Pedophile Piggy

[shruman]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queen...5126085158.html

Cop's 8742 child porn mistakes

Christine Kellett | March 13, 2008 - 1:57PM

A Queensland police officer caught with more than 8000 child porn images on his home computer has avoided spending any time in jail.

Thomas James Anthony Wilson, 25, pleaded guilty in Brisbane's District Court today to possessing the lewd material, including pictures of boys as young as 10 engaging in sex acts.

He was sentenced to 18 months' jail, but the term was wholly suspended after his lawyer successfully argued Wilson had downloaded the images by mistake.

The former policeman, who has since lost his job, was one of 1717 suspects identified as part of a 2003 child porn investigation by US Customs and FBI agents.

Police traced his credit card to a child porn website titled “Sunshine Boys”, where Wilson had paid a $35 access fee.

A March 28, 2006 raid on his Shorncliffe home on Brisbane’s northside uncovered a computer loaded with pornography.

In all, 8742 images were identified as depicting children aged between 10 and 18 posing nude, masturbating and engaging in sex acts.

Wilson's defence barrister Craig Eberhardt told the court his client had not purposefully sought out child abuse images when he downloaded pornography files from the internet.

He suggested Wilson may have viewed some of it as a way to deal with his own sexuality as a young man.

"(He is) not a pedophile, he does not have pedophilic tendencies," Mr Eberhardt said, citing medical evidence.

"His culpability comes from his failure to get rid of it once he knew it was there."

Judge Tony Rafter SC said a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate because Wilson posed no risk to children and was unlikely to reoffend.

But he said the actions of the disgraced policeman had nonetheless helped to feed an "evil and exploitative industry".

"You should have been accutely aware of the seriousness of the offence because you were a serving police officer at the time," Judge Rafter chastised.

"I accept that you did not actively seek child pornography and these images were accessed somewhat accidentally.

"I am also mindful that as a former police officer, a period of imprisonment would be harsher upon you."

Wilson left court supported by family.

[Auxin]

So he accidentally accessed a child porn web site, accidentally paid for membership, accidentally downloaded a massive quantity of child porn from a site that would have previews, and accidentally kept it on file for 3 years after discovering what it was?

Being that accident prone its a miracle he didnt have a fatal accident putting on his socks.

[tobydoo]

So he accidentally accessed a child porn web site, accidentally paid for membership, accidentally downloaded a massive quantity of child porn from a site that would have previews, and accidentally kept it on file for 3 years after discovering what it was?

Being that accident prone its a miracle he didnt have a fatal accident putting on his socks.

Hummmm, let's for one second play devils advocate....... Ummm the only way I could even fathom the idea that a cop would have any possible reason for having this kind of involvement with child porn was if he was in a job position to bust the people who are creating the child porn. Then again, I have the misconception of thinking that people in "trust" positions should always exercise a moral responsibitily to refrain from "bad behavior". You know such as the athlete that does drugs. If you chose a life style that people look up to you and trust you, then you should always be aware of the responsibilities that go along with that choice. So that brings me to my next thought..... If he was in the position to bust child pornographers, he still would have NO need to keep those pics on his computer. They would have been turned in to authorities and kept as evidence in which at that point he could delete them. Yes, I realize that there isn't a claim that it could have been a part of his job, once again trying to play devils advocate and as you can tell, I can't seem to come up with anything that could remotely seem logical.

FYI: I should say that I am Pete's (tobydoo) wife.

Anyway, I agree with you 100%. The question I have in my mind is WHY can a cop get away with breaking the law and get a slap on the hand, while if it were a "normal" person, they would get prosecuted to the full extent??? And especially a pediphile???? Small children are taught to trust these people.

"Don't talk to strangers" "Oh say Hello to the nice police officer"

Ok, and let's for one second pretend he really was that stupid....... Then HOW in the world did this guy get a job as a police officer?!? I feel so safe knowing our public servants are out there protecting us....NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Auxin]

I think more than anything this is an example of how the negative reinforcement system of punishing criminals is fundamentally flawed. Pedophiles have a good idea what will happen if they get caught collecting porn and they still do it and this guy would have known that if he, as a cop, were put in jail for child porn the punishment would be ten times worse as all the guys he busted tried to cut out a hunk of flesh with a spoon they roughed up on the cement floor. Yet still no level of threats of violence make people obey. Perhaps our cultures are handling their problems inappropriately.

