« Obama and Hillary Pull Out of Fox Debate | Main | BDS -- Bunny Derangement Syndrome? »

Sadistic Murderer Gets Compensation For Being Called Rapist

I found the following story at Lucianne.com. This is really sad.

Wellington - A man jailed for life for murdering a teenage girl has won compensation from a newspaper group which wrongly described him as a rapist, it was reported on Tuesday.

Andrew Ronald MacMillan was granted legal aid - a government- funded scheme which allows people who cannot afford legal representation to get a lawyer - to sue Fairfax Media, publishers of New Zealand newspapers The Press and Dominion Post, for defamation and punitive damages.

Fairfax Media settled the case out of court, agreeing to publish a correction, payment of MacMillan's legal costs and a small, undisclosed, sum in compensation.

MacMillan pleaded guilty to the murder of Jayne Maree McLellan, 17, in Dunedin, in 1988, who was left nearly naked, with extensive stab wounds, fractures to her face, stones in her windpipe to stop her screaming, and with one nipple nearly bitten off, but was not charged with rape, The Press reported.



TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sadistic Murderer Gets Compensation For Being Called Rapist:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Teen gets 45 years for asst. principal killing

Comments (9)

Potato-Potahto a dirtbag is... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Potato-Potahto a dirtbag is a dirtbag no matter what you call him.
It's too bad we live in a world where a human waste product can sue, and instead of being laughed at and told to shut up and go away, he gets a reward. VERY sad indeed.

Nations outside of the U.S.... (Below threshold)

Nations outside of the U.S. just don't have the same level of free speech freedoms like the U.S., and some foreign nations have absurd legal press freedom standards that don't allow much freedom for minor reporting errors which should be acceptable to merely run a retraction of the minor wrong fact.

I do however get deeply concerned at assaults on the First Amendment right here in the U.S. though. Shock jock Don Imus is currently being forced into a two week suspension and his forty year career in radio broadcasting by the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton and a few other extremists, bent on ruining the career of the I-Man.

Sharpton is in no moral position to be casting the first stone at others. Sharpton and two other defendants were successfully sued for $345,000 for outrageous statements they made during the phony Tawana Brawley attack incident. Sharpton also helped to cause the Crown Heights Riot by inflamatory language against Hasidic Jews, calling them "Diamond merchants" in an ethnic slur against these Jews. Sharpton also appeared in ads for LoanMax, a car title loan company that victimizes many poor people including African-Americans with super high interest rates that are nothing short of loansharking. This past year, Sharpton who put himself in charge of many of the arrangements for the James Brown funeral, transported the body of this beloved music legend in the back of a borrowed van after the transportation connections became a botched affair under the "leadership" of Sharpton.

It is deeply sad when someone of deeply suspect character like Sharpton may end the 40 year broadcasting career of someone like Don Imus, a moderate Republican who supports many great projects for children including those with cancer, asthma and preventing SIDS. American protections for free speech need to be stronger to protect someone like Imus who shouldn't have to pay with his reputation or career for merely telling some joke. And free speech is under assault in many other areas as well including from the FCC and the Justice Department as well.


Press freedom unfortunately is under assault in much of the free world, held to unfair standards. The absurd case in New Zealand and the Don Imus incident here are two prime examples.

Moderate Republican? Ar... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Moderate Republican? Are you fricken high?

Lawyers are a scourge upon ... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Lawyers are a scourge upon this world.

billybob, and guess who law... (Below threshold)
Jo:

billybob, and guess who lawyers vote for? Yes, the democrat party. Of course!

Jeez. Billybob's statement... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Jeez. Billybob's statement is certainly odious and asinine. But enough with the inanities.

I'm not too exercised about a murderer successfully suing for being called a rapist. After all, there is a certain virtue in enforcing the libel laws, no matter how odious the victim.

And now, I wonder ... if a murderer receives a sum after successfully pressing a lawsuit, is that can that sum then be tapped to pay restitution to the family of his murdered victim? Particularly if restitution were declared beforehand? Or could they be tapped to satisfy the verdict in a wrongful death suit? Provided that suit had been brought at the appropriate time?

I certainly don't know the law in that area, but I'm sure somebody ... perhaps an enterprising lawyer could certainly furnish the details.

Just a few things to chew over.

--|PW|--

I have no problem with the ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

I have no problem with the press being called on the carpet for this. After all, even murderers don't deserve to be falsely called sex offenders.

The libel regulations in Ne... (Below threshold)

The libel regulations in New Zealand are just too tightly constricted if a newspaper can be sued if accidently referring to someone who committed a murder during some form of sexual assault of a teenager can sue if accidently referred to as a rape rather than a sexual assault, regardless of what a couple of other opinions believe here. The act was most likely attempted rape and still seems close enough that the newspaper should have been given a pass. Freedom of the press issuses always concern me more than most issues.

What a scumbag. Well, at l... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

What a scumbag. Well, at least in prison, what the hell is he gonna do with the money? The only thing I take issue with is the statement about Legal Aid being "a government scheme that lets people who can't afford one get a lawyer" How about a 1964 United States Supreme Court "scheme" that helps a lot of poor people exercise their right to defend themselves in our court system, jackass.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy