EXCLUSIVE: Scientology tells A&E it has ‘blood on its hands’ for murder in Australia

Discussion in 'Tony Ortega' started by RSS Feed, Jan 14, 2019 at 7:12 AM.

View Users: View Users
  1. RSS Feed

    RSS Feed RSS Feeder Bot

    There is a new post up at the Underground Bunker

    EXCLUSIVE: Scientology tells A&E it has ‘blood on its hands’ for murder in Australia

    [Scientology spokeswoman Karin Pouw and A&E’s program]

    The Underground Bunker has obtained a copy of a letter that was sent by Scientology spokeswoman Karin Pouw to A&E network president Paul Buccieri, blaming the network for inciting the January 3 murder of Aaron Yeh, a 24-year-old worker at Scientology’s “Advanced Org” in a Sydney,[.......]

    Continue reading...
     
  2. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    I'll say the same thing here I said in Tony Ortega's comment section.

    Assume for the sake of argument that, as Pouw asserts, "The attacker was inspired by an anti-Scientology website that featured [Leah Remini's] people and included a link to Remini’s show.”

    Pouw's argument is still worse than unconvincing. Pouw's argument is essentially that no one should ever criticize or provide negative information about the Church of Scientology, or any religion, or indeed any organization -- even if all of such criticism and negative information are both true and justified -- because if anyone, anywhere, at any time sees the criticism or negative information and then engages in violence, the person who made such criticisms or provided the negative information is responsible for the "resulting" violence.

    If accepted, the argument would mean the end to free speech. No one could criticize or provide negative information about any church, religion or organization, even if true (perhaps especially if true) for fear that immature adolescent, mentally ill person, or other person would engage in violence after seeing it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List
  3. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    It would be interesting to find out if the kid even speaks English.

    The Court is providing him a translator....so it would seem that he doesn’t.

    The Cult ( in the letter ) stated that he said things related to the show?

    The Police have not and the dozens of news reports have not mentioned anything about this... so I doubt it.

    I also doubt the source that said the Mother was doing the Purif so as to join the Sea .Org.... How is that possible if she had a minor child with her?

    I got the idea from News reports that the Mother was just starting the purif. So, would she not be on the preliminary study part of the course...and not in the sauna.

    The kid arrived at the Org at lunchtime...so wouldn’t the mother been off course for lunch?

    What did the mother tell the Org Staff to make them bar the son from seeing the mother?

    Is this when the Affray occurred?

    Anyway... lots of questions about what happened prior to the stabbing.

    Could Ortega talk to the kid’s Attorney?

    Perhaps someone in Australia could?

    Just finding out if he speaks or understands English would be of value.

    Perhaps we could start a go fund me page for the kid’s attorney fees? Or even just to put some money in his canteen account if he has one?
     
  4. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    .

    Cult gimmick.

    Never defend. Always attack.

    Stage magicians use this tech also. They call it "misdirection".
     
  5. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    There already is no free speech within the CoS and a zero tolerance level of any speech which puts LRH or Scientology in a bad light.

    If CoS ever achieved it's goals then this same policy would apply worldwide.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    • List
  6. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    Sorry, but I wouldn't be interested in contributing to a murderer's legal defense.
     
  7. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon

    If he were being 'manhandled' off the premises by HCO, it could be argued that he acted in self defense.
     
  8. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    According to some News Reports I've read, the Police at the scene did say the kid had a "legal right to be there..."

    But i guess that would not have been regarded as much...by the Cult...
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019 at 5:21 AM
  9. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    I'm confident they meant he had a legal right to be there initially until he was asked to leave. One does have a remain on someone else's private property after they are asked to leave.
     
  10. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Generally, he would have a right to use deadly force only if he reasonably believed it was necessary to protect himself from death or grievous bodily harm. Being "manhandled" would not justify pulling a knife and stabbing someone in the throat.

    As I recall, the knife had a 10 inch blade. The fact he had it is evidence of an intent to harm someone.
     
  11. Leland

    Leland Crusader

    We seem to be going back and forth here about the killing.

    Yes, I'd say he killed someone by stabbing him in the neck with a knife...

    I guess the point of hashing out this information is that under the law there are different degrees of murder. I assume it is similar to the US.

    I don't know all the legal stuff...but a big difference between premeditated 1st degree murder and manslaughter....as far a jail time. A huge difference!

    We don't know if he even knew the guy he killed.....

    If he didn't know the guy he killed....I'd say premeditated would be off the table, as far as charges are concerned.

    Even if he did know the guy killed....I doubt he will be charged with more than Manslaughter....because he didn't go there to kill that guy, IMO.
     
  12. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Oh, I agree. I think 2nd degree murder or maybe even voluntary manslaughter depending on what happened, any evidence of diminished capacity, etc. I was just pushing back at the idea I've seen here and elsewhere that it was somehow a case of complete self-defense -- i.e., meaning he would found not guilty on the ground that he was reasonably defending himself. It is possible? Sure, I mean it could turn out that his escorts when crazy and attacked him with clubs or something. Right now, I just don't see it.