

Perhaps. Sounds like her husband would be in the best position to judge.

"But Christina Edington filed a complaint, claiming James had molested their daughter only after James' death and her husband's arrest.

What's the point?

In the complaint, she contended her daughter told her she didn't want to go home from Rhode Island. When the child was asked why she didn't want to go home, the complaint states she motioned to her groin with two fingers and allegedly said, "Barry is this."

The complaint also states the girl told her mother that James had come into her room and molested her "on starry nights."

That is pretty alarming to hear from your 2-year old daughter, is it not?



"Benedict said Fairfield police conducted an intensive investigation into Christina Edington's claims and determined it was improbable that James, who was diabetic and couldn't walk without leg braces

Interesting. Diabetics aren't supposed to drink ANY alcohol...

So this leg-braced diabetic is prancing around in his kitchen in his underwear, yelling obsenities at children, wrecking his car into people's houses, etc.? And then someone concluded he can't climb through a window 4 feet off the ground? That doesn't really jive to me. Apparently the father thought it was possible. Or is he crazy too?

That's a far cry from "exposing yourself", and even farther from being a "pervert".

I was simply using the same terminology from the original article. Why that reporter used a term like "exposing," I don't know, but perhaps that reporter used a different source. You don't provide the source in your quote so I can't really tell if it's operating with bias or not. However, sane people don't call the police over a person in their underwear.....I know, you're arguing that the wife may be nutty, but it's not just the wife who has been witnessing "bizarre" behavior from the victim.

I got a DUI citation in 1989...I hope you don't think that makes me a child molester.

Not at all. It tends to indicate some past problems with alcohol abuse tho. Of course, if you also crash your car into a neighbor's house and yell at some local children while intoxicated and pick up a DUI in a short time frame, and then I will start passing some judgment. The reason I bring this up is that serious criminals often have a substance abuse problem.

Vigilante justice is never appropriate. We have laws specifically to prevent men from making it up as they go along. This case is exactly why vigilante justice doesn't work.

I disagree. Vigilante justice is often the only way you can have justice. If someone gropes your wife right in front of you and you know the police won't be able to damn thing about it, then you should kick the guy's ass. That's vigilante justice of a lesser sort, and a form I think most people support. I also recommend a movie that touches the idea of vigilante justince: "In the Bedroom."

As for this case, we will never really know. It's between the guy and his wife, but you have to believe that SOMEthing was behind an intelligent law-abiding fellow slaughtering his next door neighbor. But whether it was a nutty wife or a molesting neighbor we will never really know. Either way, i don't disagree with the 12-year sentence...I simply disagree with the one-sided reporting in the article.

It just sounds as if the wife had some basis for believing so. If your spouse told you that she thought someone was molesting your daughter, but law enforcement said they didn't have any evidence, who would you tend to believe?

Uhhhhhhhhh......I might well believe my wife's version.

But what I would not do is go next door and brutally stab someone to death based on that belief.

Originally Posted by Vilepagan
The letter also notes that Christina Edington refuses to work because she believes she has multiple sclerosis, even though doctors have not been able to confirm that.

Now, I don't know if this woman is having some mental issues or not, but I feel pretty confident I wouldn't kill a man based on a phone call from her.

Perhaps. Sounds like her husband would be in the best position to judge..

But obviously he wasn't and that's the problem.

Perhaps. Sounds like her husband would be in the best position to judge.

Given the husband's actions on the basis of a phone call, I don't think much of his ability to "judge" anything reasonably.


What's the point?

The point is that a reasonable reaction to the news that your daughter had been molested would be to call the police immediately. Neither parent did that, and it makes them both look suspect.


That is pretty alarming to hear from your 2-year old daughter, is it not?

Sure.


Interesting. Diabetics aren't supposed to drink ANY alcohol...

Didn't slow down my father any.


So this leg-braced diabetic is prancing around in his kitchen in his underwear,..

The report didn't say anything about "prancing", and he was in his bedroom when he was seen in his underwear...how unreasonable of him.


yelling obsenities at children, wrecking his car into people's houses, etc.?

I believe he hit a garage, not someone's house.


And then someone concluded he can't climb through a window 4 feet off the ground? That doesn't really jive to me.

It made sense to the investigating officers.


Apparently the father thought it was possible. Or is he crazy too?

Well, he thought it was reasonable to stab a man to death based on a phone call from his wife. He made no attempt to verify the allegations. He made no attempt to call the police. He made no attempt to hide his crime. Does he sound completely rational to you?


