posted on July 3, 2001 08:59:41 PM"borillar - in the future please refrain from using deragatory terms in posts and thread titles. Thanks..."
I thought that it was clear that I was not aware that it was a derogatory term. Thank you for removing it out of the title. In the future I will post titles again and again with derogatroy slang words that I am not aware of as being derogatory, as being told to not post degorgatory slang words that I am not aware of as being derogatory is a nonsensical request, wouldn't you agree?
"As far as the linked article goes, there is no mention of anyone claiming "true love." I think it's an attempt on borillar's part to liken the situation to that of teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, even though there seems to be nothing in evidence to support such a comparison. "
You've almost got it right, Spaz. I did not try to link this one incident with the Letourneau affair, but asked a seperate question. I can't believe the number of adults who condone what was done inthe Mary Kay case with the minor boy. So many people said that it was "True Love" and that she should have been left alone to find happiness with her (at the time) very underage minor lover.
That sickened me. Others couldn't understand what the big deal was. It was a MALE, and so, there were no emotions to get damaged because men don't feel the same way that women do -- that the child was "Lucky" to have had sex with this 30+ year old woman at his tender age.
That sickened me too. So I am using this incident as a comparison for them. Since it too has a woman adult, should the female child be concidered "Lucky"? According to their logic --- YES! And if the adult woman and the female child "fall in love", shouldn't we all just leave them alone with their true love? According to their logic --- YES!
Also, I simply wanted to put up a thread on the topic of child molestation; a thread on the topic of FEMALE Predation; of the inequities in the system; etc.
posted on July 3, 2001 09:34:15 PM
Spaz, I have never heard what her sexual preference was, (nor really cared). I know of her from her stints on To Tell The Truth, and just flat out didnt like her attitude. Shes obnoxious. But, what she is like with her kids or in her home life, I have no idea. I find it scarey that some unknown person has accused her of lewd acts and no more information is forthcoming while she is being publicly accused of something so horrendous that if found guilty, is looking at 12 years in prison. Again, I ask "for what?". If the news media is keeping hush hush, and the person who did the inital complaint is unknown, what does that mean for anyone who may "tick" someone off bad enough for such a thing to be said about anyone? Do you see what I mean? Did she make someone angry? Did she ground one of her daughters and this is "pay back"? Did she actually do something illegal/immoral and if so, what, and to whom? I also find it strange that not one media person has asked the same questions. When someone is arrested, especially someone known as a celebrity, all gory details are given. What makes this case any different? Who accused her, and does SHE even know? Sure is hush hush, that much I know.
posted on July 3, 2001 09:50:25 PM
I would certainly grant you, hepburn, that a female's being obnoxious is no indication of her sexual preference, as would anyone who had been here as long as you have been; but you ask {i]"When someone is arrested, especially someone known as a celebrity, all gory details are given. What makes this case any different?"[/i] aren't you limiting the possibility that the authorities and the media may have learned from past mistakes? It would seem to me that a contained minimum of released information would serve to help guarantee that Ms. Poundstone is able to have a fair trial, and that a pool of jurors might be found who had not made their conclusions before trial as to her guilt or innocence based on reports such as those you would have available to you.
posted on July 3, 2001 09:57:29 PM
If you think about it, since none of us knows the nature of the charges it seems like we've all been pretty much reserving judgment on this. How common is that when a crime is 'alleged'?
posted on July 3, 2001 09:58:43 PMIt would seem to me that a contained minimum of released information would serve to help guarantee that Ms. Poundstone is able to have a fair trial
Unfortunately, once branded with what the media has said, even a HINT of it, is enough to damn her forever in the public eye. She may have a fair trial, and she may be found innocent and whomever initially charged her with this may even say it was all a joke and just in anger. It still wont make the stigma go away. People will always say "wasnt she the one that was accused of......".
