Paradox11
New Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 0
Why should she have to if she has no involvement?
She doesn't *have* to. It just seems logical to me that anyone who was wrongly connected to a murder would want to clear their name ASAP.
Easier said then done...
All she has to do is write a simple statement and release it to the media. Another poster(sorry I forget your name, sounds like Osaka) has already done this for her if she has a sudden case fo writer's block.
... and I don't think the average person could possibly know how they would react until they were in that exact same position or situation,...
Most everyone has at one time or another been accused of doing or being involved in something that they are innocent of, and know full well the feeling of outrage that comes along with that.
How many people would sit back and not speak out and defend themselves when wrongly implicated in something as serious as murder?
What person would think not to defend themselves? Hell, even guilty people proclaim their innocence right up to the electric chair.
and trying to commentate on it is futile.
Then why are you commentating on it? By your own logic, unless you have been implicated in a murder, you are in no place to defend TM.
We already know that affairs, cheating on spouses and lies and deception is common in our society.
Who is "we". I don't take this statement for granted.
just type 'affair' into google and it will bring up 3-4 dedicatd websites whereby you can hook up or connect with other people interested in said activity.
I don't accept random google searches as an authority on what is or is not common in our society. perhaps you could find some references to studies in peer reviewed journals that support your statement.
So lets not condemn people to a public stoning as a result. Whilst morally wrong, its not illegal and seems to be rife. By all means have a low opinion on people who carry out this activity, that is your right.
'Stoning' IS illegal, morally wrong and certainly not rife in Australian society. I absolutely have a low opinion of anyone who would subject another individual to such a torturous death in low opinion.
Sunday Mail's absolute blatant disregard for this woman's privacy is shocking and their total disregard of the repurcussions this story will have for her and her family is abhorent.
According to the story TM has freely admitted to the affair. I'm not sure how that undermines her right to privacy.
The way they even tried to sell the story by an 'exclusive' on the front page directing people to a double page spread on pages 4 & 5 is pure sensationalism.
Sensationalism is the currency of the mass media, but the facts reported that she had an affair with GBC and was extensively interviewed by the police are true.
They tried to pass it off as if it were a NEW story or development in the case when we all know they have known about it since day 1. They would have just been waiting for enough people to have told them that 'she confirmed the affair to the police' so as to protect their dirty behinds.
Central to the investigation my absolute **** !This is the only way they could have possibly justified printing the story to begin with.
Im not sure what you mean here or how it is relevant to the case.
TM is no doubt one of dozens of people who have been interviewed over this case, its standard procedure.
Agree, but I doubt the majority of the other people were having an affair with GBC.
Of course she was probably higher up the food chain and rightly so. just like the husband is always right at the very top of the food chain in cases like this
I'm not sure what this means. Are you talking about social status? How is this relevant?
Are you talking about murder specifically when you say "the husband is always right at the very top of the food chain in cases like this"?
They even bought in the 'crime editor' as author of the story so as to make it look even more sensational..what was wrong with the other two goons printing the story?? not a good enough title?? Not BREAKING NEWS enough??
I don't know. You accused me of being naive about the mass media in a previous post so I'm not sure why you're asking me this.
I don't know if she is involved anymore than they do, you can know 100% for sure that QPS wouldn't be telling them.
If you dont know if she is involved then why are you defending her?
How can I know "100% for sure that QPS wouldn't be telling them."?
Who is "them"? Do you mean the media?
We all know about it on this forum because we have been making it our business to know more about it but the whole state didnt know about it until yesterday and just why the hell should they know about it until it becomes clear whether she was involved in the murder of another human being!!!!!!
If we knew about it then the media knew about it. If the public did not know about it then surely this justifies the media in running a story about it.
And anyone who says "because its central to the investigation is kiddin themselves"...
Kidding themselves about what?
There are hundreds of bits of info about people and their lives and their movements that are probably 'central' to this investigation but do you see Sunday Mail writing about them all?
No, because the media are not psychics and dont know what the police haven't told them about.
Why?? cause it wasn't as good a 'story' as this one!!
Really? You think the affair is a bigger 'story' than who killed Allison?