--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@...> wrote: > > Sandusky anyone? > >
Nabby is correct. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An arrest on the public record and reported in the news does not mean a person is guilty. Sandusky was a high profile case, not the same as John's at all. Speculation prior to Sandusky's trial was about a profit driven media feeding salacious material to a scandal hungry public. Unless you've figured out how to make a buck off it, there is no commercial value in John's case whatsoever. BTW what *is* anyone's motivation on FFLife for gloaming on to this? Sadly, human nature dictates that the bigger the train wreck, no matter how horrifying, the harder it is to avoid watching. John's case in comparison to Sandusky's is a small train wreck, not worth watching. > > ________________________________ > From: nablusoss1008 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:16 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: John Farrow in the news? > > > Â > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bill Coop <williamgcoop@> wrote: > > > > This isn't a rumor - John C. Villiers Farrow has been arrested and > > held on $800,000 bond. It's been reported widely and is based on > > accusations from two different youths. As far as I can tell, his only > > association with TM was going to the ashram in 1968 with his sisters. > > Some fellow is held on suspicion based on an accusation, yet you spread his > name around giving the impression that he has done something illegal. I don't > know the legal system in the U.S, but in the western world a man is innoscent > until evidence shows otherwise and the person is convicted. > I suppose you understand why your motivation is questioned. >
