Zappa.com

Roy, you're an asshole wherever you are. Once, I might have given the benefit of the doubt, but twice?

_________________
"Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read and what we must believe?" T.J.

The first offence actually states: SEX ASSLT CHILD.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

Thanks I was confused since it is a sex crime site.

How many sex crimes have you been convicted of?

BTW: Check the date for Roy's first crime: Colorado, 10/27/1977. That's damn close to the Halloween shows in which he appears on Baby Snakes!! So is the date referring to date of crime, or the date of conviction, date of "case opened"?

In any case, three days later he runs around and fuck a Ms. Pinky on stage in New York dressed as a pope.

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ

Wow...that is almost scary, I don't know if it's the conviction or crime date but either way, WTF. I have never been on one of those sites and do not use them, even though I advocate for the public’s right to the information, I am not big on data bases (sometimes you have to do the right thing even if you don't believe in it).

I am reading this for the first time and happen to be listening to FZ/OZ. Strange

_________________
BANNED and FAT

Well, when you are a woman and you can't contain yourself, there was no way for a long time (and the ways there are now are possibly worse) to relieve yourself. So yes, I have had on numerous occasions had to drop my pants in a public space to empty my bladder. Haven't done that since I was a kid though. Unfortunately, because we have to drop our pants, when you're a woman caught peeing it's an obscenity while a man caught peeing at a bad place is just punished for "peeing in the wild". Difference? Oh, give or take a few hundred euros, a permanent record...

But I'm luckily a good person and the last time I had trouble with the police was when I was 10 and cycling on the pavement.

_________________

Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!

Just for the record here, i never searched that site. I searched the name Robert Murphy, California on google while researching a completely different topic. I found the link to that site and then seen as the first name on the list Napoleon Murphy Brock using an Alias of Robert Murphy among others.

It tells you quite clearly on the site that it is a criminal offence to use the information to carry out a criminal act. Nowhere does it say you're not allowed to share the information, otherwise what is the point of the site in the first place? There's no point in having a register of sex offenders that no one can see, or no one can inform other people about. That is the whole point of them.

I never posted this to start gossip, i posted it because i felt it was something that zappa fans should know and i still agree with this. I'm not playing crimefighter either, as it looks to me like the crime has already been committed. So i'd make a shit crimefighter, just like you make a shit debater.

The sex offender register is a touchy subject here too, pardon the pun. But the fact is, it's there for a reason. No one complains if a list of convicted murderers is made public, no one worries about their feelings. So i don't see why sex offenders should be given special status. And i'm fully aware that there's many, many people who are on these registers that shouldn't be, but there's a massive difference between peeing in the street and rape by force and i'm all for a more realistic view of what a sex offence is and i don't believe anyone should be on it that hasn't been convicted. So for those reasons, i'm perfectly happy with my decision to share the info here.

The database i got that information was also a National Database, not a local or county database, it's a national database for a country of over 300 million people. So that to me suggests, that it's not just to be privy to those living in the local vicinity, but is intended for public consumption across the USA and for good reason.

for the record, i'm totally gutted about the information. I loved his work with zappa and it embodied everything i loved about music so well. So i never took any satisfaction from this, in fact it felt like a kick in the balls. i'm sure many people felt the same. But would they have preferred not to know?

i never condemn people, or pass judgement on then. But i won't shy away from speaking my mind either. I never took the decision to post this info lightly, i considered for a while if i should share it and the reason i decided to share it is. There's many women who will idolise him and there will be many women who still go to see him and among those, may be women with daughters who they'd also take along to see him. And i believe they should be aware of this, to make an informed decision for themselves.

Why you're not able to appreciate this, or even have considered this as a reason yourself i don't know. But my stance on crimes like this is, the safety of others, is always more important that the feelings of the convicted.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl

you can look up any crime, if someone is convicted of a crime, it is public record. The sex offenders register obviously makes for good headlines in the tabloid press, but the truth is that all crimes are listed and available for public consumption. Poor credit, which isn't a crime can also be looked up with ease.

I don't know of anywhere a criminal offence is considered a private matter. It goes against the whole idea of having a criminal and legal code in the first place. If people don't know who the criminals are and what they have done wrong, how are they meant to learn from example and understand what is deemed right and wrong within that society.

Previous history of crimes must be kept from a jury and any knowledge of them would render the juror inapplicable to sit on the case, but only so it doesn't sway their opinion on the evidence presented in that case only. That's the only instance i can think of, where knowledge of crimes must be suppressed for a set time. If convicted, the jury is then told the previous crimes committed by the defendant and all court records are made available for public consumption, unless deemed to be of national security and then people need to apply to get access to the information.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl

My recollection is that the history of the sexual predator list in the U.S. has to do with victims, victims groups, and local neighborhood organizers lobbying for it's existence for years. It was debated for years, and many states made their own decisions on it before it became federal.

I completely support Scrutie's posting it here. It makes sense that this forum is a place that would be interested in knowing this information, as he said. Since the fact of any conviction of a crime is public record, I don't understand why anyone would want to quash the info. It certainly helped me, as a father, when I found out from the list that someone convicted of child sexual assualt lived a block over from me.

For the record, it doesn't matter a bit to me that NMB has this record; his work with FZ was stellar and this conviction doesn't change that or his talent at all.