You don't provide the source in your quote so I can't really tell if it's operating with bias or not.

I did. I posted the link in my previous post.


However, sane people don't call the police over a person in their underwear.....

I agree.


I know, you're arguing that the wife may be nutty, but it's not just the wife who has been witnessing "bizarre" behavior from the victim.

I have no idea if she's "nutty" as you put it, but there's an awful lot of strangeness in the behavior of both parents.


I disagree. Vigilante justice is often the only way you can have justice. If someone gropes your wife right in front of you and you know the police won't be able to damn thing about it, then you should kick the guy's ass.

Then you'd be guilty of battery.


That's vigilante justice of a lesser sort, and a form I think most people support.

You do, but I don't think most people would agree.

Interesting. Diabetics aren't supposed to drink ANY alcohol...

So this leg-braced diabetic is prancing around in his kitchen in his underwear, yelling obsenities at children, wrecking his car into people's houses, etc.? And then someone concluded he can't climb through a window 4 feet off the ground? That doesn't really jive to me. Apparently the father thought it was possible. Or is he crazy too?
Nicely done, counselor... ;)

Vigilante justice is often the only way you can have justice. If someone gropes your wife right in front of you and you know the police won't be able to damn thing about it, then you should kick the guy's ass.
Then you'd be guilty of battery.
Considering the alternative, I'd rather be guilty of battery. If anyone touched my girlfriend like that (without paying me first, of course), then I could almost guarantee they'd be eating their meals through a straw.

A better question is, who wouldn't kick that guy's ass? What's your defense for not doing anything? "Oh, but honey - I dialed 911....the cops should be here any minute to fill out the requisite paperwork. I'm sure between the two of us, we can give a wicked description of the offender." "Bu...bu...but he was ATTACKING me!" "Oh, stop worrying, sweet cheeks - Mr. Grabby will get a first class ride through the criminal justice system....besides, if I had harmed him, then that could be considered, under completely unrealistic circumstances, that is - BaTteRy!!!11"......

"Uhhh, here's your ring back."

I mean, barring her testimony, you may have a point. With it, battery wouldn't even play a role here.

I sincerely hope there's not a man alive who wouldn't kick his ass.

The point is that a reasonable reaction to the news that your daughter had been molested would be to call the police immediately. Neither parent did that, and it makes them both look suspect.I believe it.

I think I'm a fairly reasonable person and I would not necessarily call the police, particularly if I thought there definitely was not enough evidence to convict the guy.

Moreover, I would be very concerned as a parent to expose my two-year old to the stress of an investigation and trial over child molestation.

Taking the matter into my own hands would most certainly be an option in my book.

Didn't slow down my father any.

I believe it; I know someone who did the same...but she was a selfish and careless person.

Does that change the fact that it's irrational and careless behavior?

The report didn't say anything about "prancing", and he was in his bedroom when he was seen in his underwear...how unreasonable of him.

From the original article:

"Police had gone to the neighborhood before, when Edington called to complain that he could see James through a window, police said. "Either he was partly clothed or revealed parts of his anatomy that were inappropriate," MacNamara said.

Edington's landlord, Karen Brophy, told the Post that Edington's wife had told her in a phone call about three months ago that James had exposed himself." (emphasis added)

http://web.archive.org/web/20060901205955/http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/31/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I believe he hit a garage, not someone's house.

Again, from the original article:

"He had some bizarre behavior over the last month," said Darrell Maynard, a neighbor. "He drove his car through his garage, hit the other neighbor's building."


It made sense to the investigating officers.

And I'm sure they put a lot of time into the investigation of a dead man and defense of a man charged with murder.



He made no attempt to verify the allegations.

No idea how you know that.

He made no attempt to call the police. He made no attempt to hide his crime. Does he sound completely rational to you?

Under the right circumstances, such as where his daughter was molested, that sounds reasonable to me.


I did. I posted the link in my previous post.

Never did find that link.



I have no idea if she's "nutty" as you put it, but there's an awful lot of strangeness in the behavior of both parents.?

Well, both parents with their clean histories and a neighbor all appear to have witnessed incriminating behavior from the victim. Now, I don't know about you, but three people complaining about alarming behavior is enough to make me suspicious of the victim.

Then you'd be guilty of battery.

Maybe, but I'd be happy to take that charge to a jury. Either way, it would at most be a small price to pay for true justice.



You do, but I don't think most people would agree.

As of this post, according to allforums posters, 14 out of 17 would agree with me (excluding our votes). You still want to stick by this statement?

As of this post, according to allforums posters, 14 out of 17 would agree with me (excluding our votes). You still want to stick by this statement?
:rolleyes:
I knew there was a method to your madness.

I just know if this had happened to my daughter -I'd probably go after him - children are defenseless and an adult has complete power - these child predators are NEVER cured.

IF that 2 year old was harmed by this scum - I hope they go easy on this father.

AND, sexual assault on a TWO YEAR OLD is violence.:mad:

I imagine that if it turns out his child was abused, the punishment will be relatively light for him.

I just know if this had happened to my daughter -I'd probably go after him - children are defenseless and an adult has complete power - these child predators are NEVER cured.

IF that 2 year old was harmed by this scum - I hope they go easy on this father.

AND, sexual assault on a TWO YEAR OLD is violence.:mad:

Yeah, the whole point here is that the evidence is at best questionable.

You've already labelled the guy as scum on the word of a toddler. Hope no two year old babbles incoherent stuff to some dysfunctional parents in your neighbourhood. Could be some male in your family that dies.

You need a shoe for each foot.

I imagine that if it turns out his child was abused, the punishment will be relatively light for him.

12 years is relatively light for having taken the life of another based on the word of a two year old. Hope he still thinks it was worth it. He whole family is ruined because he acted like an imbecile.

12 years is relatively light for having taken the life of another based on the word of a two year old. Hope he still thinks it was worth it. He whole family is ruined because he acted like an imbecile.

That is true.

Yeah, the whole point here is that the evidence is at best questionable.

You've already labelled the guy as scum on the word of a toddler. Hope no two year old babbles incoherent stuff to some dysfunctional parents in your neighbourhood. Could be some male in your family that dies.

You need a shoe for each foot.


hey I said "IF" in my post - and I doubt if incoherent babbling from the 2 year old was the cause for this act - :rolleyes: -I'd rather go barefooted , thank you:thumbs:

I imagine that if it turns out his child was abused, the punishment will be relatively light for him.

I hope your right.

hey I said "IF" in my post - and I doubt if incoherent babbling from the 2 year old was the cause for this act - :rolleyes: -I'd rather go barefooted , thank you:thumbs:

But sassy there is no "if". The case is old. Leper did an update. They can't prove the sexual assault and the guy is gonna do 12. He killed another human being based on the speculation of his wife.

But sassy there is no "if". The case is old. Leper did an update. They can't prove the sexual assault and the guy is gonna do 12. He killed another human being based on the speculation of his wife.

Yeah, the WHOLE thing is sad - but some fathers are very protective of their little girls - and sometimes cool heads do not prevail.

But sassy there is no "if". The case is old. Leper did an update. They can't prove the sexual assault and the guy is gonna do 12. He killed another human being based on the speculation of his wife.

Ah, unfortunate.

12 years is relatively light for having taken the life of another based on the word of a two year old.

The word of a two-year old describing a sexual act is pretty convincing. That's not something a two-year old can make up.

The word of a two-year old describing a sexual act is pretty convincing. That's not something a two-year old can make up.


They do not yet have the comprehension nor the vocabulary to communicate such a thing. Here is what a typical 24 month old child is capable of if they have normal development.
Can name a number of objects common to his surroundings
Is able to use at least two prepositions, usually chosen from the following: in, on, under
Combines words into a short sentence-largely noun-verb combinations (mean) length of sentences is given as 1.2 words
Approximately 2/3 of what child says should be intelligible
Vocabulary of approximately 150-300 wordsRhythm and fluency often poorVolume and pitch of voice not yet well-controlled
Can use two pronouns correctly: I, me, you, although me and I are often confused
My and mine are beginning to emerge
Responds to such commands as "show me your eyes (nose, mouth, hair)"

The woman is some poor emotionally challenged soul whose spouse did not have the rational to know that she desparately needed help. The poor child is all I can say, the kid is doomed.

They do not yet have the comprehension nor the vocabulary to communicate such a thing. Here is what a typical 24 month old child is capable of if they have normal development.

The kid is called a "two-year old" not a "24 month old". A "two-year old" is anywhere from 24-36 months old, and there is a big difference between a 24 month old and a 36 month old. Besides that, the kid was apparently growing up in a nurturing environment....at the very least, the dad had a reputation as a loving father and the news reporters could not dig up any dirt more than the wife had "postpartum depression." That means this two-year old is probably better off than your "typical" two-year old.

