Slashdot Mirror


Man Gets 12-Year Jail Sentence For Planting Child Porn On Enemy's Computer

An anonymous reader writes with an update to a story we discussed in August about Neil Weiner, a man who sought to ruin the life of a school caretaker by planting child pornography on his computer. Weiner has now been convicted on two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of perverting the course of justice. He was sentenced to 12 years in jail. "The judge told Weiner that his plot to have Mr. Thompson sacked and prosecuted very nearly succeeded. Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said. 'But you gratuitously and spitefully informed the local press so that he and his wife suffered the distress of the unwelcome publicity which followed.' Mr. Thompson's health and that of his wife suffered. The judge said: 'There are still those who believe, and probably always will, that he is a pedophile. I am wholly satisfied that Mr. Thompson is innocent.' ... Weiner had discovered the caretaker's password by looking over his shoulder one day and been caught doing so. When Mr. Thompson was asked why he did not change it, he said he wished he had, adding: 'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?'"

92 of 448 comments (clear)

  1. Perverting the course of justice. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the award for Most Obvious Joke That Didn't Need to Be Said goes to.... [tearing envelope].... THAT guy!

    2. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much time would his victim have gotten? He should get the same + one year for being an asshole.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    3. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What an appropriate charge. Also, this guy can rot.

      The truly sad thing is that he very well may be rotting alongside victims of the more successful (weren't caught) perverters of justice. Unless, of course, we just assume this is the first time someone has ever attempted this.
       
      It'd be interesting to see what percentage of those convicted of possession of child pornography claimed they were framed/had-no-knowledge-of-the-pornography, and how much effort law enforcement spent in checking the validity of those claims.

      I suspect that the numbers would be pretty damn disappointing/terrifying.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    4. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fired is one thing.
      Fired, for kiddie porn, is something else entirely.
      Simply being accused is enough to ruin your life.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    5. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dude, you were a contractor - you can be let go for any reason, even including "I don't like you". All I have to do is call the agency and say "Hey, XXXX is not working out, he's not a good cultural fit here...can you send someone else?"

      If you don't like the instability of being a contractor, don't do it - become a permanent employee instead. (possibly for less money, but hey everything in life is a tradeoff)

    6. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...And this wouldn't be a lot less of a problem if society weren't conditioned to grossly overreact and gang-stalk people because of a few images.

      In before slippery slope assholes who believe that every person who looks up heroin online is destined to be a junkie.

    7. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should watch nothing but the pro-"make government bigger" bias of the other channels.

      Yes, Republicans are truly the not "big government" type. Yeah, that's why Ronald Reagan started us down this path of financial ruin with his, for the time, record deficit spending? The same people who want to use the government to legislate their morality? The same people who were totally for spending 100s of billions on wasted wars so that Dubya could get back at mean old Saddam for making his daddy look bad? Since when has the Republican party since the 1980s ever done anything to shrink the government on the whole?

    8. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, some assholes deserve to be framed. Like my previous boss who fired me because "you were eating too much food at lifetime"...

      That's worth 12 years in prison?!

      This is why vigilantism is frowned upon.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by MeBadMagic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It can get much, much worse.

      "How much effort law enforcement spent in checking the validity of those claims."

      How bout how much effort law enforcement spent MAKING those claims?

      Truly TERRIFYING!

      http://www.agingrebel.com/?p=2650

      B-)

      --
      A friend will come and bail you out of jail, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "damn that was fun!"
    10. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by ebuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      Excuse me, but DHS is larger than any three previously existing departments combined. At one time it was in danger of becoming half the executive branch's manpower. And that dept was the brainchild of the groups which still have sway over FOX News. They tell you they stand for smaller government, but they really only want to cut the regulatory agencies, and grow the others.

      Drilling regulatory cuts really worked out well for us (no pun intended), and with the salmonella poisoning of Spinach, Peanuts, and Eggs in the recent three years, I would say that the FDA cuts must have worked out just as well. Bank regulatory cuts seem to have helped us tremendously, and I shudder to know what cuts we haven't heard about yet.

      Perhaps FOX is just for all out unregulated economies. Maybe that's fine by you, but a truly unregulated economy works like a mugging. There's no protection for those who honor agreements under such a system, they are at a disadvantage to those who wield their money and power in unscrupulous ways.

      As far as exposing myself to ideas, there's the daily drone of FOX on the lunch room TV. I would be glad to expose myself to any new ideas on FOX, but there aren't any. It's the same ideas we've heard since the late 80's.

      By the way, FOX consistently rallies against the deficit, yet they rally against raising taxes. They think we can "starve" our government down to a smaller size by just denying them money. It's not a bad plan, if you are into surface level thinking. Try using their logic with your local bank concerning your mortgage; see how far it gets you.

      We borrowed our deficit. The terms and agreements made to obtain that money are not going to un-write themselves because we're starving our loan repayments. In addition, if we even hint at weakening our resolve to honor those commitments, our national loan rating will slip. That will make this market crash look like peanuts as we watch the interest rate on 13 Trillion dollars hike up a percent.