_________________
Everytime we picked a booger we'd flip it on this one winduh. Every night we'd contribute, 2, 3, 4 boogers. We had to use a putty knife, man, to get them damn things off the winduh. There was some goober ones that weren't even hard...

guys actually get in a LOT of trouble for peeing outside. if somebody sees you, you have to register as a sex offender, and you'll end up on the web and on these lists. its taken very seriously these days

_________________
Who's this dude with his hair straight back?
His new white socks, 'n his pants all black
His T-shirts rolled His watch is gold
A '55 Chevy that his brother just stoled

The evil corrupter of youth is going to take him from Step One, which is a mere...

_________________

In Denmark, and, I believe, in many Euorpean countries, one cannot without reason look up a given person's criminal record. It works the other way around. An employer may demand to see a clean sheet from an applicant. Then, as an applicant you can get a transcript of your records from the police by showing up at one of theirs offices (not by surfing the net) that shows your record going back 5 years. Clearly, if it says "Child Molestation last summer" you will not get a job at the local Kindergarten (if you was stupid enough to apply in the first place with such idead record). The idea is that the information should be used when relevant, and not to stigmatize people who have served their "debt to society".
I don't think so.

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ

These people who are on these lists that have committed the real crimes (which are 95% or more), have gained this notoriety because they repeat offend. It has been proven time and time again that they don't just serve time and never go back to these crimes, this not like robbing a bank or stealing a car. These people are sick and generally incurable by current means, lock them up throw away the key and of course we need to get the people who were on the list for non-criminal activity off the list

The difference between declaring a conviction for a job and criminal offences being public record is huge. The reason employers ask, is because they can't force you to give this information to them. Once employed by the company, they may then do a search to see if it's true that you don't have any convictions. When they find out people have lied on these forms, they then use this to terminate their employment. Employers don't want to go trawling through public records of offences to find out if their prospective employees are criminals, it's much easier for them to get them to submit this information voluntarily and in the instances where people have lied, then they can get rid of them without any hassle from employer's unions etc.

If it's true what you say about Denmark and how they hide criminal convictions from the public, then i personally disagree with that. In any case, any court case of any note is today published in one newspaper or online news website of some sort at the very least. Once this information is printed and posted it is available to anyone, so regardless of Danish laws regarding this, i find it difficult to see how they can be implemented today.

No one is saying that criminals should be perpetually stigmatised, however if presented with a choice of a convicted rapist getting hurt feelings, or someone being raped, then i know i would only feel personal guilt if i hadn't done something when i knew this person was a rapist. I may feel embarrassed about hurting someone's feelings, but i would never feel guilty about calling a convicted rapist a rapist.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl

So it is in Denmark; criminal convictions are not hidden from the public. I am sorry if I gave the impression that we had a legal system where nobody know what happens in courtrooms. But you cannot, on the other hand, get to see a list of any past and present convict in the country complete with pictures and current addresses. To retrieve information on a given person you must go through the legal system to get permission. As these are sensible matters it seems reasonable to me that there should be some entry costs as to achieve such information (the info may then also be concise, instead of what we see here, where we can immediately find very incomplete and potentially useless information about Napoleon). After all, some of the info is private, and potentially irrelevant, if we believe in the idea that convicts at some point have served their debt to society.

For what its worth (not much I think), I am also willing to call a convicted rapist a rapist.

_________________
"Everybody in this room is wearing a uniform, and don't kid yourself" - FZ

Which is exactly the point- if the US system is so fantastic,why does it lead us to wildly speculate on NMB's crime? The information that we have indicates, he did something illegal connected with sex, leading people here to speculate that a) he molested a child b) he raped somebody c) he urinated in public d) he was accused wrongly- and this is a system you trust

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

No we are all too lazy to follow-up and find out the details, I was hoping someone with a little more familiarity with the different ways of finding this info (which should be a matter of public record), would find out. I don’t have any experience with this so there may be a learning curve, plus leaving the outcome vague lets me hang on to the thought that it was a miscarriage of justice and I can go on liking one of my favorite FZ & ZPZ band members.

An interesting point, BUT; doesn't the fact that one actually has to make the effort to glean actual details on the crime commited, (and, as you indicate, it appears to be time-consuming and fairly complicated) denigrate the whole system? The information openly given (rape with force) would appear insufficiently vague and thus as valuable as the garden fence gossip of Mrs McNulty down the road.
BTW, if NMB now moved into your street would you greet him as the true fan you are, or would you lock up your wife and children?

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."

First of all I have all women at my house and they ain't doing anything I tell them...LOL...as to the vague code with NMB, that is what makes me suspect that this in one of those rare cases that have a more complex explanation due to the catch all clause for that 5% or less who should not be on the list. As I said I am not familiar with this system, but I spoke with someone who said the code usually clearly defines the crime, the code used for NMB was extremely vague.

_________________
BANNED and FAT

the code for NMB said Rape By Force, i would say that's quite specific. Are you expecting it to tell you if the woman was wearing a short skirt and high heels and thus presenting mitigating circumstances?

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl

there is no uncertainty surrounding the nature of the crime, the crime was Rape By Force. That is a specific crime. The only speculation was on the age of the victim and child molestation is a completely different offence from rape by force...completely different.

So the crime is rape by force, the speculation surrounds the age of the victim, not the crime. For the sake of argument, we will assume that the victim was an adult. Therefore, that just leaves the crime of rape by force. Not child molestation and certainly not peeing in the street.

If you can show me a past case in the USA, where someone has been peeing in the street and subsequently arrested, charged and convicted of rape by force, i'll be more willing to accept your "wild speculation" argument.

_________________
Solipsism
Ambidextrous Records
Solipsism Twitter
Solipsism Facebook
Juno Records Vinyl