[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: before we march w/ pitchforks and flaming torches...



Still, to an outsider it will look like pretty thin, inconclusive evidence
that he is innocent.  The most it says is that, yes, he did notify IWF a
couple of times.  So what.  They haven't PUBLICALLY retracted anything.   How
does his sending a report to IWF "prove" that he wasn't downloading porn at
the same time?

If we have to go through the gyrations you did below to tease out why this
exonerates Pete, I'm sorry, but the Howard Sterns of the world are not going
to buy it.  It will, at this time, simply remind them of the story and give
them an excuse to ridicule Pete.

I would much rather start the media blitz when either Scotland Yard or Pete's
lawyers make a statement that forensic examination of his computers and ISP
records supports his statements and that no charges are being brought.  That,
in conjunction with his contacting IWF and ADB, etc. is the ammo that we
should hold on to.  It has to be short, conclusive, and convincing for the
press to "get it."

Thanks for the word on Berlin '72.  I guess I'm doomed to never hear a good
full show of Lifehouse material other than Young Vic :-(

Ken in MD


>>> sschrade@ascpl.lib.oh.us 01/30/03 12:37PM >>>
> To play devil's advocate, the fact that Pete e-mailed
> them last fall doesn't prove anything about his
> innocence - and people with some distance from this
> case will not see it exonerating him.

What you say is true, however, yesterday's events now prove that Pete
& his lawyers are actively going to fight these allegations which, for
the first time, says to me that Pete:

A) Is not a pedophile
B) Most likely does not have any incriminating evidence on his computer
C) Was not lying or making up stories about taking an active role in
   combating child porn

Before yesterday we all *hoped* the above was true, but with the silence
from Pete's camp, no one could say for sure.

Now, it seems like the evidence, rather than pointing to guilt, is now
pointing to innocence (of Pete being a pedophile - he's still guilty of
using his credit card to access the site).

> If you must write, do so with tact and politeness.

Agreed.  No "I told you so's" or angry letters demanding apologies.

> I'm going to wait for additional positive developments

Fair enough.  I've emailed the Howard Stern show & some ABC News outlets.
I'll admit, I'm kind of bummed that the news outlets I've looked at are
*not* running the story.  Really, that's not right.  They jumped all over
the story when it looked like he *was* a pedophile; at least they could
run the story that indicates his original excuse may have been valid.

BTW, I don't know if you saw my earlier post but that Berlin '72 CD has
dreadful sound.  It's not worth getting unless you're a completist.


- SCHRADE in Akron