      You're smaller government plea falls on deaf ears when the graphs look like this. Naturally, you'll vote for the propaganda party, and I shudder to think what will happen to the debt then.

      By the way, yesterday it was reported that if we just repealed all the Bush-era tax cuts, the budget would be very close to being balanced. Sure, you might call it a spend-and-tax plan, but it's better than a spend-and-borrow plan.

    11. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      he corporation signs a 6 month contract which means they can't let you go "just because we changed our mind".

      Actually they can. They just have to keep paying you. They don't actually have to let you work for them. Professional sports teams release players under contract all the time. It's a last resort -- paying someone not to work isn't very profitable -- but sometimes it makes sense for all parties involved.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In fairness, that's not all GOP'ers, it's primarily those that come from the bible belt or need their electoral votes in Presidential elections.

      Yes, but they are the most vocal and active of the party and are routinely referred to as the "base" of the party.

      They haven't done much,

      You mean nothing. What little they have shrunk has been far outweighed by their gross spending.

      hence the rise of the Tea Party.

      Tthe party of "keep the government out of my Medicare!!", right?

    13. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, liberals should be exposed to conservative views. (And vice versa, for that matter.) I read commentators every day whose views I disagree with but who are nonetheless able to coherently put forth an argument for their position.

      FNC is a lot less about that and a lot more about fearmongering.

    14. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In nearly all cases, the company only needs to have the headhunter replace you with someone else for the remainder of that contract.

      I know this because that's how I got my current position - my employer set up a 6-month contract, the first guy was a dumbass (I spent three weeks cleaning up his mess). The company nearly threw the guy out literally, and the headhunter asked if I'd fill out the rest of the contract term. I was getting nowhere with the contract-to-hire gig I was doing at the time, so I said 'yes'...

      ...that contract ended 4 months later, and became a permanent and very well-paying position for me.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    15. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Informative

      It'd be interesting to see what percentage of those convicted of possession of child pornography claimed they were framed/had-no-knowledge-of-the-pornography

      Part of the problem is that virtually everyone in the penal system insists they are innocent, especially those who are most guilty. Case and point; within the last few years here in MA, there was a convicted rapist who insisted for years that he was innocent. Eventually enough people supported him that he got enough attention and legal representation to have DNA tests done that were unavailable when he was convicted. The result? The tests confirmed beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that he was the rapist.

      Why would he demand a test that he should have known would prove his guilt? Who knows. Maybe he was protesting his innocence so much for so long, that when someone offered to get the tests done, he either had to play along, or 'fess up that he had been lying about his innocence. Either way, he's not alone. Given what I've heard about how pedos/rapists/kiddie porn collectors are treated in prison, insisting on one's innocence may be the only survival strategy many of them have. Bottom line: regardless of actual guilt, your survey would probably return 99.99% claims of innocence before and after conviction (not counting plea bargains).

      That being said, actually knowing the numbers (assuming we had the appropriate crystal ball) you are looking for would indeed likely be interesting and terrifying. I'm sure it has happened. I've heard a few different people mutter something to the effect that they would like to plant something similar on someone's computer to get back at them. Each time, I've taken it as someone simply venting anger (if I had killed someone every time I said I'd like to, I'd be worse than Ted Bundy), but it's the kind of thing that sticks in the back of my mind sometimes. Just in case I see the intended victim's name in the paper someday ...

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    16. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The cold war was a larger expenditure of our nation's wealth than WWII. Virtually none of those millionaires would of existed without government contracts, which are notoriously not free market.

    17. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're a moron. There's only one way that your story can be true. IF you own your own contracting company and are the sole employee, any contract signed by your client that you will deliver a certain result by a certain time means that you, personally, have to do it. If you are working for a consulting company doing contract work, you are a completely expendable cog. Anyone can fulfill the contract, and the client can ask for anyone to do the job. It's up to your employer to agree to that request.

      Seems to me that your employer didn't want to risk a relationship with its client over your behavior.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    18. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Jainith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (if I had killed someone every time I said I'd like to...)

      There's a great short story about this that I read many years back...I don't recall the name but basically

      11 of the 12 Jurors immediately want to vote guilty...

      The 12th is actually interested in the case/process etc. and begins to convince some of the others of his "reasonable doubts".

      In the climax the 12th juror provokes one of the others into saying "I'm going to kill you!" ...echoing a statement made by the defendant. This was a key part of the case against the defendant so demonstrating that that statement doesn't always precede the act of homicide is enough to cause many of the other juror's to have "reasonable doubt".

      I think the story also deals with jury sequestration, and allergic reactions (peanut butter? or maybe a bee?)

      Anyone remember the Title?

      -Jainith

    19. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Myopic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Republicans have been out-spending Democrats since long before the 1980s. Their hypocrisy goes back several generations.

    20. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand I know of at least two cases where DNA proved two murderers were innocent. They lost 25 years of their lives, because the government stubbornly refused to do a simple test..... they could have been released ten years earlier.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Zarel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think you're talking about 12 Angry Men.

