4 ms·

> I would just add some skepticism to the charges only because the police down there can be corrupt and or inept and subject to bribery and so on. I don't know

> I would just add some skepticism to the charges only because the police down there can be corrupt and or inept and subject to bribery and so on. I don't know if there has been an independent international inquiry into the matter. A US federal judge found him culpable for a murder civilly.

Railsify 5y ago
A US federal judge finding anything adds no validity to the claim.
- JoeQuery 5y ago
  Why not?
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Not OP, but due to the low quality of judicial product lately
    - drdeca 5y ago
      Unless it was uncorrelated, it would still be some evidence, yeah?
  - rodgerd 5y ago
    Because when people say "Innocent until proven guilty", what they actually mean is "nothing will change my mind."
dragonwriter 5y ago
> A US federal judge found him culpable for a murder civilly False. A US federal judge entered a default judgement against him in a wrongful death suit. Murder is not a civil offense, the standards for civil wrongful death are not remotely the same as murder, and wrongful death liability (even based on a trial and evidence) doesn't indicate that one has even approximately committed murder. And, in any case the judgement was a default judgement because McAfee didn't answer the lawsuit, not a judgement based on evidence. It establishes civil liability, but does not indicate anything (or even that anyone has reached any judgement) about the relevant facts.
- FireBeyond 5y ago
  > It establishes civil liability, but does not indicate anything (or even that anyone has reached any judgement) about the relevant facts. Hence the word culpable, and not guilty.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    My point was that the claim was of limited relevance in context, not that it was false.
    - kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
      You immediately call it false in your response.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        That he was found culpable is irrelevant. That it was “of murder” is false. The grandparent was focussed on the discussion of culpability in the context of the segment that was quoted in the comment it responded to.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    The point is that "murder" and "civil law" don't go together. Murder as a concept is always a criminal law issue.
- 542354234235 5y ago
  > wrongful death liability (even based on a trial and evidence) doesn't indicate that one has even approximately committed murder This is true in general, but not true specifically for this case. A wrongful death case does not need to indicate murder, as wrongful deaths can occur for many reasons. But in this case, the award of the $20 million in punitive damages (damages to punish the defendant, not to compensate the victim) specifically were for the torture and murder, with intentional malice, of Faull. >the judgement was a default judgement because McAfee didn't answer the lawsuit, not a judgement based on evidence. No it wasn’t. He didn’t automatically lose because he didn’t show up. The court, specifically the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, allowed the Faull estate to petition for a default judgement due to McAfee’s continued failure to respond and due to the merits of the case presented. They did not, and would not, allow a default judgment on a meritless case. Pdf of the actual Decision. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/03/20/mcafee-belize.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/03/20/mcafee-belize.pdf

Railsify 5y ago

A US federal judge finding anything adds no validity to the claim.

JoeQuery 5y ago
Why not?
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  Not OP, but due to the low quality of judicial product lately
  - drdeca 5y ago
    Unless it was uncorrelated, it would still be some evidence, yeah?
- rodgerd 5y ago
  Because when people say "Innocent until proven guilty", what they actually mean is "nothing will change my mind."

dragonwriter 5y ago

> A US federal judge found him culpable for a murder civilly False. A US federal judge entered a default judgement against him in a wrongful death suit. Murder is not a civil offense, the standards for civil wrongful death are not remotely the same as murder, and wrongful death liability (even based on a trial and evidence) doesn't indicate that one has even approximately committed murder. And, in any case the judgement was a default judgement because McAfee didn't answer the lawsuit, not a judgement based on evidence. It establishes civil liability, but does not indicate anything (or even that anyone has reached any judgement) about the relevant facts.

FireBeyond 5y ago
> It establishes civil liability, but does not indicate anything (or even that anyone has reached any judgement) about the relevant facts. Hence the word culpable, and not guilty.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  My point was that the claim was of limited relevance in context, not that it was false.
  - kcatskcolbdi 5y ago
    You immediately call it false in your response.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      That he was found culpable is irrelevant. That it was “of murder” is false. The grandparent was focussed on the discussion of culpability in the context of the segment that was quoted in the comment it responded to.
- pdpi 5y ago
  The point is that "murder" and "civil law" don't go together. Murder as a concept is always a criminal law issue.
542354234235 5y ago
> wrongful death liability (even based on a trial and evidence) doesn't indicate that one has even approximately committed murder This is true in general, but not true specifically for this case. A wrongful death case does not need to indicate murder, as wrongful deaths can occur for many reasons. But in this case, the award of the $20 million in punitive damages (damages to punish the defendant, not to compensate the victim) specifically were for the torture and murder, with intentional malice, of Faull. >the judgement was a default judgement because McAfee didn't answer the lawsuit, not a judgement based on evidence. No it wasn’t. He didn’t automatically lose because he didn’t show up. The court, specifically the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, allowed the Faull estate to petition for a default judgement due to McAfee’s continued failure to respond and due to the merits of the case presented. They did not, and would not, allow a default judgment on a meritless case. Pdf of the actual Decision. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/03/20/mcafee-belize.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/03/20/mcafee-belize.pdf