[Stonehenge]

While I think those who abuse children should be prosecuted to the max, I will play devil's advocate for a moment here. Looking at nasty pictures is not the same as abusing children. I've seen many cases where simple possession of these images led to prison sentences of 20 years or more. This is going back to the days of puritanism where looking at dirty drawings or even reading dirty books led to floggings and jail. If they are involved in producing the crap then lock 'em up. If they just looked at it, that's another story. Cops should be dealt with more severely than common citizens but that's another matter.

[incognito]

Looking at nasty pictures is not the same as abusing children

same ballpark. u are still involved in a fuken sick sector of society, and especially if he has paid for them, supporting the abuse of the children and encouraging more.

0tolerance is the only way to deal with these sick fucks.

[Stonehenge]

Jono, then I assume you are in favor of 0 tolerance for drug offenses? Like I say, I think those who abuse children deserve whatever they get. But, being in the same ballpark is not the same thing at all. You might as well say looking at heroin is the same as mainlining it. Thinking about murder is the same as killing someone. Should we lock up people who look at images of murder and torture? That's kind of sick too. Where do we stop?

[Jesus On Peyote]

If this was china, he would have been put up against a firing squad for corruption.

It seems like just about any crime these days from murder to pedophilia can be gotten away with easily in australia..cept for drug related stuff, they seem to get it pretty hard.

Eaither aus needs to fix its justice system or hire some of the chinese firing squads..

[Jesus On Peyote]

Stonehenge, Zero tolorence against sick fuckers who molest children and drugs are 2 completly different issues,and is kinda messed up yould compare them. Drug users are completly aware of their doings, and the angle there is they can do what they want to their body, as long as no one else gets hurt, child molosters on the other hand, their whole thing is to cause harm to others, and more then that, to cause harm to the ones that can least defend themselfs.

You pay for pictures, you support the actual people doing it.

shoot em all..

Peace

[tobydoo]

Jono, then I assume you are in favor of 0 tolerance for drug offenses? Like I say, I think those who abuse children deserve whatever they get. But, being in the same ballpark is not the same thing at all. You might as well say looking at heroin is the same as mainlining it. Thinking about murder is the same as killing someone. Should we lock up people who look at images of murder and torture? That's kind of sick too. Where do we stop?

How can you possibly parallel drug offenses with child molestation???

[Vertmorpheus]

Ignorance of the law has rarely been a useful defence for anyone else, and it should be even less so for those that are fully versed in the application of the law.

Stone, you're essentially saying that there's nothing "wrong" with someone that provides direct cash support for people that DO abuse children... if anything, I could personally understand more that someone is wired to do those kind of things... rather than someone that doesn't have the pathological compulsion to do it themselves BUT is still happy to finance those that do.

I don't support zero tolerance drug laws either... but... I understand that if I'm found to be providing premises, funds, support to a drug lab, I can probably expect some trouble over it... likewise, if someone in QLD was found with 8000 "doses" of anything, theyd be FUCKED. There'd be no salvation to be had in them saying "well yknow i accidentally found somme dealers, accidentally paid for some drugs, then held onto the drugs... but I didnt ever intend to use them or distribute them myself!"

There are people that wind up with content like that by accident... though tis a lot rarer these days than it used to be, the nets a lil bit tidier and better lit. My only concern with that is that theres lil def seems to be made between attempting to purge something from your PC but failing, traces left etc... and those that have burnt the shit onto cd's and keep em handy... destruction of evidence is a no no... but simply not being found with it seems to be ok.

And personally, I worry quite a bit about people that spend nights looking at autopsy n crime scene cases, esp given that theres been a couple of very intense cases have to be basically thrown out of court as the defence has argued "well, youll never find an impartial juror, what with the deirdre kennedy photos being put on rotten.com". Whether they should be looked up I dont know, but they should be sent to some kind of treatment. Not saying we should be charging people inn anticipation of an offence, but then... plenty of people HAVE been charged with "attempted" this and "conspiracy to bla bla". The law isnt perfect, and neither is its application... but for someone to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with having 8000 images depicting the brutalisation and abuse of young children...thats a bit fucked up.

