changing primitive has nephew in trouble for porn on computer

[franksolich]

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3455980

Oh my.

It's a long tale, but well-written.

I'd like to see if anybody else notices any holes or stretchies in the narrative.

Time for change  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-15-08 09:00 AM
Original message

A Malicious Prosecution in my Family   

I, like almost all DUers, am deeply disturbed over the many injustices that so many people in our country suffer today. But when it happens to someone you love it hits you in a way that is different from when you observe it at a distance.

I am seething with anger over the situation that I discuss in this post, so it is possible that I may have lost some objectivity towards it.

The bare facts of the case

More than three years ago my nephew (I’ll call him Jim) lived with my wife and me, in a room in our basement. When he left our house in early 2005 to move into an apartment he left his computer in our basement because his apartment was small, and his computer remained available for him to use when he came to our house to visit.

In late summer of 2006 we had a fire in our house, which required us to move out for ten months while our house was rebuilt. As part of the agreement we had with our insurance company, we submitted our computer to a place called Restronics to evaluate it for damage. Jim decided to do the same thing with his computer, which was still in our basement.

In April 2007 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. Following that, Jim went through several months of hell, as the stupid court case dragged on and on, Jim went further and further into debt with legal expenses, and the threat of prison hung over his head.

The evidence

So, what was the evidence against Jim that incited the prosecutor (Deborah Armstrong) to put him through all this? Well, the pictures were found on his computer.

Eventually, the prosecution got around to obtaining a computer expert to evaluate the computer to determine when the images were put on it. So what did he determine? He determined that 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.

Did the prosecutor care about any of those possibilities?

Jim is an IT technician. If he had been aware of kiddie porn on his computer he certainly could have gotten rid of it before bringing his computer to Restronics. And if he was aware of kiddie porn on his computer, would he have brought it to Restronics to leave it there for 9 months?

One thing that the computer expert was able to determine was that the kiddie porn file was “accessed” on October 17, 2006, several months after Jim brought his computer to Restronics but several months before Restronics called the police on him. When else was the file accessed? Nobody knows.

So, did the prosecutor bother to ask herself why Restronics would wait 7 months between the time that the file was accessed and the time that they called the police? Did the fact that the file was accessed while in Restronics’ possession cause her to consider the possibility that maybe someone at Restronics put the kiddie porn on the computer? Apparently not, because she repeatedly refused defense motions to close the case.

Smoking gun?

Then in September 2007 we moved back into our house. When we asked Restronics for our computer back they first told us that it was broken. I was quite upset about that because we had been told when we initially brought our computer there that everything was fine. I asked them if at least they could salvage the hard drive, since I had information on it that I really didn’t want to lose. Then Restronics decided that our computer wasn’t broken after all, so they returned the whole thing to us.

The next day my wife tried to retrieve some of our long lost photos, when she was shocked to find that our computer was filled with kiddie porn interspersed among our other pictures. We contacted Jim to tell him about it and suggest that he inform his lawyer – which he did.

Wouldn’t you think that that would have ended the case, by pointing to Restronics as the far more likely guilty party? That’s what I would have thought. But instead, several months went by, with my nephew’s life hanging in limbo, before the prosecutor even had time to discuss the matter with Jim’s attorney. And when she finally did discuss it with him she still refused to close the case.

I talked with Jim’s attorney in order to better understand the issues involved. He told me that he planned to try to get the case dismissed on First Amendment grounds. That astounded me. Why try to get a case dismissed on controversial Constitutional grounds when there is so little credible evidence against the defendant? Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to make the point that there is no credible evidence that Jim put the kiddie porn on his computer or had any knowledge of it?

Anyhow, Jim’s lawyer did pursue the case on First Amendment grounds, and a couple of months ago the case was dismissed on that basis. And now Jim’s lawyer says he’ll need another $300 to expunge the record of this sordid mess from the files.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

I’ve talked to Jim’s lawyer and I’ve tried to research the law under which Jim was charged, and still I’m unable to understand this whole thing. Before this episode I didn’t even know that it was illegal to have child pornography on one’s computer. The issue had never occurred to me.

Congress passed the “Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) in 1996, and Bill Clinton signed it into law. Though Jim was charged on the basis of a Maryland statute, apparently it is modeled after the federal law. The purpose of these laws is to protect children against sexual exploitation.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, found the CPPA to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated our First Amendment. But the finding was on narrow grounds, based on the fact that the CPPA made the possession of kiddie porn a crime regardless of whether or not the images are of real children or are computer generated. The USSC said that it should not be a crime if the images are computer generated. I guess that’s because computer generated images of children having sex don’t involve the exploitation of real children.

That’s another issue in Jim’s case. There was no way to ascertain whether or not the images were computer generated or were images of real children.

My questions

This sounds like something out of George Orwell’s “1984” to me. I have three sets of questions about it – one pertaining to the prosecution, one pertaining to the law, and one pertaining to Jim’s defense attorney.

The prosecution
I had always thought that a prosecutor should have at least a reasonable amount of evidence of the commission of a crime before seeking a conviction. I honestly cannot see how a person with a modicum of decency could put Jim through what he went through on the basis of the paltry amount of evidence described in this post. Investigate the case, fine. But don’t charge someone with a crime punishable with several years of prison, thereby forcing them to spend a fortune in legal expenses, until there’s at least reasonable cause to believe that the person is guilty!!

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”.

Was there any reasonable basis for this prosecution?

The law
And what about the law itself? I won’t even bring up the First Amendment, as I believe that there is a more basic issue here. The purpose of the law is supposed to be to protect children against sexual exploitation. I’m sure that we can all agree that that is a worth while goal.

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?

The defense
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?

And what is this crap about asking for another $300 to expunge the case from the records. That sounds like blackmail to me. Is that legal?

It's a reasonably big bonfire, but most of the primitives are the unterprimitiven, the lynch mob.

Primitives of prominence:

sfexpat2000  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-15-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #16

18. Somebody at that company has found an easy way to cover their own behavior -- until they get caught.

I'd call the police and ask in a general way about it unless you know someone on the force that can help you. What a racket.

Oops, only one primitive of prominence; my guess is the changing primitive is actually talking about himself, and his own computer.

[Carl]

Time for change  (1000+ posts)         Sun Jun-15-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. The main question at issue here isn't whether or not there was a crime   
   Edited on Sun Jun-15-08 10:28 AM by Time for change
The question is whether there was evidence of a crime committed by the person who was charged with it.

Don't you think that the evidence that Restronics is the guilty party is much stronger than the evidence that my nephew is the guilty party, since kiddie porn was also found on my computer as soon as Restronics returned it to us, and that the the KP on my nephew's file was accessed while in Restronic's possession several months before they reported it to the police?

Since the DUmmy definition of a crime is an accusation by anyone who disagrees with you on political issues then why yes....yes you have.

PaulHo  (1000+ posts)         Sun Jun-15-08 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
5. That's why it's a bad law:
   >>>>>>The law
And what about the law itself? I won’t even bring up the First Amendment, as I believe that there is a more basic issue here. The purpose of the law is supposed to be to protect children against sexual exploitation. I’m sure that we can all agree that that is a worth while goal.

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?>>>>>

Answers: 1. It doesnt.; 2. They certainly could... and undoubtedly DO. 3. That's quite an onus to put on pc owners. We will occasionally allow others to use the pc and one can only guess what the pc is collecting and storing on its own via spyware and adware.

What a nitemare scenario. Glad it at least turned out well... legally speaking. Emotionally it will be a long time before those scars go away... esp. for your nephew.

Any possibility of a civil suit for prosecutorial misconduct? That's the only way to keep these Nifong types in check... seems to me.

Uhmmm no stupid it isn`t a bad law,it is just one you pervs don`t like.
Guessing that you are all for a school official for turning parents over to police for that horrible thing called a  spanking.

greyhound1966 (1000+ posts)         Sun Jun-15-08 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
17. Welcome to life in the fourth reich.
   All of us are subject, at any time and for any, or no, reason to baseless and unrestrained persecution by the state. The persecutors are political appointees or are politicians themselves and they have an agenda. The process has been built and depends on the fear of the sheeple and is unrestrained by any authority including The Constitution.

Thanks to the morans that bought into the "New Fascism" of the 80s. We enthusiastically supported the destruction of a hundred years of constitutional precedent and abrogated our societal responsibility to those that promised to "make us safe".

I am so sorry that this abomination has found it's way into your lives. Perhaps it will create another family that will question the prevailing wisdom that is spewed at every opportunity. From minimum sentencing to smoking bans, it is all part of the same mindset, that being that others know better than you what is right for you

You are stupid beyond imagination.

[Uhhuh35]

Man the lengths some people will go to to protect their "right" to porn. 

Reminds me of this time my sister asked me to check her computer because she suspected her son was "surfing the porn".  I accessed the temp file and looked at all the pics. There were mostly big titty blondes doing it hetero style, no gay or bestiality stuff.

So I turned to my sis and said: "Congratulations Mrs. ***, your son is normal! 
 

[DixieBelle]

He will get his day in court. That is how these things work. The attorney will be allowed to present his side and if they think this "restronics" is somehow responsible, they can present that. If they really think he's innocent, then his attorney should hire an forensics expert to refute the charges. I do find it odd that they cannot pinpoint when the images were downloaded onto the computer. I'm not an expert, but I would think that could be easily discovered by a semi-talented IT technician.

And the prosecutor, Deborah Armstrong is the chief of the Internet Crimes Against Children/Sex Offender Registry Unit for Montgomery Co. Md. Sounds like serious business if they are involved.

But of course, facts and logic never stand in the way of a DUmmie rant. 

[mamacags]

I wanna know why resonics had the computer for 9 months, and why it would have been hooked up to the internet in between months one and nine.  Something is really hinky no matter how you look at it.

[franksolich]

I wanna know why resonics had the computer for 9 months, and why it would have been hooked up to the internet in between months one and nine.  Something is really hinky no matter how you look at it.

It could be that allegation isn't true.

Remember, primitives lie.  All the time, primitives lie.

[Carl]

I wanna know why resonics had the computer for 9 months, and why it would have been hooked up to the internet in between months one and nine.  Something is really hinky no matter how you look at it.

Read the thing earlier and there is really nothing that makes sense about the story.

[Lord Undies]

Man the lengths some people will go to to protect their "right" to porn. 

Reminds me of this time my sister asked me to check her computer because she suspected her son was "surfing the porn".  I accessed the temp file and looked at all the pics. There were mostly big titty blondes doing it hetero style, no gay or bestiality stuff.

So I turned to my sis and said: "Congratulations Mrs. ***, your son is normal! 
 

How do you check?  My grandson was on my computer all day the other day.   

[DixieBelle]

Yes, there is a lot not adding up here. Fortunately, the DUmmie has provided enough details to follow this case. It's also all over his DU journal. I suspect we'll hear more. Personally, I can't wait to find out what happened. Getting a nasty pervert off the streets is a good thing. Now, time will tell if they got the right pervert.

[Chris_]

How do you check?  My grandson was on my computer all day the other day.   

The regular search feature is pretty good about finding pictures. Finding porn on a customers computer (preferabbly the homemade girlfriend/wife type) is the best way to break up a monotonous, boring day of fixing computers.

[Lord Undies]

How do you check?  My grandson was on my computer all day the other day.   

The regular search feature is pretty good about finding pictures. Finding porn on a customers computer (preferabbly the homemade girlfriend/wife type) is the best way to break up a monotonous, boring day of fixing computers.

Oh, I thought you had some deep investigation techniques.  Nothing is saved on my computer.  I know that.  Everything gets wiped away when the browser is shut down.  Cookies, history, etc. 

So I guess I'll never know.

[mamacags]

A couple things to look for....
1. sticky sock, kleenex, or towel under the desk
2. sticky keys
3. sticky mouse
4. happy boy

[Lord Undies]

A couple things to look for....
1. sticky sock, kleenex, or towel under the desk
2. sticky keys
3. sticky mouse
4. happy boy

You make it sound as if boys are adhesive dispensers.

[mamacags]

basically they are

[Chris_]

You should see the disgusting stuff that accumulates inside computers.  Never, never eat around your computer.  There's nothing worse than taking a laptop apart to find more crumbs stuck inside the keyboard than a Saltine factory.  Roach infestations smell particularly nasty.

[Chris_]

basically they are

If we could find a way to wire up all the horny teenage boys in the country to generate electricity, we'd be oil-free in six months.

[mamacags]

but really sticky

[Chris_]

is the carpet damp?  Thats a sure sign.   

[jinxmchue]

Hrm...  I wonder if Restronics (makes it sound like it has something to do with bathroom electronics) appreciates DUmp monkeys spreading around baseless rumors of its employees using customers' computers to surf child pron.

[Miss Mia]

basically they are

 

[Chris_]

I found a Restronics, but they're in the UK.

http://www.restronics.co.uk/Services.htm

[JohnnyReb]

I went berzerk here early one morning. Got up to discover that stepson had been looking at nude pictures of young girls, no sex involved, just nudes but still they were young. They looked to be about 13 to 14, his age at the time. I pitched a hissy fit and fell in it. The computer and service was in my name so I guess that makes me responsible for whatever is on it and where it has been.......I couldn't get it thru his thick head that it was going to be me in trouble not him and at my age I just didn't have that many years left to be wasting them in prison........sheesh

Of course he claimed it was all my stuff and mooma believed him. But a short time later I got a telephone bill with $19.95 added to it for a porn site membership. He again claimed it was me that joined not saintly him........and mooma believed him. That is until I checked the date and time on the bill. On the date and at the time of joining, Momma, me and the baby were 120 miles away at an antique tractor show. His little world of "can do no wrong" began to crumble after that one.

[DixieBelle]

I think the takeaway here is to never let someone else touch your computer!

I assume that the DUmmie case falls under "this computer was under your custody and control in your residence and you've admitted to being the owner" therefore this guy is going to face the charges.

Chris - I could only find a Restronics that deals in electronics but not computers or repair. I can't imagine such a place NOT having a website.

[VivisMom]

This is my neck of the woods!

They don't call it Loco MoCo for nothing.

I'll look in the local papers and see what I can find out about this "case."

[Uhhuh35]

Reminds me of this time my sister asked me to check her computer because she suspected her son was "surfing the porn".  I accessed the temp file and looked at all the pics. There were mostly big titty blondes doing it hetero style, no gay or bestiality stuff.
So I turned to my sis and said: "Congratulations Mrs. ***, your son is normal! 

How do you check?  My grandson was on my computer all day the other day.   

Go to "Start" then select "Search". Dialog box will come up asking what you want to do. Select "All Files and Folders" enter these terms, once per search:
*.tmp (star, dot, tmp)
*.jpg (star, dot, jpg)
*.mpg (star, dot, mpg)
Your computer should already be in the default thumbnail mode. If not, select "View" and "Thumbnails" at top of frame.

See what comes up, if anything.