Log in

View Full Version : At least one sick prick off the streets


Papa_Complex
03-17-2011, 07:14 AM
Justice for Brampton teen’s family 3 years after suicide (http://www.thestar.com/news/article/954627--justice-for-brampton-teen-s-family-3-years-after-suicide)

Amy Dempsey Staff Reporter

An ex-nurse who posed as a woman in an Internet chat room and encouraged 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji of Brampton to kill herself was found guilty Tuesday of aiding her suicide.

William Melchert-Dinkel, 48, relentlessly pushed the depressed and vulnerable young woman and a man from England to end their lives, a Minnesota judge ruled.

The young woman was studying at Carleton University in Ottawa when she jumped into a frozen river and drowned in 2008. Her grieving family has been waiting for justice without much hope.

“Honestly, until today — until maybe three hours ago — I thought he was going to get away with it,” Mohamed Kajouji said Tuesday evening.

The father burst into tears as he spoke of the pain he lives with daily, surrounded by memories: the photos of his smiling daughter still sitting on top of the television, her bedroom as she left it, the neighbour who looks like her. Last Wednesday marked three years since he lost Nadia.

Kajouji said he takes comfort knowing that justice will be served and hopes the judge comes down hard in sentencing.

“As far as I’m concerned, he’s an animal. I don’t know how he can live with himself.”

Melchert-Dinkel of Minnesota was charged in April with aiding suicide under a rarely used state law that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison and a fine of $30,000 (U.S.).

He declined a jury trial and left his fate to a judge, who issued his verdict Tuesday. Sentencing is scheduled for May 4.

Prosecutors said Melchert-Dinkel was obsessed with suicide and hanging. He sought out potential victims on the Internet, posing as a female nurse and feigning compassion for people he met in suicide chat rooms. Then he offered them step-by-step instructions on how to kill themselves.

Melchert-Dinkel tried to persuade Kajouji to hang herself in front of a webcam.

“Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck,” he wrote in one web chat, posing as a woman and using the screen name “cami.”

“Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconsciousness and death.”

He was also found guilty of encouraging the suicide of Mark Drybough, who hanged himself in 2005 at his home in Coventry, England.

Prosecutors said Melchert-Dinkel acknowledged participating in online chats about suicide with as many as 20 people and entering into fake suicide pacts with about 10 of them, five of whom he believed killed themselves.

Melchert-Dinkel told police he did it for the “thrill of the chase,” said Rice County Attorney Paul Beaumaster.

Defence attorney Terry Watkins argued the victims were predisposed to committing suicide and his client didn’t sway them by making statements online.

Judge Thomas Neuville said that argument was irrelevant.

The investigation into Melchert-Dinkel’s activity began in March 2008 when an anti-suicide activist in Britain contacted Minnesota authorities to report an online predator using deception to manipulate people to commit suicide.

Melchert-Dinkel has been allowed to remain free under certain conditions. Among them, he is not allowed to use the Internet without approval.

Nadia was cheerful young woman who loved her family, playing the guitar and ice skating.

She was a bright student who wanted to be a lawyer, but she grew depressed when she moved away from home. The increased academic pressure and a breakup added to her strain. She had begun seeing a campus counsellor and taking antidepressants.

An online posting made days before her death revealed the extent of her depression.

“I have not attempted suicide in the past because I am terrified of failing — the attention it would garner,” she wrote.

“I just want a quick out.”

After his sister’s death, Marc Kajouji became involved with the suicide prevention organization Your Life Counts. He hopes Nadia’s story will make people more aware of the tragedy of suicide and perhaps save lives.

“Talk to your friends, talk to your family, as hard as it is,” Kajouji tells people who find themselves experiencing the same feelings as his sister. “It’s important to reach out for help and not just try to battle this on your own because it is very tough.”

101lifts2
03-24-2011, 01:44 AM
Oh Jesus....the judge should be removed from the bench. So now I tell someone to go commit sucide and how to do it and I'll be charged with aiding a suicide? Nigga plz.

This is seriously fucked up. Why else would the dumb chick be visiting suicide chatrooms unless she wanted to off herself.

The parents want to blame someone, they need to start blaming themselves, not this guy.

Papa_Complex
03-24-2011, 06:36 AM
Somehow, I expected that response of you. Please reread the article. He didn't just "tell someone to commit suicide."

101lifts2
03-27-2011, 08:37 PM
Somehow, I expected that response of you. Please reread the article. He didn't just "tell someone to commit suicide."

Yes he did and I read it again three times.

He was instructing her in a chatroom on the correct method of hanging oneself, but she didn't even use it as she jumped into a river.

The family wants to pass blame so they sleep better at night. But the reality is that each man has to atone for their own sins. The heaviest of blame lies with her in the eyes of the creator.

Papa_Complex
03-27-2011, 08:57 PM
Are you trying to get this thread deleted with that "creator" comment? Immaterial crap-tossing.

He's responsible for his own actions, of preying upon people when they're weak.

101lifts2
03-27-2011, 11:41 PM
Are you trying to get this thread deleted with that "creator" comment? Immaterial crap-tossing.

He's responsible for his own actions, of preying upon people when they're weak.

Emotions aside, it sets a dangerous legal precident if we start to incarcerate people for verbally convincing others to commit a crime.

It is incidents as such that trigger emotion which leads to freedoms getting thrown out the window. This is why the guy "thought" the judge would actually uphold the freedom of speech by asking for a bench trial. Apparently not.

Dave
03-27-2011, 11:45 PM
I tell little bastards to commit suicide all the time on ps3

Papa_Complex
03-28-2011, 06:24 AM
Emotions aside, it sets a dangerous legal precident if we start to incarcerate people for verbally convincing others to commit a crime.

It is incidents as such that trigger emotion which leads to freedoms getting thrown out the window. This is why the guy "thought" the judge would actually uphold the freedom of speech by asking for a bench trial. Apparently not.

Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exception. Take people who are in a mental and emotional state to believe something, then use that to elicit the response you desire, and you're responsible for the results.

101lifts2
03-29-2011, 04:02 PM
Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exception. Take people who are in a mental and emotional state to believe something, then use that to elicit the response you desire, and you're responsible for the results.

No you aren't. It isn't my fault they are in an "emtional state", esp. when you are dealing over the internet.

Quit trying to blame others for the sole fault of the women who jumped in the river herself. She was of age and knew right from wrong. This isn't a child who could be manipulated easily, but rather an adult who needed to take responsiblity for her own actions.

pauldun170
03-29-2011, 04:18 PM
No you aren't. It isn't my fault they are in an "emtional state", esp. when you are dealing over the internet.

Quit trying to blame others for the sole fault of the women who jumped in the river herself. She was of age and knew right from wrong. This isn't a child who could be manipulated easily, but rather an adult who needed to take responsiblity for her own actions.

If someone told a known bike thief your address, what security you have, when your bike will be exposed and basically give them the most effective way to steal your motorcycle would that someone be responsible in any way if that thief took your motorcycle?

What if they gave a convicted rapist out on bail the address of your girlfriend's house and the best time to "do his thing" would they be responsible in anyway?

I do get your point though 101.

Papa_Complex
03-29-2011, 05:38 PM
If someone told a known bike thief your address, what security you have, when your bike will be exposed and basically give them the most effective way to steal your motorcycle would that someone be responsible in any way if that thief took your motorcycle?

What if they gave a convicted rapist out on bail the address of your girlfriend's house and the best time to "do his thing" would they be responsible in anyway?

I do get your point though 101.

I get his point too. I just don't agree with it, especially not where the person involved is only *nominally* an adult. Hell, she couldn't even drink legally.

Captain Morgan
03-29-2011, 10:22 PM
Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre exception. Take people who are in a mental and emotional state to believe something, then use that to elicit the response you desire, and you're responsible for the results.

No you aren't. It isn't my fault they are in an "emtional state", esp. when you are dealing over the internet.