I was going to say that you'll understand if you ever have kids of your own... but then... I kind of hope you never do. Or haven't yet. Unless you wouldn't mind the bloke next door jacking off to images depicting your offspring being violated, degraded, exploited. What if someone raped say...your mum, or your sister... filmed it, no less....on many, many occasions, sometimes for years at a time...and then was SELLING THE IMAGES COMMERCIALLY ... you wouldnt take exception to those that happily pay for them to continue their little habits?

We're not talking the right of adults to view consentual acts between other adults, or whether its ok to get a Pulitzer for taking pics of war, but not of sex... youre saying there's nothing wrong with providing material support to a child exploitation racket.We're not talking about he was clicking thru TGPs and ended up at some of that "synthetic" kiddy lookin porn material, or that he peer to peered a music video and it turned out to be something quite different... and then made speedy steps to remove all material and reported the distributor... we're talking someone that certainly should know better, is PAID to know better, going out of their way to find a supplier, with a product he liked, pay him, recieve the goods, then hang onto them. on 8000 separate occasions. Not a slip up, not an accidental exposure... premeditated and ongoing. what else does it take?

Pity he wont end up inside with all the blokes that dont get to see their own kids all that often...

And as far as the application of law in QLD goes, having a bag of heroin "just to look" at is probably more of a firestarter than just using it all up with no evidence left over, too. Whats next? No man, those mullies are just ORNAMENTALS! No, I didn't kill them myself, I just like having a dead body in the freezer for looks... a bit of fun titillation, honest! Ferfuckssakes...

And other things I'd rather not read before lunch on a sunday... Devils Advocate stone, or Devils Spin Doctor?

VM

[tobydoo]

Thanks VM. This is exactly the pure common sense thinking that we in the US are so desperately devoid of any more. I don't know what else I could possibly add to what you've said. Thanks again.

Pete

[apothecary]

I think it should be kept in mind that while the principal is obvious "your inalienable right of freedom extends as far as the boundaries of others freedom", there ARE nonetheless fundamental parallels between the child porn shenanigans and the drug war.

Firstly, in both scenarios, we are discussing a minor segment of society with views that are clearly different from the major segments.

Secondly, in both scenarios, the "facts" provided by the media are seriously misrepresented. I can't provide references right now because I'm at work, but AFAIK the majority of "child porn" pictures on the net is actually legally produced porn with 18+ actors who already look young and are further dolled up/shaved down/whatever to look younger.

In all, 8742 images were identified as depicting children aged between 10 and 18 posing nude, masturbating and engaging in sex acts

In all, 8742 Cannabis plants were identified on the side of a mountain in NNSW. Police say their street value exceeds 2 billion dollars.

Thirdly, and now, I am addressing this case specifically, this guy was identified by the US feds in 2003. The AU feds raided his house in 2006 and found one batch of files, a one off payment to a website, file access dates that corroborate his story and not much else. If he was such a threat to children at large, one would hope they had their shit together enough to swoop on this "sick fucker who molests children" (errrr yeah, I'm glad we aren't in China, you know that whole innocent before proven guilty thing) in less than three years, and they probably would've found more evidence than that?

That's the problem with the whole "won't somebody think of the children" mentality, it completely overrides any commonsense the proponents may have once held.

[incognito]

That's the problem with the whole "won't somebody think of the children" mentality, it completely overrides any commonsense the proponents may have once held.

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard u say sina.we r talking about pedophilia , right?

Firstly, in both scenarios, we are discussing a minor segment of society with views that are clearly different from the major segments.

yeah hell be it that we dislike people who like to fantasize about fucking children. oops my bad.

drawing a comparison between paedophiles and drug users is fuking stupid.

there is no comparison. one wants to harm kids, the other uses drugs.......

the majority of "child porn" pictures on the net is actually legally produced porn with 18+ actors who already look young and are further dolled up/shaved down/whatever to look younger.

i dont even wanna know how u lnow that.

people who abuse children, support the abuse of children deserve to die, and die in the most ghastly way conceivable.

Edited March 16, 2008 by jono

[apothecary]

We have this argument everytime jono, and you always end up calling me a fucker or something because I don't have a kid and could never understand your point of view, and I always end up saying that's bullshit I have nothing against parents protecting their kids but I have something very very against irrational groupthink behaviour.

You would've had this guy imprisoned or executed or whatever, 0 tolerance policy, right? But the facts of the matter indicate he probably isn't involved or even supporting (come on $35 couldn't even buy a month of hosting for a pornsite) child porn in any meaningful way despite a most likely ONE OFF mistaken download 3 years ago.

This is the part of the argument where you call me a fucker or something again because I don't have a kid and could never understand your point of view again, just in case you forgot.

[apothecary]

i dont even wanna know how u lnow that.

Err, by examining the FACTS. You know, the actual content of siezed child porn HAS to be examined, and most of it has been found to be containing legal 18+ actors. Of course you won't hear this in police media releases or from CNN, but usually in psychology papers addressing pedophilia and child porn.

drawing a comparison between paedophiles and drug users is fuking stupid.

there is no comparison. one wants to harm kids, the other uses drugs.......

It's actually a great comparison, if you qualify the word paedophile.

"Child molesters" and "drug abusers" are both demonised in the media as some sort of bogeyman who is going to come into your house or whatever and molest your kid or rape your wife 'cos they're all coked up (the reasoning for the US police to upgrade to 0.38s), but the fact of the matter is that almost all child molestation cases are perpetrated by someone in a position the child should trust, and cokehead is probably more interested in your DVD player or TV than your wife.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Sina

[Vertmorpheus]

Errrrrrrrrrrr....yeah. Kind of. Shit... icky topic.

Starters, Sina, youre a nice bloke, ever so helpful and bright as abutton too... and I know before I became a parent, one of the most irritating things people would say in response to my opinions were "you dont have kids so you cant understand" and "well its obvious you dont have kids"... used to get me really heated actually, as if I had to have one of the lil buggers to understand em.

Thing is, they were right. I didnt understand, COULDN'T understand... watching someone smoke pot tells you a bit about it, but its not ti lyou have your second hit yourself you actually get the Knowing. Ask our old mate Harry, hes the most recently spawned around here... as Adam Spencer said, he couldnt tell anyone what he thought before he had kids, as the new thinking that htey bring just erases so much poorly concieved bullshit. So whilst I agree with some of your points, and am all for the civil liberties angle, I have to say that, you'll never understand, unti lyou have kids. and hten youll get online and say as muc hto others, trust me ont hat. thats not a putdown, not callin you a lackwit or anything like that... its just how it is. Parenthood is an initiatory thing, that brings with it certain ways of thinking, pretty simple really.

Now, the age of "actors"... I know what you mean there... underfed offspring of czech junkies that never developed much after 12 years of age... some blurring here, some photoshopping there, wax this and give that a timid expression... yep. With ya. And there is a lot of it around. Theres also a lot of stuff around featuring people taking children and shoving massive things into them til they kick and scream and bleed, end up with STDs or pregnant well ahead of any rational time for such. some of them simply "disappear" as they get older ie lose their market appeal... others later turn up in more legit "adult" smut.

The other thing is, think about the data... the fact is, a lot of ppl found in possession of illegal material is because of credit card records... of course, that which you pay for is a lot more likely to be the "pigtails and pink" stuff, its the stuff the "hobbyists" "enthusiasts" trade and deal in thats the real deal... and theyre a lot harder to find im sure... having connections with police etc doesnt help that cause either. Think about the quality of "legal highs" you can buy from shitty websites vs this one... or trade with fellow members... some of it aint quite the "legal" but it sure is the "high", isnt it? ;)

We're not talking pseudo legal "legal in holland" kinda content really... what part of 10 year old boy sits ok with anyone? not much, I would hope. I assure you, there's plenty of "real" kiddy porn around, forthose that want it, and I have so on the sayso of a QLD police forensic photographic expert thats spent years taking pictures and analysing them.Bugger the media release, this is from the horses mouth, as it were. Some of it is now being cooked up with composite software etc... but the real market is always for the "Real deal"... "genuine pedos" dont want the fluffy well lit posing on the beach stuff ...they want all the misery and abuse and evident suffering they can find. And theres plenty of it.... think of it as the difference between "hustler" style content and "cum covered meat whores triple drilled by infected cavemen and made to drink cum out of toilet bowls"... the existence of one doesnt rule out the existance of, or the impact of, the other. and thats the stuff made with mostly consenting adults (give or take the coercion, drugs, threats, and generally going for "Actors" that were abused as kids anyway... also comes up a bit in those psych paper too doesnt it?).

