🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:36:41 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:
>
>
>>I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
>>this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
>>turns out, he was in fact convicted.
>
>He certainly was although I'm sure it will be appealed.

Why so sure?  

>Until his conviction, though, there wasn't a difference with other
>cases. He was innocent until proven guilty. Had he been found not
>guilty, the damage would still have done.

If pigs had wings, they would fly.
This is the reality, these are the facts as we know them from the
material given: 
A 37 yr old dentist was accused, and convicted of sexually assaulting
a 22 yr. old married woman.  
When confronted, he lied to her husband and lied to the police.
In court, her story was deemed extremely credible, his story was
deemed not credible because of blatant inconsistencies.
It is also known generally that sexual abuse ranks high as a reason
for disciplinary actions and legal actions against medical/dental
practitioners.

>Before the conviction, how do you make a determination of when the
>name is reased?

I don't make these determinations, but this looks to be.. hm.. a sorta
red herring.   
See, instead of acknowledging the truth, you, as a group (if you see
the rest of the thread) attempt to shift the blame away from
yourselves; your fellow practitioner. You have been psychologically
conditioned to do so: ("the woman dreamed the event", "it is the
newspapers fault for printing his name before the end of the trial",
"Does Nadine hate men or only heterosexual men".lol)..  All attempts
to SHIFT THE BLAME away from the perpetrator onto 
1) the victim  2)reporters  3) me.
What next?  Who or what will be blamed next in the attempt to avoid
the reality of events as they have been presented?


>In case you may be wondering, no I don't think the victim's name
>should be released unless it is the victim's decision to do so.
>