Man arrested in 21st century Lolita case
p2pnet news | Crime:- In a 21st century Lolita story, 32-year-old Vincent R. Duval has been arrested after flying from his home in Belgium for a liaison with a 13-year-old Montreal girl he’d met online.
He was arraigned in Montreal on six sex-related charges including kidnapping and three counts of luring with a computer.
“The Liège native was arrested early Saturday morning, a day after the 13-year-old’s parents reported her missing,” says the CBC.
Montreal police said they found the girl with a man in a hotel near the central bus station after a city-wide search, says the story.
Duval, wearing a Hell’s Angel ‘Crazy Pirate’ T-shirt, admitted exchanging more than 3,000 emails with the girl, “then flew to Canada and met her last Friday outside the private school she attended,” says the Canwest News Service.
“He then took her to a hotel, where police tracked them down several hours later.”
.
.Stumble It!
CBC – Belgian accused of luring teen charged with 6 counts, June 16, 2008
Canwest News Service – Belgian man pleads guilty to luring Montreal girl over Internet, June 20, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:49 am
“Instead of burning a guy at the stake, what about burning him at the STILTS? It probably lasts longer, plus it moves around.”
– Jack Handey
June 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I’ve read both linked news stories and I can’t help but notice that they leave out a few things. It says he was accused of kidnapping, but nowhere in the articles does it say that he forced the girl to go with him. In fact there’s no mention at all of the girl’s side of the story. Oops, I forgot, at 13 she’s still just a brainless zombie with no intelligence whatsoever who will do anything and everything that people tell her. It also doesn’t say if he previously told the girl how old he was, or if he lied to her to make her think he was closer to her age.
People talk about the “damage” caused by young teens having any sort of sexual encounter with an adult, but I can’t help wondering how much damage it’s going to do, seeing police rush into the room, cuff and man-handle the man she apparently considered her boyfriend, then be taken to the hospital and forced to strip naked so that doctors can examine every inch of her body, and have to put her legs up in stirrups so that they can swab the inside of her vagina for possible semen samples, all while cops ask questions like “Did he make you touch his penis? Did he put his fingers inside you”…
I’m not saying that what he did was right or that it should be overlooked, but the news stories make it sound like he lied to her and told her he was her age, showed up at her school, dragged her kicking and screaming to the hotel and tried to rape her. I’d be willing to bet that they don’t mention the girl’s side of the story because she was a willing participant rather than a helpless victim and they want to perpetuate the myth that teens don’t have sexual thoughts until they turn 18.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
@Reader’s Write
1. The girl went w/o any force under her own will and willingly.
2. The parents knew about it since Feb but just left the girl continue the only relationship.
3. The girl told him she was 25.
4. The guy (up until Feb, when the parents CONTACTED him) was under the belief the girl was 25.
5. They were going to take off to an Amish community in Ontario where its legal to be with a 13 year old (both discussed it).
6. Lets not forget the paranets were AWARE since Feb and made no restrictions on the girls continuing relationship, and no restrictions on the 13 year old girls internet habit.
7. This shows exactly how much the PARENTS were not involved with their own 13 year old daughter after KNOWING 5 months prior to this.
Ref:
1. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=3fec0cb2-9573-4dbe-a0f0-e4038b947e53
2. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=eedd44dc-e39a-4704-abaf-f1762ae7b750
3. http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=1b220aaa-12e8-4b0e-8eb1-ee6056550e26
June 21st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Lets not forget how easy it was for the police to find them.
Everything was documented in their Emails. The EMAILS in the kids INBOX.
This says a whole friggin lot about the parents.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“Police said they found a man and the girl at 3:30 a.m. Saturday, after a worker at a hotel recognized them.”
So this guy never thought it might seem the least bit odd for a 32 y.o. to check in at a hotel’s front desk with a 13 y.o. girl at his side?
I figured it was standard operating procedure for illicit affairs for the guy to pay for a MOTEL room (the kind you can drive right up to) alone and then quietly slip his ‘date’ from the car into the room.
Maybe it’s something about the French-speaking people. They did, after all, welcome fugitive sex-offender Roman Polanski, who also had a taste for 13 year-old girls.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Personally, I think each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits rather than have a blanket law that covers all. If she ran off somewhere and had sex with a 14 year old, they’d both get a stern talking to. Increase the guy’s age to 18 or over and suddenly it’s a major crime. He’s considered a dangerous predator while she’s considered a helpless victim. I know boys and girls are different but back when I was that age, I had the hots for the teenager girl that my parents had babysit me a few times. If she’d wanted to fool around, I’d have been more than willing. Would that have made me a victim? They say that girls mature faster than boys, so if I was willing at that age, why couldn’t a girl be?
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 am
That’s bizarre that this guy would fly all the way across the Atlantic to meet someone. He only lived a short drive from Amsterdam, where it’s said that even the most perverse can easily find anything they might want.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Many people seem to forget that only 200 years ago (even less), both boys and girls were often wed by age 12+. It’s a very polemic issue that of what age is acceptable to engage in sexual activities. The legally approved age has been incrementally increasing over the years. I don’t believe laws should dictate what consenting individuals choose to do.
If in this particular case, they were both consenting and no dissimulation was involved, then I see no basis for society to interdict.
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
@Reader’s Write Says:
“If in this particular case, they were both consenting and no dissimulation was involved, then I see no basis for society to interdict”
Surely you must be kidding.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) watch on TV.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) listen to on the Radio.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) read.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) download.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) smoke.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) drink.
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) eat. (Well, that’s next anyway)
Society tells us what we can (and can’t) think.
Society tells us who we can (and can’t)
Methinks society needs to get a frickin life!