There is certainly a lot of "fake" stuff... but its a bit like saying that because sometimes ppl sell glucose as meth, that meth isnt much ofa problem when it DOES pop up, really.

As for the one off nature of it... I don't know if getting the paranoid guilts and never doing something again is quite the redeemer it seems to be to you. Its certainly "better" than making a habit of it, but the facts sound like he knew what he was paying for, paid for it, got the product, kept the product... maybe 8000 images was enough for him? maybe he lined up a better source from someone likeminded and never got picked up on that one? As I said, he didnt "Accidentally" get hold of the stuff...and as for no real material support... I really dont know where to start. Mind if I lend someone some cash to buy the gear they need to break int oyour house and tear you some new holes? How about your mum, sister, cousin, whatever?I mean, it wont keep em funded for long, or anything will it... the thing with having kids matie is that they really bring home that other people are REAL... really real... any suffering caused intentionally by those in positions of trust and power is an injustice and a terrible on at that... to happen once is no doubt better than to happen a hundred times..but once is all it takes to break people, sometimes. Unless you honestly wouldnt mind if someone say, abused you as a child, capitalised on it, and was now living high n might while you were left struggling with issues of confidence, trust, sexual identity for the rest of your life.

The 35 bucks, yeah, drop in the ocean. but without all the little drops, theres no bloody ocean is there?

I would hate to think that you wouldnt be outraged if it turned out someone has abused MY child, not only in a gratification of impulse sense, but in an organised, systemised, commercial sense... and then was selling the photos for people to indulge their slowing down at a car accident tendencies. Cmon bud, you really care about plants, people, society... I have a hard time reconciling what im reading with what i thought i understood about your approach to the welfare of other living things.

I can understand too the "think of the children" thing you get onto sometimes... its certainly been used to justify some fairly ludicrous claims, limits, laws or whatever... but to say dont bring "think of the children" into something directly related to the destruction of young lives, minds and bodies, so that someone can go out and buy a nice car and a big house in the country... that seems a lil silly to me. I know when we start making laws and turning morality into hard text, there will always be silly overlaps, loops, and when you draw a line in the sand, theres usually someone standing right on top of it at the time...always goign to happen. But i know if i had the choice between someone with 8000 paid for and deliberately acquired images of non consentual abusive conduct, let alone with people as young as 10 years of age (look at a photo of yourself at 10..now imagine a roomful of coked up shitheads passing you around for a giggle and some pocket money whilst slapping you around for spoiling their "angle") being locked up over it, or not being locked up over it... I know which sounds like a better recipe for a passable excuse for a society.

I dont think youre a dickhead, I dont think youre a fool and i dont think you're "unaware of the facts"... but a lot comes down to the fact that you dont have kids, and know too well that one form of censorship or marginalistion can be quickly spread around to other "weirdos" like ourselves... one you cant help, the other makes complete sense to me... but I still think he should be locked up. They're not saying "ws found with a few links to 18yo content". If you can pay for what you knnow to be illegal, and not illegal in that "war on drugs" silly way... just that "this shit is toxic and miserable and goes against everything human values typically stand for" way...and have 8000 individual counts...you should go away. In the meantime, have a think about the possibility that a copper with hobbies like that is a> in a pretty good position to get kids into his car, sometimes b> may well have looked the other way in relation to another committing similar offences c> would probably still have looked at you like a maggot grub for having some ganj but was home that night jacking off over little kids being hurt. Hurt. Hurt really badly, again and again and again til theyre just a husk for someone elses purposes.