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    22. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At the very least, since a child can't give informed consent or be legally responsible for contracts, any sale of porn involving real children is just like a case of commercial non-porn where the photographer failed to get a model release. Basically, it's frequently illegal to distribute content at all where the model's release doesn't exist (There are, of course, some exceptions, such as photos of a public figure, but unless the child in question is Brooke Shields or some such, those wouldn't apply). As to these being actionably criminal acts, it's possible to prosecute a distributor for not destroying illegal content when the court orders, whether that distribute continues to sell it or simply warehouses it. Even if you made simple possession legal in general, all it would take is a court order that the material was illegally produced for lack of model's release reasons, and anyone can be enjoined from distributing or continuing to possess it, and ignoring that order would still escalate the matter to criminal levels.The only way to get around that would be to change the law so that possession of this child porn was somehow more legal than the general case for possession.
              Secondly, let me put the ball back in your court. How do you enforce the laws against both creation and distribution of content whether because it's 'obscene', or just because it's done without model releases, unless you can also have a law against possession? This is one of the general arguments for all sorts of laws against possession - how do you get the possessor to divulge who illegally produced or illegally distributed X (child porn, cocaine, or just a bootleg CD), if you can't prosecute the possession itself?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    23. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Bluesman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >and ignoring that order would still escalate the matter to criminal levels

      There you go. Possession isn't illegal, ignoring the court order not to delete it is. Simply having a picture on your computer where the model failed to sign a release won't ever land you in prison. This is a workable system that avoids the complications of ruining innocent people's lives.

      I've been falsely accused of things although never had to fight the justice system for my freedom, and I've known plenty of people whose lives have been turned upside down after they were falsely accused by overzealous child protective service workers. I've known plenty of law enforcement people who I wouldn't trust to do the right thing in any of these cases. This is scary shit.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    24. Re:Perverting the course of justice. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You must be a sympathizer to child porn rings.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  2. Lethal Weapon VII by alphatel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The use of child porn as a weapon will now land you in jail longer than
    • Armed Robbery with an AK-47
    • Shooting into a crowd
    • Selling heroin to children

    All of the above combined

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Funny

      Boohoo. The guy was attempting to destroy the life of someone else and get them sent away to prison for a long time. He better start loosening his ass up now so it hurts less when he hits the cell block.

    3. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which was what was going to befall his victim had the person not been cleared. It's only fitting that he now gets put into that spot himself.

      Correction, that's exactly what's happening to the person anyway. Just as the judge said, there will forever after be people who are likely going to believe the man is a pedo even after the judge cleared his name. I doubt the press will publish the results of the trial as front page news since it will show that they were fooled by the man. At best perhaps a small article at the bottom of page 18.

    4. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the point. The social stigma and legal punishments for what amounts to a thought-crime (mere possession of child pornography, not the creation of it) is above crimes that cause real, tangible harm to other people.

      Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.

      * Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    5. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by nedlohs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's 3 homicides of prisoners in prison in the UK a year, so clearly they aren't doing a good job of the butchering you expect.

    6. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?
      Yes, the tool definitely deserves to be punished, but that sentencing is messed up, regardless of how much of a dick he was.

      You're the kind of mob-mentality that probably stands outside "convicted" pedophiles doors throwing stuff at them.
      The whole "taboo", witch-hunt of the 21st century over child porn, pedophilia and so on is pathetic.
      You can have your entire life ruined for being a moderator on a forum because of retardedness like this if someone just happens to come along and post some child porn. Or worse, you just happened to come across the thumbnails, or even worse than that, the full image!
      And yes, some people are so technically illiterate that people have been screwed over because of a web browsers cache. Even years after the image was cached.
      A pedo is no worse than any other sexual predator. They should be treated the same.

      And before people come in crying over how children are so innocent, just get out.
      I can't count how many times people have been screwed over by children. I know some personally, and i could bet most people here have or do too.
      Children aren't innocent in the slightest, children are pricks, you should know, you were one, they abuse their position in law all the damn time.
      If anything, children should have stricter laws created for them. I'm getting a bit sick of children getting off for robbing stores with knives or some shit like that, but some poor twat who browsed 4chan for a day is getting pummelled in the ass by some dude with more metal in his mouth than the jail cells door.
      And don't get me started on the "children can't make good decisions at that age" bullshit either. Children are forced in to deciding their entire futures at 8-14 years of age all across the world. They seem to be perfectly capable of that, right? Sex? "YOU MONSTER, DIE A MILLION TIMES! THEY CAN'T DO THAT! SICK FUCK!!" Mm, yes, apparently nature is a lying bastard too.

      Fuck society. And fuck people who think like that. People like that have ruined society. Both the children and the ones who defend them.

      Apologies for the profanity.

    7. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Instead of pinning child porn on the caretaker, he could have just outright shot him and suffered a more lenient fate*.

      * Assuming, of course, GP is being factual in the list of crimes that have more lenient punishments.

      Except none of what he states is relevant to either murder (which is a mandatory life sentence in England) or attempted murder. Both of which are far more stringently punished then what happened here.

    8. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and i suppose it is worse than ACTUALLY destroying someone's life, permanently? As in, you know, KILLING them?

      No. Nice strawman, though. If he had murdered the guy he would be facing a mandatory life sentence rather than this 12 years.