Quit trying to blame others for the sole fault of the women who jumped in the river herself. She was of age and knew right from wrong. This isn't a child who could be manipulated easily, but rather an adult who needed to take responsiblity for her own actions.

However, this guy could just as easily talked with her and helped her find a way to deal with whatever problems she had. Instead, he chose to taunt her and keep pushing her toward suicide, "for the thrill of the chase."

101lifts2
03-29-2011, 11:47 PM
If someone told a known bike thief your address, what security you have, when your bike will be exposed and basically give them the most effective way to steal your motorcycle would that someone be responsible in any way if that thief took your motorcycle?

What if they gave a convicted rapist out on bail the address of your girlfriend's house and the best time to "do his thing" would they be responsible in anyway?

I do get your point though 101.

The notion of convicting individuals for statements, no matter how inflammatory, is the height of inanity provided there is no immediate danger. Examples of immediate danger are shouting, "Fire!" in a theatre. Telling someone how to commit suicide, or egging them on? Not even remotely close.

If I tell how someone to go fuck themselves, and they hurt themselves while trying to do it, is it my responsibility? No. If I tell someone how to cut off their arm in the most painless way possible, and they do it, is it my responsibility? No.

The precedent this sets is laughable, and while the individual's behavior was abhorrent, it doesn't merit the infringement of free speech. Period.

However, this guy could just as easily talked with her and helped her find a way to deal with whatever problems she had. Instead, he chose to taunt her and keep pushing her toward suicide, "for the thrill of the chase."

It doesn't matter what else he could've done, the issue here is what he did, and whether it merits legal intervention.

The precedent this sets is ridiculous. Free speech doesn't just exist for non-inflammatory rhetoric, and the only time it should be infringed upon is when it represents a clear physical danger to others.

Telling a suicidal person to kill themselves? Not even close, since being suicidal and committing suicide are two different things, nor is it the responsibility of individuals to help them if they don't want to.

Should the guy that did this become a social pariah for his actions? Absolutely. Should he be punished in court? No.

Papa_Complex
03-30-2011, 06:06 AM
Free speech ends when you cause harm to another. That harm can be more than merely physical. Telling someone to kill himself is one thing. PERSUADING a suicidal person to kill himself is quite another.

pauldun170
03-30-2011, 09:29 AM
The notion of convicting individuals for statements, no matter how inflammatory, is the height of inanity provided there is no immediate danger. Examples of immediate danger are shouting, "Fire!" in a theatre. Telling someone how to commit suicide, or egging them on? Not even remotely close.

If I tell how someone to go fuck themselves, and they hurt themselves while trying to do it, is it my responsibility? No. If I tell someone how to cut off their arm in the most painless way possible, and they do it, is it my responsibility? No.

The precedent this sets is laughable, and while the individual's behavior was abhorrent, it doesn't merit the infringement of free speech. Period.



It doesn't matter what else he could've done, the issue here is what he did, and whether it merits legal intervention.

The precedent this sets is ridiculous. Free speech doesn't just exist for non-inflammatory rhetoric, and the only time it should be infringed upon is when it represents a clear physical danger to others.

Telling a suicidal person to kill themselves? Not even close, since being suicidal and committing suicide are two different things, nor is it the responsibility of individuals to help them if they don't want to.

Should the guy that did this become a social pariah for his actions? Absolutely. Should he be punished in court? No.


I can respect your view.
However, I think there may are cases where there can be liability.

101lifts2
03-30-2011, 11:25 AM
Free speech ends when you cause harm to another. That harm can be more than merely physical. Telling someone to kill himself is one thing. PERSUADING a suicidal person to kill himself is quite another.

It is still free speech...you may not like it, but it is.

Papa_Complex
03-30-2011, 11:28 AM
It is still free speech...you may not like it, but it is.

Apparently the courts say that it isn't ;)

*EDIT* And before someone tosses out the ol' "Damned liberal judges", he's a former Senator and member of the Republican Party ;)

Papa_Complex
05-05-2011, 07:30 AM
Result: He got 360 days in jail.