Look at Pee Wee Herman. Everytime I look at him, I think of what he was busted for. Yes, it was long ago, but I still remember, everytime I see him. Same with Monica Lewinsky. My point is, she will be damned forever now. Her situation is no different than the OJ case, or the McMartin case, or even the most recent case of Robert Blake. Celebrities get publicity because they ARE celebrities. The difference from those cases and the Poundstone case is no details were given and what is worse? The knowing of the charges or the imagination of what the public thinks since they havent been told?
posted on July 3, 2001 10:07:49 PM
Who knows what the public thinks? When a person says a thing like:
"The knowing of the charges or the imagination of what the public thinks since they havent been told?"
I think that the person is only describing his or her own imaginations of what the case may be for without information what else could such statements be but subjectifications?
Do you also imagine that the release of any and all lurid details (they must BE lurid or they'll get little attention) wouls assist Ms. Poundstone in her situation?
posted on July 3, 2001 10:17:04 PM
This really can't be helped. Should they not have arrested her because you and I aren't satisfied that she is guilty? Evidently there was compelling cause to arrest her. If she is not guilty hopefully a jury will see that. That's what trials are for.
posted on July 3, 2001 10:28:11 PMDo you also imagine that the release of any and all lurid details (they must BE lurid or they'll get little attention) wouls assist Ms. Poundstone in her situation?
I didnt want lurid details. I just want to know WHAT she supposedly did. And of course my imagination is running rampant, wondering. Isnt yours?
posted on July 3, 2001 10:58:46 PM
No, but I'd post what I could find. I've already posted here a copy of the actual charge sheet filed with the court in this case. With that, if you read it, you know as much as the involved court does. What more do you want except gossip?
posted on July 3, 2001 11:02:25 PM
All I want to know is~ what was up with her teeth???Where IS that Chococake!Piques my interest and then just disappears.
posted on July 3, 2001 11:04:20 PM
Nowhere in the charge sheet does it mention anyone bringing charges against her but the DA. So...who made the original allegations? Why hasn't anyone heard from that person or persons?
Child abuse *is* horrendous. It *does* happen. Yes. BUT accusations of it have also become a convenient weapon to use. Just last year in my area two 3rd graders got angry with their teacher--they accused him of child abuse...the poor man was arrested, lost his job, and the case was about to go to trial when the two boys confessed that it was all a hoax "to get back at him." Yes, he's cleared, but the stain of the event will follow him for the rest of his life as so many people will think "no smoke without fire"--and think of *his* emotional scarring. A friend of mine has had the police & Child Welfare officers visit her house several times. Why? Her husband's ex-wife keeps calling them & claiming that he's abusing his step daughter. The fact that she's never set foot in the house *or* had any interaction with the girl makes no difference--she can make trouble for her ex this way & does so.
The Poundstone case is very nebulous. It could very well be that someone is using it as a way to make trouble for her.
posted on July 3, 2001 11:27:22 PM
I would think that if that was the case reporters would have mentioned it. They have in other cases where children have spoken up or made accusations (witness the case I mentioned involving 9 year-olds). Certainly it would be "newsworthy"...especially as a public figure is involved.
posted on July 3, 2001 11:37:38 PM
Here I am Rawbunzel sorry I left you hanging. I just noticed that her teeth were really messed up. She kept closing her mouth like like she didn't want anyone to see her teeth. I don't know much about caps. Can they be removed like dentures or can dentures be made to cover the teeth? I know in movies they can make all different kind of teeth (like buck teeth).
From what I can gather she has been being investigated for a while, and they said she had been coorperating with the investigation. They said her kids had been placed in protective custody, but when did that happen? Where they with her during the investigation or taken at the time of her arrest?
posted on July 4, 2001 08:45:17 AM
Well, according to the LA Times, this morning:
Deputy Dist. Atty. Gina Satriano said the court order prohibits her from talking about the case.
"The judge found in this case, based on the motion, that the children could be subject to irreparable harm should the information be released and that's the basis [for sealing it]," she said. Satriano added that "the basis of it is to protect the alleged victims because [Poundstone] is a public figure. They'd get a lot of media attention."
USC constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky said he found the sealing order constitutionally dubious. Referring to the prosecutor's quote about Poundstone's celebrity status, Chemerinsky said: "The fact that she is a celebrity should have no bearing on this at all. There is no case that has ever said that the rules for sealing documents and the 1st Amendment are different for a celebrity."