      BTW, I'm not a "think of the children person". The fact that he tried to destroy this person's life with child porn is irrelevant. He could have tried to frame him for any other number of things and I still wouldn't feel a lick of sympathy for him.

    9. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Flying naked children are perfectly OK weapons of war.

      However, 8X10 glossies of same are classified as illegal WMDs.

    10. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Faluzeer · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Hmmm

      It will also get you a longer sentence than abusing hundreds of children as in the following case

      The above case seems to be remarkably lenient, given the sheer scale of the abuse I would have thought a life sentence would have been more appropriate.

    11. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GP doesn't say shot. He could rob the caretaker at gunpoint, put not shoot him.

      I'm sure if you took a shot at a kid they'd give you at least 12 years.

    12. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by martas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WRONG! You are only supporting the scum that ARE ABUSING CHILDREN if you pay for child porn (directly or through ads, whatever).

    13. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by pregister · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah. By pirating child porn and not buying it you are actually HURTING the child pornagraphers. Think of all the lost purchases they are incurring due to PIRACY! They should join forces with the RIAA's legal teams and push for harder copyright infringement laws for pirating child porn.

    14. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      causing temporary emotion distress

      Yeah, no one ever has lifelong emotional issues stemming from being sexually abused. No, once the person stops raping you you just magically get over it and it's like nothing ever happened at all.

    15. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually I would say it is pretty unique to CP, in that the state is actively pushing the insanity just as they did the red scare of the 50s. Basically in most places all you have to do is say CP and you are pretty much considered guilty, not only by the press, but by the prosecutors and police as well. See Little rascals daycare and McMartin preschool for examples.

      And I'd argue by making it into a witchhunt they are making the world a worse place for kids, as the reason parents are afraid to let their kids just go out and play anymore is the constant bogeymen paranoia being pushed, even though the odds are something like 15 times more likely for a child to be touched inappropriately by a relative than a stranger.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I guess that just shows y'all in the UK aren't quite as batshit as we are in the USA over your laws, as a local 20 year old here got 40+ years for having images of CP he snatched off image boards and the like, while the guy down the hall from me only got 6 years for shooting a cop in the belly while freaked out on acid. Here if you have CP you'd be better off popping a cap into the cop and then using the time while they have to call SWAT to get rid of the evidence, as the time will be less. no different than in the 80s Reagan drug scare where all the local dealers of pot started carrying guns so they could shoot the cop rather than get caught with a couple of pounds of weed.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    17. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Fjandr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Add the noose if anyone dies.

      Not knowing much about UK sentencing, I could have been convinced you knew what you were talking about until I got to the above.

      Rather than mod it offtopic, which it clearly is, I figured I'd post this as response so that other mods can mod it offtopic without getting the hell meta-modded out of them.

    18. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He was done for perverting the course of justice. Which is not a thought crime in any aspect.

      It causes real harm to other people, undermining the justice system itself. I'd argue it is a more serious offense than murder - not for the person being murdered or their families/friends, but for society in general.

      And in the UK all those listed offences (and perverting the course of justice as well) have life in prison as their maximum. of course you don't usually get the maximum. But in a country where the general duty police don't carry guns I'm pretty sure you are getting more than 12 years in prison if you use an AK-47 to commit armed robbery...

    19. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Selfbain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.

      If you give those children MP3 players filled with pirated music this weapon might just be capable of destroying the world.

      --
      Well, it has never been successfully tested.
    20. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by blair1q · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was using American sentencing. Uniform Criminal Code, q.v., plus a goulash of state laws. "The noose" is a figure of speech; "the needle" just wasn't distinctive enough to make my point as distinctively as I wanted.

      The fact is, the crimes OP listed come with longer sentences on a count-by-count basis than CP does. And this case is not a single count of CP, it's two counts of CP plus one count of making the police chase the wrong guy. Interestingly, it omits any counts that directly speak to the offense the perp committed against the victim by making the police chase him, though maybe that's accounted for under the other count.

    21. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by houghi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That will be my defense if I decide to kill someone. "I wanted to file a false child abuse claim against him, but I am not THAT sick, so I just clubbed him to death."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As it should, IMHO. Were you attempting to shock us into thinking this should be otherwise?

      If you commit armed robbery with an AK-47 (or whichever weapon you choose to wield?), you've presumably been successful in taking some money that wasn't yours -- but this charge, alone, doesn't mean you physically harmed anyone.

      If you shoot into a crowd, again, you put people at RISK of injury or death, but again, if you actually injured/killed someone, the crime wouldn't simply be "shooting into a crowd" any longer.

      If you sell heroin to children? Well, you're not likely to get off too easy for that one .... but at least you were simply conducting a business transaction with an illegal substance. Without looking into each individual circumstance, we know little to nothing about the long-term effects that sale had on the kid(s) who did the buying. Maybe they were just paid something to buy it for an adult family member who knew kids wouldn't serve time for such an act?

      If you plant child porn on someone's computer or other property with successful intent to frame them for collecting it? You *definitely* ruined that person's life/reputation. There's really no "potentially" about it! They're going to go to prison for a long time for that crime they didn't commit, PLUS after they get out, they're stuck "checking in" with probation officers on pretty much a weekly basis, are restricted as to where they can buy or rent a home, and will have a really tough time getting respectable jobs. Many jobs will be illegal for them to obtain, period (such as a handyman or construction worker doing any work for schools or day-care/child-care centers). Even if you were DIRECTLY responsible for getting a person hooked on illegal drugs, at least that person could go seek treatment and get back off of them. There is no "cure" for someone's sexual interest in underage kids, so nowhere the framed individual could ever go to prove he was no longer a risk.

    23. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm surprised the allusions to prison rape persist. It still happens, though not as common as it once was

      I'm not familiar with how common prison rape once was, but it's definitely still a problem.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they really thought that being dead is better than living with lifelong emotional stress would they still be alive to beg to differ?

    25. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by Schadrach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In any situation in which you aren't paying for it or viewing advertising, in what way are you supporting the aforementioned scum?

      For example, you download a video/image/whatever from a randomP2P system, in what way does doing so support anyone in any way? Specifically, if it supports child pornographers, why doesn't it support musicians/moviemakers?

    26. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh, the man was indicted but never convicted. He has subsequently died, don't you think that it's about time that the jokes about his alleged sexual offenses died off?

      I mean he was found to be not guilty by a jury of his peers and the evidence was never particularly strong anyways.

    27. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a thought crime. People go to prison for possession because they're ultimately in part responsible for the abuse. Either, by paying for it or trading for it. Additionally, they've failed to report the abuse to the police, and I doubt very much that would be significantly more likely to happen if it were legalized.

      But then again, why let reality get in the way of a ZOMG gubmint abuse post.

    28. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no indication MJ liked playing with children naked.

      And even when brought to trial, the court declared him innocent. So why does everyone automatically label him "child molester"? It would be wiser to say, "I don't know if he molested children or not," rather than treat him like a pariah. You are really no better than those persons in the Salem Witch Trials (assuming guilt upon mere, unproven gossip).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    29. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your right to wank off over Miley Cyrus is not what's at issue here. It's photos of children being abused, i.e. real harm to real humans demanded by those who are just "harmlessly" looking at "harmless" photos.

    30. Re:Lethal Weapon VII by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      The ultimate weapon of the twenty first century: a catapult that fires naked children at your enemies.

      If you give those children MP3 players filled with pirated music this weapon might just be capable of destroying the world.

      Now we know how people will get their music in the future.

  3. 12 Years, not enough by Faatal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Should have been much longer in my opinion.

    1. Re:12 Years, not enough by Score+Whore · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you should check your comprehension, because concurrent sentences means served in parallel. Consecutive sentences means served serially.

      But more interestingly is that sexual predators (I have no idea whether this guy fits that or not) more or less have a life sentence because after their prison time is up, they can get administrative detention forever if no one believes that they have reformed.

    2. Re:12 Years, not enough by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Someone always says this whenever anyone is found guilty of anything.

      I'm thinking that if the penal code were written by random people on the Internet, we'd guillotine more people than Robespierre.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  4. Live and learn by al0ha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

    This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:Live and learn by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

      This clearly illustrates that until lay persons learn to think otherwise in terms of privacy and security on systems and networks; nothing is going to get better.

      Hello??? If you people go out sometimes (you know, the big blue room with the bright light) do you always wear your bullet-proof west, keep your back against the wall at all times and look for cover points in case somebody around you is a raving psychopath looking to stab someone or lurking with a sniper rifle? No, I don't trust strangers but if you think this should be "expected" then you must have serious problems functioning in a society with other people. If I realized someone saw my password and thought "hey, maybe they'll plant child porn on my computer, report it to the police and alert the media to ruin my life and send me to prison for god-knows-how long" then I'd be an hermit living in a cave far, far away from everyone else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. Not suprising... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't surprising when you have laws forbidding the possession of information and a stigma that persists if someone were to openly come against ridiculous laws simply forbidding possession of information.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Not suprising... by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I must be reading your post incorrectly, because what I'm getting from it is that you consider child pornography to be 'information'. Please tell me I'm wrong.

    2. Re:Not suprising... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Waaaaaah. I'm so broken up inside over people getting in trouble for possessing pictures and videos taking of people being raped. Oh how sad it is for them.

    3. Re:Not suprising... by DanTheStone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are correct. Possession of anything as a crime makes it extremely easy to frame people, and interferes with presumption of innocence (since it doesn't care how that came into your possession, only that it existed). It is also extremely difficult to change, since wanting to fix a broken system leads to you being called a witch yourself.

      And the parent may have been flamebait, but it seems like the natural conversation for this story.

    4. Re:Not suprising... by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I once saw photos taken by a (IIRC) French photographer at the previous turn of the century (1900s) of nude adolescent girls playing in the water. That's all. Nothing sexual about it. They're about as arousing as a table leg. I can't remember the photographer's name, but that's beside the point. In other countries, he's considered a great artist. In the US a child pornographer.

      We in the US have retarded attitudes towards sex and we are the twisted ones. If you think nude pictures of child are pornography, then that means you find them arousing and that you are the sick bastard.