The woman is some poor emotionally challenged soul whose spouse did not have the rational to know that she desparately needed help. The poor child is all I can say, the kid is doomed.

You have no basis for this statement.

No jury will convict him if in fact the guy was molesting his kid. If I was on such a jury - there is nothing the judge could instruct that would make me return guilty..

If the district attorney was doing their job right they would try the hardest to get the molestation case suppressed as any type of evidence. Not even have it whispered.

From Fox news:

"We have no indication it's [the molestation] true or not true," Capt. Gary MacNamara said on August 30th.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,211323,00.html

The fact is nobody knows. So my point remains: The reporter misrepresented the story by using the word "mistaken."

I think I knew way more than 300 words at age two. Then again, I started speaking at 7 months....

I think Sal is making the most sense here... Don't ask me why. :p

But Leper, you are right about the word of a small child concerning sexual acts. However, do we know what the toddler said to her mother? Perhaps she said something that she had heard on TV without knowing what it meant, and the mother extrapolated from there. There just isn't enough information to come to a conclusion.

They do not yet have the comprehension nor the vocabulary to communicate such a thing. Here is what a typical 24 month old child is capable of if they have normal development.


The woman is some poor emotionally challenged soul whose spouse did not have the rational to know that she desparately needed help. The poor child is all I can say, the kid is doomed.


Oh really? Do you know this as fact about the wife?:rolleyes:

Oh really? Do you know this as fact about the wife?:rolleyes:
Well the thing is I remember the first article and she didn't sound too stable at the time. Then her husband climbs into the neighbours window and stabs the guy to death because his wife told him the two year old had complained that he touched her "in an inappropriate manner."

How stable does this happy little nest sound to you? Seriously sassy? Would you want your husband to climb into your neighbours window and stab him to death on the word of your two year old.

Could there not be other avenues here that should be explored FIRST. Like even family counselling?

Juuuust a shot in the dark at a possible better strategy. :D

Well the thing is I remember the first article and she didn't sound too stable at the time. Then her husband climbs into the neighbours window and stabs the guy to death because his wife told him the two year old had complained that he touched her "in an inappropriate manner."

How stable does this happy little nest sound to you? Seriously sassy? Would you want your husband to climb into your neighbours window and stab him to death on the word of your two year old.

Could there not be other avenues here that should be explored FIRST. Like even family counselling?

Juuuust a shot in the dark at a possible better strategy. :D

Naw - I'd want him to give him a good ass whippin though. Sal duck, if a 2 year old complains a man touched her in that area that should be investigated - and not just with family counseling. Hopefully to stop him from harming another child - :confused:

Naw - I'd want him to give him a good ass whippin though. Sal duck, if a 2 year old complains a man touched her in that area that should be investigated - and not just with family counseling. Hopefully to stop him from harming another child - :confused:

Agreed. And also because if he didn't do it, then something else is going. :)

I'm more inclined to believe the mother here. Sure, some of the shit that's been said (or reported, more accurately) raises an eyebrow, but I can't help but think that on one hand you have an educated man whose job is to sift through shit on a daily basis, who knows the law, and MARRIED this supposed "whack", and on the other......you have a man with a reputation for having anger issues, drinking, and exposing himself.

Would it have been better to let the law do their job (and let's just say their "job's" ineffective when it comes to prosecuting child molesters)? Well, without doubt. This guy's looking at 12 years, and for what....? Murdering a scumbag? Of course, it wasn't worth it.

...and on the other......you have a man with a reputation for having anger issues, drinking, and exposing himself.

Well, we have no credible evidence to suggest he "exposed himself" at all. He was apparently seen in his own bedroom wearing underwear by the mother in this case. Now, if you accept that the deceased had some anger management issues and perhaps a bit of a problem with alcohol, we could be talking about a lot of people. You've had your share of alcohol related problems and you've been known to express your anger quite vociferously here. Does that make you a "scumbag" who deserves to be murdered?

Well, we have no credible evidence to suggest he "exposed himself" at all. He was apparently seen in his own bedroom wearing underwear by the mother in this case. Now, if you accept that the deceased had some anger management issues and perhaps a bit of a problem with alcohol, we could be talking about a lot of people. You've had your share of alcohol related problems and you've been known to express your anger quite vociferously here. Does that make you a "scumbag" who deserves to be murdered?
Touche', Vile.