Chemerinsky noted that in October the California Judicial Council, at the urging of the California Supreme Court, made it more difficult to seal documents in the state's courts. Under the new rules adopted by the Judicial Council, all court records are presumed to be open to the public unless a judge expressly finds an "overriding interest" in keeping them secret.
The alleged victims are Poundstone's two foster children and three adopted children, who range in age from 2 to 12, according to a county children's services official. A court order has asked that the children's identities be withheld.
posted on July 4, 2001 09:01:28 AM"The judge found in this case, based on the motion, that the children could be subject to irreparable harm should the information be released and that's the basis [for sealing it]," she said. Satriano added that "the basis of it is to protect the alleged victims because [Poundstone] is a public figure. They'd get a lot of media attention."
Well, that sucks. The one subject to irreparable harm is Poundstone. The accuser can accuse and the accusee must suffer because the accuser might get irreparable harm since the accused is well known?
posted on July 4, 2001 10:33:33 AM
In one of Paula's HBO specials she makes it abundantly clear that she is gay (as is Rosie O'Donnell).
I find Paula's humor very funny. She makes jokes about every-day occurrences, and things that people do that are really stupid. She makes fun of herself, as well.
I don't know if she was set up, if one of the foster kids is trying to get revenge for something she did, or if she is guilty. Frankly, I like her and I think she deserves a fair trial.
Hepburn: Why the burning desire to know all the details of the indictment??
posted on July 4, 2001 10:57:45 AM
This is difficult for me, too.
Why tell me anything if you aren't going to tell me everything?
How can they state the allegations and start all kinds of rumors and heresay, only to then close the information to protect the children?
Let's see...
Bash the public figure (their Mommy!), then protect the kids?
Keep in all sealed or make it all open.
Why lock the barn after the horses have escaped?
posted on July 4, 2001 12:11:05 PM
Fez, why is it you think I want "burning details"? Just because I asked WHY? I find it very strange that they plaster it all over the news well enough to make poundstone look VERY bad, but dont say WHAT she did. No, I dont like her. I dont like Rosie either (I never heard she was gay...she is??) but that has nothing to do with the media blasting it all over and not saying WHAT. What if it was one of your family members, or even yourself? "So and So of Name a City was arrested and charged with lewd and indecent acts towards a minor child. News at 11". And that name they stated was YOURS and YOUR city, along with where you worked. I think it sucks that the alleged crime was blasted to begin with without saying WHAT it was. For example, what if it was just her skinny dipping in the family pool and one of the kids accidentally saw her when she thought they were in school?
So if you think that is a burning desire to know details, then the rest of the country is just as curious but not necessarily for the same reasons as I am. My reasons of wanting to know WHY is because NOBODY deserves what she is getting. Just because I dont care for someone that happens to be a celebrity doesnt mean I cant feel badly for them when something this unfair is done to them. If she is quilty, then Im sure it will all come out. If she is innocent, they just ruined her forever. In the meantime, why announce it to begin with, and with such little explanation? Again, it SUCKS.
[ edited by hepburn on Jul 4, 2001 12:25 PM ]
posted on July 4, 2001 12:39:51 PM
I think the primary reason you will not see, hear or read many, if any, details is because ALL the alleged victims are under age. Not even a tabloid will try and buck the laws concerning protection of a minor's identity.
Protecting a minor becomes a two-edged sword. We adults have a tendency to size up an accuser and decide for ourselves if they are trustworthy and their complaints have any real merit. With minors that is not possible. I do understand the need to protect minors, it also gives them a lot of power. Many of the more saavy know that too. This is the sad part.
If this woman is guilty, she needs to be brought to justice. If this woman is innocent, she will really never be absolved due to the nature of the charges and the need to protect the minors which will keep information that normally is available to any and all, restricted. That too is sad.
sorry I left you hanging. I just noticed that her teeth were really messed up. She kept closing her mouth like like she didn't want anyone to see her teeth. I don't know much about caps. Can they be removed like dentures or can dentures be made to cover the teeth? I know in movies they can make all different kind of teeth (like buck teeth).
