Here is a small treat for my 60+ daily readers. heh. Quite different amount from Viraldeath with its massive daily numbers. But thats how i like it, here it´s a private atmosphere.

The article in full can be read here:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1057380

In actually i really did not want to do it, but i feelt this was our chance to have the last word because i predicted the dying down of the story. And we got the last word, major league.

The journalist did a great job letting me speak our sites policies and how we worked. The purpose and how we see ourselves. It came out very good.

I was told however it was one of the longest interviews they ever published so they have to edit out a lot of what i said.
—————————–

The following was edited out, some whole questions was removed. But i do not blame them, i edited out one question myself that was designed to make me admit i am a necrophile or something. I did not want to comment on that because it was not in my interest or the story’s interest as i saw it. The Leanne Holland post was totally nonsexual and viral death as a blog do not have a sexual motive.

But here is what was edited out, to get the full picture read the published interview and add the parts that got edited..

Please explain the online gore scene to me. How did it start? What kind of people are involved? How popular is it?

But the real beginning was the old usenet-lists like alt-binary-grotesque and such. If we talk the net. But gore have been mainstream long before Internet with movies like the Faces of Death series and Traces of death series. While Faces of Death 1 and 3 composed mostly of fake content part 2 had a lot of real material (if i remember correctly).

How can posting images of a dead girl’s naked body serve any purpose other than to shock and offend?

Especially in Leanne Hollands case where there is a lot pointing towards corruption among the police and even the potential murderer assisting the detectives on the case. Some media even described their relationships as “friendly”.

The real thing, seeing it as it is changes views and public outcry should not be directed towards us but against the people that let a innocent man because of what best can be described as police corruption sit in prison for 15 years. It is a travesty of justice.

Then a whole question was cut out, the question is the property of the journalist i guess but it went like what about Leanne´s family why did you ignore the pain it could cause them. My answer was this, and was it was completely cut out:

We are convinced the family has already seen the pictures before or during the trial and so on and probably already accepted the fact. By posting the images maybe there will be a public outcry to actually find out who murdered Leanne Holland. I took a lot of consideration to Leanne’s family when i wrote the piece, if you knew half of what i know about Leanne Holland herself you would be stunned. Death turned her into an innocent angel, but the truth is not as simple as that. She was a lonely girl that grew up too fast. But whatever Leanne herself did the murder was an atrocity and she did not deserve that at all, nobody really does not even the killer. Law of justice is important, we do not want a mob justice.

We just hope that the image publication wont overshadow the important matter here, to find Leanne’s murderer. We do not earn a dime on posting these images, but the Australian social pornographic media have sucked every coin it could from Leanne’s death for over a decade. That is a very big difference in my opinion, we as a site had no economic interest in this story, rather just show reality as it is. It was Australian media that cashed in on our posting, not we. If we asked royalty for their stories about us we probably be millionaires by now.

Queensland Attorney-General Cameron Dick has been quoted telling the media that police have failed in their attempts to have the Leanne images removed from your site. What contact have you had with police regarding the photos?

Our host Bullcat.nl is great and we recieve excellent service from them. They are a guarantee for real free speech.

And then there was another question and answer completely cut out that was about if we had other Australian cases and if we are going to post them and how we get the content, my answer was (wait and see, if police contact we post to give them the finger, but they did not attempt any sort of contact. ): We have not yet gotten any email from Australian authorities.

We have decided on a wait and see attitude on that (we are not intimidated to post though, it is crime scene images of various murders and there is a great public interest in them). We have all types of sources and i do not want to go into that, the first rule of the gore-scene is that you do not expose your sources, so to say.

That is actually something we usually try to avoid. The victims name we avoid but their images we show. While we many times mention the killers name we do not show the killer, because they are simply worthless and of no interest to our site. We are not one of those sites that adores famous killers, we are the kind of site that show their victims.

They cut some in my explanation of the German murder case i think, but that was OK.

If the government was not already monitoring your website, they certainly are now. It’s likely it will be banned in Australia under the proposed internet censorship laws. What are your thoughts on this?

Here i chose not to tell parts of what i said (sorry guys), it was good it didn’t get into the interview.

But this i said that was dropped in the interview:

It is the same thing with the filter, the ones that want to set them up are just interested in protecting their OWN interest. Not public interest, just throw in child pornography (that of course should be illegal) or endangerment of children and you can get a whole nation to follow you as slaves. Any nation, not just Australia.

Why should Australians be allowed to access your site? What purpose does it serve?

And Australia needs better transparency for their own crime cases, if it had been open my guess would be that Graham Stafford wouldn’t have been in prison for all that time.

So, that was it. They cut it as much as they could and its one of the longest interview they had. They where forced to cut so i hold nothing against them for it. I consider the interview good journalism and the journalist that did it was very serious, respectful and when respected my private matters i told him in order for him to understand some things. And those private parts was not included on my request, that is real journalism.

So thumbs up for the reporter actually, i have a deep resentment for journalists in general but every close up (interview or source and fact checking) experience i had so far (quite a few actually by now, both national and international on other matters than gore) have all been perfect and professional. The journalists that drag all the others down in the dirt are the tabloids that does not even bother to contact the involved parties or repost other peoples pieces.