Did Gil Gross soft-pedal Bernie's crime?
gvk...@yahoo.com
about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to 3
counts.
Gil discussed this but kept coming back to the point that Bernie's
violations of the law were rather insignificant compared to those of
"serious" child pornographers.....the ones who take the photos and
sell them in quantity.
He accepted one of two versions of this case.
Version #1. Bernie was doing real investigation as he has done in the
past and just made a technical violation of the law, but was always
operating with the best of motivations.
Bernie has said his motivation was to expose the hypocrisy of
Republicans and right-wing religious people's involvement in child
porn on the internet.
Or
Version #2. Bernie was not doing any real investigation, but was
doing this for his own personal pleasure, but as such, it really was
more of a private matter and no one was really harmed very much, but
that the Oakdale "mistress" found out who Bernie was and began
pressuring authorities to take action.......prosecute Bernie.
Apparently Gil feels had this NOT come to light it would have been a
minor crime, with no need for formal prosecution or serious
punishment.
What I think is missing from Gil's two versions is that Bernie has
made clear his motivation was not for private personal pleasure. He
completely publicly rejected that notion in the SF Chronicle.
So therefore we have to accept Version #1 as being the true motive for
Bernie's supposed actions of transmitting the child porn images.
Exposing Republicans and the religious right's involvement in internet
child porn. That was the reason for the book.
In possibly accepting that version, Gil seems to completely overlook
a major flaw in Bernie's version.
Bernie is out there chatting for weeks and perhaps months, role
playing with various "participants"...... Just how does Bernie find
out the party affiliation of these porn chat partners during his hours
and hours of interaction. How does he know he is on the right track
for his book theme? He could do this role playing for weeks and
weeks only to find out he was chatting with a Democrat, a "decline to
state" or even a liberal Catholic.
Were the child porn participants supposed to take breaks from their
porn chat, and discuss politics, party loyalties, and religion on the
side?
Bernie's method of tracking down the "real hypocrites" seems to
require such a stretch of imagination for it to work and find
significant names or groups involved.
But this is what Gil's logic would seem to require.
Now in fairness to Gil, I don't think he has really thought this
out. I think when this story broke on KGO and he had permission to
discuss it, he went with the first couple of ideas in his head and
put them out there.
Upon reflection I think Gil would find the Version #1 motive seriously
flawed.
There is not one chance in a thousand Bernie's methods would lead to
the object of his "investigation"..
This "investigation" was completely different than his prior
investigation of the Catholic Church where he had real names and leads
from which to proceed.
Overall I think Gil is doing a great job, but on this topic he needs
to review his thinking.
JD
> Well, after much delay, KGO finally allows (at 3:00 pm) a discussion
> about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to
Why didn't you call up and challenge him? It would have been a great
call.
You are certainly invited to do so tonight at 7:05pm.
JD
John Higdon
<c329e59e-e08d-48e4...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
JD <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
Shamelessly drumming up business I see, John! :-)
--
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
leansto...@democrat.com
> In article
> <c329e59e-e08d-48e4-b1e9-cc047c1a0...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> JD <john.j.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 7, 5:33 pm, gvk2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Well, after much delay, KGO finally allows (at 3:00 pm) a discussion
> > > about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to
>
> > Why didn't you call up and challenge him? It would have been a great
> > call.
>
> > You are certainly invited to do so tonight at 7:05pm.
>
> Shamelessly drumming up business I see, John! :-)
>
> --
> John Higdon
> +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400
I bet JD is beating callers off with a stick, so no need to drum up
business.
I am disturbed about the I-team claiming past sexual abuse. I bet they
have no proof of this.
Bill Z.
> On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), gvk...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Well, after much delay, KGO finally allows (at 3:00 pm) a discussion
> >about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to 3
> >counts.
>
> When did Bernie plead guilty to three counts? Or are you just
> making this up?
Somone's making it up. There's been some articles today or yesterday
in the local papers stating that Ward would change his plea. It didn't
say to what or for what (he can change it for one charge or "count"
but not another, and he could change it to "guilty" or "nolo
contendere"), or whether there was an agreement to reduce the charges.