Interesting the potency of the arguement that happens around here... wrong to break the thumbs of suspected terrorists, but ok to not lock up people in deliberate, knowing and ongoing possession of evidence relating to child abuse? makes no sense to me. Or is it just a by proxy "freaks of a feather" thing cominng into play?

I really dont think youre a ningnong sina, I like you and think your good people.... I just have a firmly held belief that one day when youu look at the face of your own lil Sina or Sina-ette, and then hear on the news that some sick fuck has been fucking his 3 year old on webcam for paying guests .... your guts will do that flip flop fall into nothing routine that any good parent gets... and you wont want him shot either, and neither do i. but as long as ppl face detention for simply not paying fines, have toke then getting in the car, or being in possession of Dangerous Houseplants, I'd like to see that state sponsored love spread around to the more deserving... like those sworn to protect the community who nonetheless are happy to support (even just a "little") those who are set on violating and exploiting its most vulnerable members.

I used to say just what youre saying now, about similar things... it changes. Believe me. Ask simon... ask harry...ask wandjina.. anyone with lil sprouts. The thought that we could put so much effort and time into doing the very best for our kids but have to worry about people that want to do the very worst with them... we feel awful overa smack on the bum at the end of a looooong day..while others feel ok about literally rupturing, tearing, abrading them... jesus h christ in a fucking gyrocoptor... its wrong.

Civil liberties... maybe think about the liberty of being a 10 year old whos dad thinks his mates get to use you as dip for their "doritos"... where's the liberty in that?

eh, im out of this, before someone loses an eye.

VM

Edited March 16, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[Auxin]

** All models depicted on this page were over 18 dog-years of age when the content was created. **

[apothecary]

I totally understand what you're saying Vert. Nobody wants their kid or anyone elses kid molested. I already said, nobodies freedom should be infringed.

Here's the issue. Paedophiles and child molesters have a psychological (or possibly even genetic) issue that makes them seek out child porn or worse, actual children. If the feds found out about this dude in 2003, and raided him in 2006 (I already said this but you didn't hear it), then they sure as hell would've been able to pin a lot more on him than $35 and a batch of photos with file access dates that corroborate his story of not having touched the files since download. If he's a criminal mastermind who can hide his tracks that well, then (like I said already) one would hope the feds would've rushed in a bit sooner as 3 years is a long time for a person with sociopathic tendencies (that's what paedophilia is) to roam the streets. Especially in his position of power and trust. And once again this raises my point "won't somebody think of the FBI agents who let a paedophile roam for 3 years oh wait we were too busy seeing red"

Heaps of porno sites try and appear like legitimate sites because lots of places won't host porno sites. Heaps of child porn sites have to pose as legitimate porno sites so they don't get shut down as well. I don't like shemale porn but have accidentally downloaded some because of the file title. This doesn't make me a shemale fetishist, just the same as downloading 8471_XXX_hot_young_girls.zip doesn't make you a paedophile. Liking it makes you a paedophile, and if this guy liked it so much, how come he never touched the files again?

EDIT: I'd also just like to point out, there's heaps of for-money, user-upload porn sites out there. There's no guarantee that the filename you download is going to correspond to what you actually end up with. The funny thing is if this guy had ended up with some goat porn or some shit, he wouldn't even end up in court. Won't somebody please think of the goats!

EDIT2:

being locked up over it, or not being locked up over it... I know which sounds like a better recipe for a passable excuse for a society.

Well the issue (as the judge so aptly recognised) is that a lockup for an ex cop charged with child porn = execution sentence at the hands of other inmates.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Sina

[Vertmorpheus]

well ive never been much good at shutting up, lol....yeah Sina, true enough. But I think the feds position there is akin to Australia and East Timor "you did nothing for 20 years!" "no, dont do anything now, youll mess with their autonomy". Too little too late is better than none at all. Sure itd be nice if they could just pick ppl off one at a time as they attract attention... but how many growers or cooks would get found if they just busted someoen for the g in their pocket rather than watching em for a few days after the pickup?

I probably only woulda bought dope once as a kid, had I just got a few pounds as a one off. Doesnt mean I only would have used it once and then gotten all moral about it, or that I musnthave gotten onto anymore in the meantime. Just means thats the only EVIDENCE that was found.

