Yesterday, I got the very same reply to my letter to the BC Crown as Dr Dawg did.
The no-jail sentence for convicted rapist Fernando Manuel Alves will not be appealed.
To recap: he was convicted, he has been put on the sex offenders registry, but, for reasons that the Crown is 'not at liberty to disclose', the judge, Gregory Rideout, decided Alves should walk.
Why is the public -- and most vitally, the victim -- denied the facts, arguments, and precedents that Mr Rideout based his decision on?
Commenters at Dr Dawg's have suggested that records can be obtained by ordering and paying for them. If so, why didn't the letter(s) from the Crown inform us of that possibility?
There's something fishy here. I have sent out an inquiry to a knowledgeable acquaintance to see what we might do to obtain the facts in the matter.
7 comments:
What a drag, but honestly, I'm not surprised. I would have been more surprised if the Crown had agreed to appeal.
My bet? Alves is a police informant of some kind, connected to organized crime. So they are protecting their source to keep getting information.
Well, he looks like a thug.
And I'm going to keep posting that photo every time I blog about him or this case. Women need to be warned.
Maybe he drugged a woman so that this so-called Crown prosecutor could have his way with her?
I know, a bit far-fetched--but always possible. Sleaze and public officialdom go together like poutine and heart attacks.
It's sounds like this women got drunk and cheated on her husband, now she is regretting it. What a sad story.
Hey "Anonymous" - it looks like you're quite familiar with the stereotypical justification that serial rapists who drug their victims before they sexually assault them, use to defend their crimes.
Have you used that excuse yourself recently?
Maybe "Anonymous" is Alves.
Post a Comment