      All those judges who ruled that pictures of children are pornography are the perverts.

      We in the US are pretty much perverts.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  6. Re:Mr Weiner by Roskolnikov · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll tell you inmates one more time, quit playing with Mr. Weiner.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  7. What a Happy Optimist Mr. Thompson Is... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

    When I was growing up, my dad once told me something along the lines of, "Boy, think of the worst, meanest, most downright, terrible thing you would be willing to do to someone that you truly hated. Now, you can safely make the assumption that someone else out there could come up with something worse if you give them enough reason. Remember that."

    I always did.

  8. Re:hypocritical ignorant victim by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you RTFA, you'd know both the man and his family were subjected to months of abuse while the investigation proceeded, and the abuse occurred because the guy framing him leaked the charge to the news media. Yes, he should have changed his password, but that just puts him in the same category as the overwhelming majority of people who don't keep their office computers sufficiently secure.

    And yes, for many people, being accused of pedophelia IS worse than being charged with murder. I know a man who lost his job, his house and his family while his case dragged through the courts. The whole town thought he was guilty. He was beaten twice, once very severely. The kids who accused him eventually recanted their stories, but the damage was done. So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it straight up your ass.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. You fail at nightmares by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who in their worst nightmares would could have thought that anyone could stoop to do what he did?

    While I can understand some naivity, it's not like computer kiddie porn is the first witch hunt.

    Whether criminalizing kiddie porn is a good idea or a bad one (I can understand the viewpoint of the porn enabling the crimes / creating the demand), when you have thoughtcrimes on the books, everyone really should be expecting that sometimes innocent people will be harmed. I think that when someone says they can't believe it would happen, they probably really mean that they think it'll probably never happen to them. Probably.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:You fail at nightmares by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nowhere in the law does it require the acquisition of said child porn to have been intentional.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  10. Re:hypocritical ignorant victim by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shit, it's basically impossible to keep your computer "sufficiently secure" from anybody who has physical access to it all weekend like a co-worker. If someone wants to plant something on your machine, they're going to be able to do it. Even if you're paranoid and encrypt your hard drive and take your laptop home with you every night someone can still come in and stick a keylogger in your keyboard. Then it's just 10 minutes one lunchtime and you're forced to literally live under a bridge, alone and penniless until you die. That's the power of invoking one of our cultures most forbidden taboos.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  11. Good job! by sribe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Police had been careful not to make public their arrest of the caretaker and only informed those at the school who needed to know, he said.

    Good for them, exercising a bit of restraint while the suspect was not yet proven guilty!

  12. Re:hypocritical ignorant victim by interval1066 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "So you can take your self-righteousness and shove it straight up your ass."

    I agree, I'm troubled by what more people than me are calling the 21st century equivalent of the Salem witch trials, made even more cogent by these frame charges. Every one of the supposed "witches" were simply accused of witchcraft by a group of four bored teenagers. The lives of the entire family faculty of McMartin PreSchool were destroyed because one child lied. Mere possession can land you in more hot water than murder? That's ridiculous. I'm not condoning pedophilia, but I think people & media are caught in a sensationalism that rivals yellow journalism from the 1900's.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  13. Re:I could kill someone and get a shorter sentence by Beerdood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Attempted 1st degree murder will get you more jail time than 12 years. You would only get a shorter sentence for killing someone if you didn't intend to kill them (manslaughter).

    Think of how much jail time and beatings in prison Thompson would have received if this plot hadn't been foiled. Weiner should get that + a few extra years for being a dick and going to the media about it. He tried to ruin someone's life, and deserves at least the fate of what Thompson would have gotten, plus a little extra.

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  14. Wow. Vindictive much? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As others have pointed out, you were a contractor. Your choice. And this is your side of the story, I'm sure it leaves out some details. If you had an actual case, you could go to court. But you don't, do you? And so you daydream about ruining someone's entire life. Did you know the idea of "an eye for an eye" was originally not seen as harsh,because it was meant to replace "Your life for an eye." Of course nowadays, even "an eye for an eye" is seen as unjust. But you seem to think that even "an eye for an eye" is not harsh enough.

    If your boss had a problem with you watching Fox News, it sounds like you were simply not a good fit. Why stay at a place you are not wanted, especially as a contractor? Do you not feel confident in your abilities to find work? If that's the case, perhaps you should not be a contractor. She did you a favor, enabling you to look for a job where your political views would not be an issue. If you were a real employee, you might have a case. If you had some sort of protections written into your contract, you might have a case. But that is not how contractors generally work, they generally work at the whims of those that employ them, and can be let go for any reason or none, at any time.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Wow. Vindictive much? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me clarify that; he admits to wishful thinking about giving Karma a helping hand, but apparently did no such thing. Personally, I categorize that as vengeful wishes and general venting (like "boy, i could just KILL that guy ..."). We all do it. It's not exactly uplifting, but it's not unprofessional, either. It's human.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Wow. Vindictive much? by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not insinuating it was right. I'm saying it was the company's right to do so, and if he wanted a different bargain he should have asked for it. He agreed to the contract, and has no one to blame but himself if the contract did not protect his rights.

      Personal responsibility is something that Fox News viewers seem to only want for other people. When it comes to their own life, they blame everyone but themselves for their problems, and they fantasize about utterly destroying anyone who slights them in the least. Proving once again that right wingers tend to be vindictive and hypocritical.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Wow. Vindictive much? by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, as I said, I never said it was the "right" thing to do. I said it was the company's right to do so.

      As an example, if a woman dumps you and I say, "Bitch did you a favor," does that mean I think she did the right thing? No, it means, I think it is better you are no longer with her. And no one would argue her right to dump you, obviously she has that right.

      My observations about Fox News were coincidental to the discussion at hand, meaning, it is perhaps a coincidence that both Fox News viewers and the poster are hypocritical and vindictive,

      He was not fired for having the wrong political beliefs. He was let out of his contract for reasons we can only guess at. Contractors can not be fired, they were never employees. If he'd wanted protection, he should have asked for it. He didn't, and now he wants to ruin this person's life because he made a mistake when bargaining for the position. He is stupid, for not asking for what he wanted. He is hypocritical because I have seen him castigate others for not taking personal responsibility, but does not do so here, and he is vindictive because he fantasized about putting kiddie porn on his ex-bosses computer.

      His boss would not merely be fired if he planted kiddie porn on her computer, and you know it.

      And once again, I must point out that he wasn't fired. As a contractor, he was never an employee. He was a supplier of services, an independent business that did work for another business. If he wanted the protections that come with being an employee, he should have become an employee, not a contractor.

      I have no sympathy because, and this bears repeating, commodore64_love fantasized about putting kiddie porn on his ex-bosses computer for revenge.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  15. Re:This would have worked by thasmudyan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More than anything else, this is the single best reason for keeping your security tight and your password secret - especially from caretakers, who will have free, unfettered and prolonged access to your work computers after you've gone home..

    It's technically infeasible (maybe even impossible) to secure a computer at your workplace from coworkers, even if you're an expert. Sure, you can make it harder for them, but in the end they can always get to you - be it with the OS install disk or a simple keylogger. The primary loophole used in this attack was not the victim's stupidly negligent password policy, but a justice system that makes it so very easy to frame people like that. Since it's a crime where you're guilty for mere possession of the material, nobody really cares how it got on your hard drive. You can say "I didn't put it there" all day if you want, fact remains it's there and you have it. The same mechanism applies to drug possession, which is also routinely used to frame people. Mr Thompson was just exceedingly lucky because his attacker was so mindbogglingly clumsy in framing him, then he got lucky again because police and the judge actually cared about the fact that he was "innocent". One can only assume that many people are not that lucky, the best they can hope for is a guilty plea bargain to reduce the inevitably draconian sentence.

  16. Less is MORE by ThaiM · · Score: 2, Informative

    He planted it and got 12 years. This guy DID IT with hundreds of kids and gets 8-1/2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11403984 Doesn't anyone see what the fook is wrong here????

  17. Re:hypocritical ignorant victim by BobMcD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    i have no problem with anything until the victim attempts to exploit the media to further harm a convicted and sentenced man.

    that is a hypocritical act of malice and vengeance, and can only serve to discredit the justice system.

    we'll all see how the show ends in <12 years, and whether or not continued agitation of the situation was the "good" move.

    So even though he's been exonerated and the true criminal was successfully convicted, the innocent has no right to publicize his innocence? He was FRAMED for crying out loud. Who, if not he, should be allowed to vilify his attacker?

    You'd be just as well off asking a rape victim to be respectful and grateful to her rapist.

    So, how long HAVE you and the convicted been chums??

  18. A word about "shoulder surfing" by Paracelcus · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you catch somebody at work doing it, report it to their manager immediately! I've had people fired for this, at IBM we are trained to swivel 180 degrees when a client is entering a password. This is non-trivial, DO NOT ALLOW THIS!

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    1. Re:A word about "shoulder surfing" by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Funny

        That is actually good ethical practice in any environment when one is dealing with someone else entering passwords, PINs, etc. I've had quite a few of my customers in the field ask me why, when I ask them to enter their password for something, I turn around and walk off some feet away, and keep my back turned. The action itself seems to be a lot more effective in teaching them password control than just explaining it to them does ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  19. Re:This would have worked by eyenot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're right. And, remember, Martha Stewart was tried on:

    1. computer evidence that for all intents and purposes never existed. Some geek said "oh, I deleted the files, then deleted the logs to cover my tracks, but the incriminating files WERE there, once. I swear it." -- this was considered substantial!

    2. shreds of documents from the same letterhead fixed-width type pieced together arbitrarily -- substantial!

    3. the testimony of an agent who, for said testimony, later was sentenced to perjury -- substantial!

    Who believes she's guilty? The whole country. Ask anybody.

    Now, consider this: some perv gets caught, takes the Stewart trial precedents, takes this trial's precendents, throws a dart and picks a random person (or picks somebody whose dog crapped on his yard) and says "HE did it! HE put these here!" It wouldn't take a whole week for that perv to come up with

    a. how he knows YOU did it
    b. how YOU did it, when
    c. WHY you did it

    Even if he doesn't know you! Think about it! Sometimes, bad is bad!

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  20. Just got a call from my wife by spun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of her best friends just called her. This woman's house was just raided by the FBI this morning. Turns out that her boyfriend was into child porn. I've hung out with them, he seemed like a regular guy. I liked him. Now I don't know what to think, or feel. I know I feel a little dirty just from having hung out with him. But I also feel some sympathy, because I know the guy, and before I found this out, I liked him. I can't imagine what his girlfriend is going through. Can you ever take enough showers to feel clean after that?

    I know he had a screwed up childhood. I guess I just didn't know how screwed up. And now I can't help but contemplate his future. It isn't pretty. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it, kiddie porn is inexcusable. But his life is over now. If I were somehow in his position, I know what I'd do. I know the man owns guns. There aren't many situations where suicide might just be the best answer, but along with painful terminal illness, this is one of them.

    I just feel sick now, I could barely eat lunch today. The wife and I offered to help clean up after the mess the FBI left, tearing up the place. But cleaning the physical mess is only the first step.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Just got a call from my wife by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Soo, are we talking Barely Illegal, or 8 year olds dude?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Just got a call from my wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This mindset that if a person likes child porn then they are sick perverts is something artificially imposed upon us by society. He could like child porn and be a nice normal guy at the same time. I see nothing wrong with that. For any normal person, it might take just a little bit of curiosity and healthy sexual arousal, to get into the habit. After all, it's doing nothing more than looking at pictures or videos. Though, of course, not all child porn is equal; if he enjoyed looking at children (or any person, for that matter) genuinely suffering, or being treated otherwise inhumanely, that's entirely different (though it still would have been just looking at pictures, I doubt they were worse than what you can see at rotten.com or in the so-called "snuff" movies; even though this would have made him an unhealthy person, it's still debatable whether he should be punished for that). But reading about what gets labelled as child porn nowadays, I think it's most likely he did not. I'm not even sure that the harm caused by the label "child porn" or "paedophile" is not more than the harm done to people by actual sexual/psychological deviants.

    3. Re:Just got a call from my wife by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you have any evidence that he's guilty, or are you just convicting him because the FBI raided him? Because you're sure acting as if he's guilty.

  21. Why CP is illegal by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Informative

    Am I the only Slashdot reader old enough (and a porn consumer for long enough) to know the history of child porn laws?

    It's amazing how many times I've needed to post something like: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1790178&cid=33671018

    1. Re:Why CP is illegal by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good point. In my previous linked post, I gave just a couple of lines to explaining that. There is no *rational* reason to outlaw *mere* possession. However, we're dealing with the law, here. Laws often appear irrational.

      In the case of CP possession, it was made illegal before the internet made it possible to distribute the stuff widely for free. Thus, if someone was in possession, they could lead LE to sellers if only LE had some leverage on them. The easy solution was to make mere possession illegal, thus giving LE some leverage to force consumers to give up suppliers.

      Back then, this helped staunch the flow of CP from foreign mail-order outfits. For example, U.S. authorities could not prosecute Color Climax in Europe for producing and selling. They could, however, set up stings (mostly Postal Service stings) to bust collectors in the U.S., thus hurting the commercial suppliers sited outside the U.S.

      With possession illegal, the commercial producers could also be attacked by Customs; they could start confiscating any CP being mailed to a U.S. address, no matter the source and without having to make a case that any commercial transaction had taken place.

      Note that Color Climax dropped kiddy movies from all their catalogs at about this time. Nowadays, no one at Color Climax will even admit that they got their start making and selling CP. The laws against mere possession, as silly as they seem today, had a positive impact in changing the way Color Climax and others did business back in the day.

      Yes, the original justifications for outlawing mere possession were slight and under today's digital reality they are completely nonexistent. Nevertheless, nothing is going to change. Any politician who stands up for "free speech, even for pedos" will get killed in the next election.

      Appealing to rationality on this issue is a political non-starter. Give it up. It ain't gonna happen.

  22. Re:hypocritical ignorant victim by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why, when cases like this come to the media, the media has the responsibility not only to emphasize that the charges are alleged, but to PUBLISH RETRACTIONS AND/OR PUBLISH THE RESULTS OF TRIALS THAT RESULT IN A VERDICT OF INNOCENT.

      Unfortunately, too few media outlets do that - scandals sell, innocence doesn't. Perhaps the judges in such cases should make it a requirement that the local/involved media publish the results- and not buried in two lines somewhere on the back page.

      I too know of a few people who have been falsely accused and exonerated - and when the subject comes up in ordinary conversations, I always make a point of stressing to the people I'm talking with not to get carried away with rumor and innuendo, because they could be next. It seems to get their attention, somewhat...

      (About eight years ago I was asked to be a potential witness in exactly this same thing - because I had worked on this person's computer a few times before that. I was never called to witness, and he was completely exonerated, but the ugly commentary I heard in public around me during the trial was disgustingly reminiscent of what I've read about witch trials from the dark ages. I can certainly blame the wagging tongues of the local media outlets for THAT one. )

    SB

     

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.