I did hear you say about the time gap, btw, it just doesnt strike me as significant in comparison to the follow on effects and happenings. I certainly "Wasnt too busy seeing red". I dont see red about these things, some sure do but i dont... isee this sick greyish greenish blueish shade of low budget home studios and the light of life dying in childrens eyes for the amusement of others because they have "a genetic disposition", a need to "Research a book im writing!" or "help me with my own experiences as a child".

Its called the waiting game, and its how things are done...the real bastard with surveillance policing, and the boys n girls in blue (or black, as the case may be) will agree with this in a heartbeat, as its where I heard it in the first place... is that they can't just rush in at the first sign of activity...they have to hang out, watching, in a way vicariously condoning, til they have as much evidence to go after as many people as possible, with the same amount of certainty. It's not a perfect system, but its what we have for now.And whilst three years is a long time, maybe they used the intervening time to deal with bigger fish, better connected fish, or fish they could catch that wouldnt tip off the rest of the pondscum. maybe they were told "this op is over a three year timeframe, with the following phases...". I know its good in the copshows where they bend the rules to get the man, loose cannon, bla bla..but in real life it tends to let sick fucks get off without charge. sad but true. They HAVE to follow procedure, esp with matters as serious as this... not talking about a "can u boys smell drugs?" when theyre on your front steps here.

Meanwhile, theres really only two options... leaving the feds out of it, for a lil bit... either its ok to pay for, DL, and then hold onto images of children being abused, or its not. I dont htink it is. The law itself says its not, and yet the law HIMSELF was not put away because "well prison would be tough". No shit. Whats gunna happen, raped, hurt and passed on? imagine that... where WOULD the karma be...And whilst I understand the pathology behind it, that doesn't mean I can hold out at much sympathy as maybe I should. Wiring, genetics etc may be a REASON, but its no EXCUSE.

Some people have a pathological "need" to hunt others for sport, and dismemeber them. Doesnt mean we should let the killing slide as long as they "get some help"...though they sure should get help from a place where they can't hurt anyone in wider society (well, much reduced chance of it anyway).

Saying he might not have meant to is a bit like saying that its ok for a cop to have 10kg of meth in his house, cos he just found it hidden in a box of car parts he bought... he should bin it, if he doesnt report it, and I can understand why he wouldnt report it.. media being what it is, etc..jails being what they are....but was he prepared as a copper, fuckit, as a PERSON, to front a bit of risk himself to set things right for the greater good? Putting yourself on a pedestal of moral superiority whilst claiming that there were justifications for acting in a reprehensible and unjust way... thats sick stuff. As for never touchingit again... dunno about that. I reckon most would forgive him touching it long enough to shit... i dunno...delete it. Properly, even.

You make good points sina, but for future ref maybe just remember that others are wired...genetically predisposed even ;) (family is a particularly hereditary trait).. to indeed "think of the children". I dont want his balls cut off, I don't think he should be raped himself, shot, hung, anything. I don't think anything would be suitable otehr than his assets being liquidated and donated to help victims of crime, him being put somewhere safe and secure for a long long time deprived of any real personal freedom.. especially for the public statement it would make... but then.. we all hear about the "massive dawn raids" but stop hearing about em pretty quickly after they get into the level of teachers, doctors, cops, judges... there are other forces at work here. And I agree... there should be a capacity for quicker action on findings...and im sure they make every effort they can to do just that. But in the meantime, the system oddly enough has to act within the confines of the system.

edity bit... death sentence, inmates etc... no shit. Same goes for a lot of people. I hope if i ever end up in front of a judge, guilty, he realises that my slim build, long hair and cheeky dimples wont go well in my favour either, and he overlooks the 10kg of whiz or the basement full of backpackers bones. You think mums that off their own kids get on well in prison? anyone else found with kiddy smut, or guilty and charged of child abuse? Prisons arent nice, but this specimen knew that well in advance.. and either didnt realise hed be caught, didnt care about being caught, or was too dense to think of disposing of the evidence. Sounds like a prizewinning wildcard entry into the human race, thats for sure.

and thats where i stand on it, love it or leave it, and no hard feelings either

VM

Edited March 16, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[apothecary]

All I'm saying that is if this guy was pathologically or genetically (I didn't mention either of these terms as a justification) actually a sociopath then there would be a LOT more evidence than what they found, because it's compulsive. I don't know if you recall the 2003 investigation that is mentioned but I do. Operational security becomes nonexistant when international media starts reporting the bust of a massive international child porn ring, so I really doubt that's the reason they waited 3 years to bust this guy.

