by Robb_K » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:50 am
I don't know Sander Gulien personally, and he's not an idol of mine. I don't like to see any talented artist lose a career over the bad luck of having someone misrepresent him. You are correct that I don't really know if Gulien did what he was purported to have done, or if he didn't. Unless I was a personal witness to such action, I would never really know. I've known Frank Jonker for many years, and we have been work partners on several stories. He is as honest as anyone I know, and I can't imagine him saying publically that Sander Gulien was "framed" by a hacker just because Sander told him so. I have never known him to blur the truth or jump to unsubstantiated conclusions just to defend a colleague, or even a friend. The fact that Gulien was found guilty by a judge doesn't make it certain that Gulien was guilty of the charges. I've had other colleagues had the computers invaded, and had false (criminal) e-mails sent pretending to be them. It can happen to anyone. Of course, I don't know if it is really true, but I can't imagine the Frank Jonker I know, saying that is what happened, unless he's seen some proof of it. He just wouldn't do such a thing, risking his own reputation just to help a person who may be guilty.
I DIDN'T mean that "I'm glad to KNOW that Gulien is innocent.". I only meant that I'm glad to hear that he MIGHT NOT be guilty, after all. Of course, I will never know the actual truth. I have been found "guilty" (by all the people concerned) of doing something that I never did. (not a crime). I had no way to prove my innocence. So, I know how horrible that situation is. Maybe he was guilty. You can see in earlier threads that I do not hold with such terrible behaviour, and condemned it. I wouldn't want someone who is guilty to get away with being disrespectful to other people and reflecting badly upon his peers and employer. I hope, for the sake of Sanoma and their readers, and all of us that he is innocent (and also that it can be proven).
But your point is well taken. If Frank is sure enough to have made his statement, Gulien should have the evidence that his computer had an invasive programme operating in it. If a technical person could assess that, by having examined the computer, he could testify to the judge in the criminal case, and the verdict could be changed. I'll be curious to see if that happens, and wonder why such evidence wasn't presented (or didn't carry any weight) in the past court proceedings.