We won't know for sure until Thusday, when the court appearance is
scheduled.
gvk...@yahoo.com is obviously making it up or quoting someone who
made it up because you can't tell on Wednesday what heppened on the
following Thursday.
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
JD
>
> > >Well, after much delay, KGO finally allows (at 3:00 pm) a discussion
> > >about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to 3
> > >counts.
>
> > When did Bernie plead guilty to three counts? Or are you just
> > making this up?
>
> Somone's making it up. There's been some articles today or yesterday
> in the local papers stating that Ward would change his plea. It didn't
> say to what or for what (he can change it for one charge or "count"
> but not another, and he could change it to "guilty" or "nolo
> contendere"), or whether there was an agreement to reduce the charges.
> We won't know for sure until Thusday, when the court appearance is
> scheduled.
>
> made it up because you can't tell on Wednesday what heppened on the
> following Thursday.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
Both stories this morning (The Chronicle and the KGO Morning News)
cited separate sources close to Bernie. The sources say that Bernie
will change his plea to guilty.
JD
Bill Z.
> On May 7, 9:55 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > m...@privacy.net writes:
> > > On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:33:44 -0700 (PDT), gvk2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > >Well, after much delay, KGO finally allows (at 3:00 pm) a discussion
> > > >about Bernie Ward's legal problems and his apparent guilty plea to 3
> > > >counts.
> >
> > > When did Bernie plead guilty to three counts? Or are you just
> > > making this up?
> >
> > Somone's making it up. There's been some articles today or yesterday
> > in the local papers stating that Ward would change his plea. It didn't
> > say to what or for what (he can change it for one charge or "count"
> > but not another, and he could change it to "guilty" or "nolo
> > contendere"), or whether there was an agreement to reduce the charges.
> > We won't know for sure until Thusday, when the court appearance is
> > scheduled.
> >
> > gvk2...@yahoo.com is obviously making it up or quoting someone who
> > made it up because you can't tell on Wednesday what heppened on the
> > following Thursday.
>
> Both stories this morning (The Chronicle and the KGO Morning News)
> cited separate sources close to Bernie. The sources say that Bernie
> will change his plea to guilty.
"Sources close to Bernie" can mean anything, and reporters often get
details wrong. It really doesn't hurt to do the sensible thing and
wait until tomorrow, when something actually happens and when there
is actually an official record to refer to.
sher...@mailcity.com
Umm, the source is Bernie, Gene & Karel both said they spoke with
Bernie he is indeed changing his plea. He faced up to 20 years, by a
no contest plea he'll get 5 years at most.
paul secic
Mr. Ward is fimished in broadcasting for sure now. He thought of
--------
Bill Z.
> > In possibly accepting that version, Gil seems to completely
> > overlook a major flaw in Bernie's version. Bernie is out there
> > chatting for weeks and perhaps months, role playing with various
> > "participants"...... Just how does Bernie find out the party
> > affiliation of these porn chat partners during his hours and hours
> > of interaction.
Oh, that one's easy (although I have no idea what Ward did in that
regard). You say you have an extra tee shirt - the one with the
picture of the two Bushes entitled, "Dumb and Dumber" - and ask if
anyone could use it. Or you tell a crude Bush joke. The ones who are
offended are probably right wingers. :-) It's just banter, so
you don't have to turn people off with a long discussion of public
policy.
JD
Gene did not speak with Bernie, but everyone knew what was happening.
I was just clarifying the story as presented by the paper and the news
department.
JD
JD
"As part of the deal, Weinberg said outside court, federal prosecutors
agreed to drop two additional child pornography charges and ask for a
sentence of no more than nine years. The maximum under the law is 20
years." - S.F. Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/08/BAIR10J9JC.DTL&tsp=1
JD
Buck
White Whale of Republican child molesters. (After all, the world hadn't
recognized Bernie's genius at lies, distortion and out right fantasy over
the last twenty years or so....Bernie, by virtue of being Bernie, is
ENTITLED! [ask him!])
Bernie is going to jail because he is an idiot!
And I'm already laughing, thinking about him demonstrating his persuasive
brilliance on his keepers!
Bernie, for the rest of his life, is Dog Shit!
Buck
<gvk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:918dc378-9f0f-42a0...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...