Here is your view:

This guy downloaded almost 9000 pictures of child porn intentionally, viewed it intentionally, and stored it on his computer for further viewing.

Here is the facts garnered by the judge (several of which were left out of THIS article, check out others on the issue):

This guy downloaded an archive file containing almost 9000 pictures of child porn, he viewed a few of them (the majority of the files were not even accessed), and never touched them again. He did not renew his subscription, and the raid did not net any NEW evidence. A court ordered (i.e. independant) psychologist cleared him of having any sociopathic tendencies.

Now both you and his lawyer agree on one point: he is culpable because he didn't remove the files.

Well, shit. My hard drive contains backup copies of every single hard drive I had before it, and there's a lot of random stuff on there. I am sure you could find one or two top-40 type albums I downloaded on request, but that doesn't mean I'd be caught dead listening to any of those tracks. Even though they're somewhere on my hard drive and I hate them.

PS: It's obvious that the dawn raids didn't stop when it got into the level of cops, nor did any prosecution.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Sina

[incognito]

never called u a fucker (over this topic anyways) and ive never, ever said ' u couldnt understand because u dont have kids.' not once, not ever.

thats a cop-out.

uve expressed ur opinion, ive expressed mine.

when have i said u could never understand my viewpoint? now honestly?..never. i think ur taking verts post(no offence at vert, loved the posts, u said what i would love to be able to put into words- but ive NEVER put forward the 'im a parent u dont understand thingy, kudos to u for doing so!) and applying it to me, i dunno, maybee cos ur chickenshit and im an easier target.

ur makin shit up now.

i know its all very hip and cool and bill hicksesque to rant on about people and their cries of 'what about the children', all im saying quite simply, is that there should be 0 tolerance for paedophiles-thats it. and geez people thinking about the welfare of children? shock horror and label me a bogan.

oh yeah heres where u start to sound self-righteous, in case u forgot. ; )

see this sick greyish greenish blueish shade of low budget home studios and the light of life dying in childrens eyes for the amusement of others because they have "a genetic disposition", a need to "Research a book im writing!" or "help me with my own experiences as a child".

fuken a vert.

love ur work.

[apothecary]

never called u a fucker (over this topic anyways)

No last time we got into a similar discussion you decided that I had a Napoleon complex.

and ive never, ever said ' u couldnt understand because u dont have kids.' not once, not ever.

Actually you did say this when we were discussing the "2yo on ecstasy" video on the lab.

i know its all very hip and cool and bill hicksesque to rant on about people and their cries of 'what about the children', all im saying quite simply, is that there should be 0 tolerance for paedophiles-thats it. and geez people thinking about the welfare of children? shock horror and label me a bogan.

oh yeah heres where u start to sound self-righteous, in case u forgot. ; )

I'm not trying to be cool or hip or whatever. My problem is your 0 tolerance to 'paedophiles', which pretty much means anyone accused of anything to do with children. You don't care about the extent, the context or even if they are actually guilty (the 2yo on ecstasy video comes to mind again). If it was up to you, those parents and this guy would be dead right off the bat even though in the older case the parents didn't dose their kid on anything and in this case the guy isn't even a paedophile. You're willing to take steps the police and judicial system won't even take, and considering how far they overstep their mark on a daily basis, that scares me.

[incognito]

okay u r right in a way sina. i do get emotional when it comes to issues of child abuse/paedophilia. and obviously this is how alot of wronglyaccused people get in the shit wen they shouldnt be.

and i think its quite natural, for that i make no no excuses, nor will i ever.

IF all evidence points beyond a degree of doubt that someone has sexually abused a child, or downloaded child porn of their own intent, thats when we snap their necks and put out their eyes- yes?

Edited March 16, 2008 by jono

[apothecary]

Cool man, that's all I'm asking for, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and some rational thought process. After that we can go out snapping necks together.