Just Jack Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Cat not to blame; Jensen Beach man gets 12 1/2 years in child porn case STUART — A Jensen Beach man who blamed his cat for the crime of downloading images of child pornography onto his home computer was ordered Tuesday to serve more than a dozen years in prison after pleading no contest to 25 felony charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Cat not to blame; Jensen Beach man gets 12 1/2 years in child porn case STUART — A Jensen Beach man who blamed his cat for the crime of downloading images of child pornography onto his home computer was ordered Tuesday to serve more than a dozen years in prison after pleading no contest to 25 felony charges. You can get 12 1/2 years for pictures on your computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 You can get 12 1/2 years for pictures on your computer? I presume downloading them onto your computer is different than just surfing websites, but either way I'm perfectly fine with locking up pedophiles for as long as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I presume downloading them onto your computer is different than just surfing websites, but either way I'm perfectly fine with locking up pedophiles for as long as possible. Not to defend this guy, but does looking at beheading videos make me a killer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Not to defend this guy, but does looking at beheading videos make me a killer? Nope, but collecting pictures of naked children does make you a pedophile. You don't need to be touching them to be guilty of the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 The cat defense is certainly bizarre and suggests (at least to me) this guy might be guilty. But anyone could have pictures (including child porn) on their computer without having downloaded them intentionally, or even having viewed them. Unfortunately law enforcement is woefully behind in this area, and anyone can be accused, and even convicted, of computer-related crimes of which they are totally unaware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 The cat defense is certainly bizarre and suggests (at least to me) this guy might be guilty. But anyone could have pictures (including child porn) on their computer without having downloaded them intentionally, or even having viewed them. Unfortunately law enforcement is woefully behind in this area, and anyone can be accused, and even convicted, of computer-related crimes of which they are totally unaware. Agree 100%. Until I was told [on this forum]I was completely unaware there was such a thing as "hidden files". Now thats ABC, yet I didn't know. I haven't got a clue what might be buried in this thing unknown to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Agree 100%. Until I was told [on this forum]I was completely unaware there was such a thing as "hidden files". Now thats ABC, yet I didn't know. I haven't got a clue what might be buried in this thing unknown to me. See, that's a much better defense. I see you're laying the foundation even now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 See, that's a much better defense. I see you're laying the foundation even now. Oh much better, I have a computer built of flash paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Not defending this guy either... Do these creeps know anybody is on to them? And if they did, wouldn't they just 86 their whole computer(s)... Or are they so diseased that they won't? If the cops don't have a computer, can they go soley on what the ISP says? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 Agree 100%. Until I was told [on this forum]I was completely unaware there was such a thing as "hidden files". Now thats ABC, yet I didn't know. I haven't got a clue what might be buried in this thing unknown to me. Okay, a few things about child pornography. 1. Generally to charge someone with possession you have to find the pictures on the computer in regular saved files. (Not unallocated space) 2. Possession of child pornography is a crime because although they are just pictures, by paying for them, or collecting them you encourage other people to make children be victims. Unless you have you computer working on an unsecured network with no security features, no one is going to hide child pornography in your computer, (even your cat). If someone did hide it in your computer, a forensic analysis would hopefully reveal it. there were a few cases that happened like this, and it was figured out. Child pornography is a terrible terrible crime and the kids subjected to it never really recover. It is sick and disgusting and the perpetrators of this crime should be treated like any other child predator. I have worked (federal law enforcement) on a bunch of child porn cases, and they break my heart. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 If someone did hide it in your computer, a forensic analysis would hopefully reveal it. there were a few cases that happened like this, and it was figured out. I agree with everything you say about child pornography. As for your statement above, Julie Amero would beg to differ, I think. I work on compromised computers almost every day. Nice computer illiterate folks who believe they have protection because they are using the Norton Antivirus that came with their computer five years ago. They are all at risk of having their computers turned into bots and for storage of files. As you say, "a forensic analysis would hopefully reveal it", "hopefully" being the operative word. In the Amero case it was only figured out because private computer security experts came to her defense. The police and DA insisted, even after they made a deal with her, she was guilty based on horribly inadequate investigation, due to the public outcry. Still she was forced to plea to Disorderly Conduct and forced to forfeit her teaching credentials. If the police dept's forensic computer guy and/or the DA still have a job, it is a travesty. But moving on, you also might be at risk if you acquired your computer 2nd hand. If anyone other than you has used it. If someone in your household, or a visitor, ever installed file-sharing programs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 I agree with everything you say about child pornography. As for your statement above, Julie Amero would beg to differ, I think. I work on compromised computers almost every day. Nice computer illiterate folks who believe they have protection because they are using the Norton Antivirus that came with their computer five years ago. They are all at risk of having their computers turned into bots and for storage of files. As you say, "a forensic analysis would hopefully reveal it", "hopefully" being the operative word. In the Amero case it was only figured out because private computer security experts came to her defense. The police and DA insisted, even after they made a deal with her, she was guilty based on horribly inadequate investigation, due to the public outcry. Still she was forced to plea to Disorderly Conduct and forced to forfeit her teaching credentials. If the police dept's forensic computer guy and/or the DA still have a job, it is a travesty. But moving on, you also might be at risk if you acquired your computer 2nd hand. If anyone other than you has used it. If someone in your household, or a visitor, ever installed file-sharing programs, etc. In my experience, images found in unallocated space, or hidden really well generally don't get charged. The govt. has to prove that you knew they were there (at least in US District Court). Usually a child pornography case is charged as reciept of child pornography, we have to show when you recieved them, where they were stored, and where they came from. I would wager the case you describe was not a federal court case. Our forensic guys are really good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 25, 2010 Share Posted September 25, 2010 In my experience, images found in unallocated space, or hidden really well generally don't get charged. The govt. has to prove that you knew they were there (at least in US District Court). Usually a child pornography case is charged as reciept of child pornography, we have to show when you recieved them, where they were stored, and where they came from. I would wager the case you describe was not a federal court case. Our forensic guys are really good. Correct. I'm more worried about the schmo who has to deal with the local yokels in some podunk community. They can lack the proper training, but excel in the aggressive pursuit of the political capital associated with publicizing a porn bust. It's also less likely in these cases (as in the Amero case) the defense attorneys are savvy enough to properly protect their clients. I have MUCH more faith in the Feds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts