It’s better than fiction. This story is fascinating to anyone with an interest in psychology. Two fantasists meet online. Both are “mature” consenting adults in an exchange that is clearly understood by both to be unverifiable and anonymous. So, given both are lying, neither of them seriously intends to realise a full sexual relationship (think about it). Left to its own devices the fantasy relationship could never have progressed beyond the virtuality of the chat room/emails.

I expect very few people will understand me when I say that only a French court of law could hope to hear this case and see justice done. It’s my belief that the two guilty parties, one in particular, are the women. The two victims, one dead and one facing a life sentence are the men. Notwithstanding the tragedy that the murderer and his wife could not discuss the failure of their marriage in an adult way, both provocateurs (accesories to, and ultimately, collectively, perpetrators of the murder) are in *reality* those who took the fantasy into real life. The first by maliciously exposing her husband, the second by delberately instigating a relationship with a specific stranger as an act of revenge.

Ironically, I guess most people will assume the murderer takes the charge of “jealousy”. But the subtle distinction of motive will possibly escape an American judge it is not “la jelousie” rather “le crime passionnel”, in our words *rage* that probably drove the man to kill. The jealous party was the murders wife. I think if the authorities were to sieze and analyse the electronic exchanges between the parties they would see how cunningly the second (embittered, disappointed) woman played off the two men against each other to maximise antagonism. I would deem her the prime instigator…but wow, what a mess. And what kind of tragedy is it for the unwitting stooge who got shot. It beats American Beauty hands down.

Those who do not know the line between fantasy and reality, like the Asian hate mobs Dorpus keeps bringing up, are guilty of the gravest offences. Myself, I regularly enjoy a few rounds of a game where we fantasise about blowing each other to pieces with automatic weapons. I seriously doubt any of the players are fit enough to run two blocks with a fully loaded assult rifle, let alone have the guts to bring themselves to fire a lethal weapon at another human being.

People can shout insults and fire virtual bullets at each other and play at sexual fantasises until the cows come home, nobody is harmed. It takes a certain, probably dysfunctional mentality to take the *huge* step of translating this into real life (for example by sending a personal email to a specific person divulging real names and addresses). In any case where this happens the finger should point firmly at the person who makes that first cruicial step, even where it is by proxy of a lawyers letters.

On that note I was pleased to see a judge in the USA refuse to identify an anonymous defendent. This sets a very good precedent, because it was clearly the aim of the prosecution to intimidate the person on a personal level rather than challenge their remarks in the original context (of a blog). This escalation always demonstrates mal-intent in my opinion, it exposes a weakness in one party who cannot defend their position in words on the original playing field (blog/website/chatroom etc).

And here’s the punchline…to avoid tackling the immensely rich complexities of this case some would blame the website operator!!

fair points but i’m sorry it doesn’t hold with me. Adults should be able to make logical and rational decisions, understanding the conscequences of their actions. Unlike children.