#1 A Malicious Prosecution in my Family
06-15-2008, 08:36 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
DUmmie upset that its nephew had child pornography on his computer.
Time for change
A Malicious Prosecution in my Family
Jim was charged with “Possession of sexually explicit pictures of minors”, based on the fact that such pictures, known as “kiddie porn”, were found on his computer by Restronics, and turned over to the police.
nobody can say with any confidence when or how the images were put there. Jim could have done it himself, either before he moved out of our house or during one of his visits. Or, they could have been put there by the Cameroonian refugee who was living in our basement during much of the time prior to the fire. Or I could have put them there (but I didn’t). Or, a Restronics employee could have put them there during the 9 months between the time that Jim dropped off his computer there and the time that Restronics called the police.
I asked Jim’s lawyer why the prosecution continued to proceed when there was so little evidence of Jim’s guilt. He said, “I guess the prosecutor must have a lot of time on her hands and needs to find a way to make herself seem relevant”.
But how does the mere possession of pictures on one’s computer serve in the exploitation of children? Certainly a person could have such pictures on their computer without knowing about it. I would assume that such pictures could find their way onto one’s computer against the owner’s knowledge even if nobody else had access to the computer. Does everyone who owns a computer have the responsibility to ensure that no kiddie porn enters it, lest they be subject to several years of imprisonment?
Who can argue in good faith that through regular use, kiddie porn could "find [its] way onto one's computer?" Seriously, what the heck do these people regularly look at online?
Jim seems to trust his lawyer completely. His lawyer is a politically active Democrat. But I’m not so sure about him. He seems to be have pursued this case primarily as a First Amendment issue. I assume that winning such a case is quite a feather in his cap. But it seems to me that the much more basic issue is the paucity of evidence. Specifically, there is very little evidence to suggest that Jim even had possession of his computer when the kiddie porn entered it, and in fact the evidence weighs strongly against that possibility. Shouldn’t a competent defense attorney have gotten this case dismissed for lack of probable cause at the very beginning?
the foregoing discussion is not intended to be legal advice. No attorney-client privilege is created in the above discussion of this idiot who got caught with child pornography on his computer. While I am not licensed to practice law in Maryland, I can safely advise against possession of child pornography.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|