Horror story...... - page 4
A cause for concern. Thank God most places do thorough background checks........ Albany/Schenectady, NY... Read More
Nov 15, '02Sorry Linda, didn't see your last response until I typed mine long winded one!
Anyway, all I'm saying is having files on your computer doesn't automatically mean guilt. That is the only point I am trying to make.
Nov 15, '02<Image, your husband could also work with children in some capacity, e.g., & because some internet sites stream stuff through...he would "look" guilty...even though he's innocent.>
The LPN didnt have just an accidental download of a few kid porn photos. He had 1500. Peddling child porn is against the law because somebody had to abuse the child in order for somebody else to get off on a photo. Pedophiles take jobs where they can be around vulnerable children & trusted by them. They are school teachers, priests, sports coaches - why not pediatric nurses? Even if his computer was also downloading from newsgroups while was out in his garage oblivious to it, its going to be hard to prove he wasnt getting his rocks off peddling sex pictures of little kids with 1500 of them on his computer.
That posters husband could be caught in a federal mess too if he downloads these things & then sends them out to others - even if he isnt interested in them. BTW, if he was tricked into downloading a misnamed photo that he thought was a sexy blonde but turned out to be 2 guys, why send it back out for someone else to be tricked by it?
And with all the viruses and stuff out there, how can anyone allow their computer to constantly be downloading things without first knowing what it is?
Nov 15, '02OHHHH GROSSSSSSSSS>>>>KIDDIE PORN COOKIES?....stay away from my kids... better yet keep my kids away from the gawd-almighty computer. WHAT A WARPED Azz WORLD
OH and I detest ; CSI MIAMI, enjoy the original CSI- but the miami one has crappy actors and the environment of a crack-smokers dream...PEWWW!!
Nov 15, '02That posters husband could be caught in a federal mess too if he downloads these things & then sends them out to others - even if he isnt interested in them. BTW, if he was tricked into downloading a misnamed photo that he thought was a sexy blonde but turned out to be 2 guys, why send it back out for someone else to be tricked by it?
Our computers are fairly high-end, we have virus scans, we only download off of reliable newsgroups. BUT..every now and then, some crap comes through. In all the years we've been doing this, we've been infected with a virus ONCE.
Do you know how many files we download on a daily basis? Hundreds. Do you know that before we can scan what it is we downloaded to determine what it is and DELETE it, it can be uploaded by someone else? I think you aren't understanding the process, the nature of newsgroups and file servers. Which is fine, but then just trust me when I say that before we go sending this guy out to the frying pan, we realize and understand that he could very well be innocent. That's all.
So please...I only divulged what we do in an effort to make you understand that before we go convicting this guy, we realize that just having files on your computer doesn't indicate guilt. We don't even know if he was the only one with access to the thing. I don't want to turn this into a discussion about my husband. All I am saying is I understand how files end up on computers before you have a chance to get rid of them.Last edit by Susy K on Nov 15, '02
Nov 15, '02ok point taken. I just think its looks bad for him cause he had so many of those photos. It will be a little hard for people to believe it was an innocent thing like what you described could happen when hes moving around 1500 child porn pictures.
He hasnt be accused of molesting a child in his care but he'll probably lose his license anyway if hes concivted of peddling child pornography & it does look bad for him. If it was just a few photos maybe it could have happened the way you suggest but 1500?
Nov 15, '02Ok, I think it is bad b/c he is a mean-looking dude, and if I was a widdle baby and he put his ugly mug in my face I'd cry...like a baby!
Nov 15, '02Yes, Suzy, I do understand your point that "circumstancial" evidence does not necessarily equal guilt.
However, in this case, I am having problems believing it for two reasons:
1. He had 1500 pictures. The ISP has already verified that a large number were downloaded AND uploaded. You don't get and send 1500 porn pictures without knowing about it, by spam or by viruses. We've all gotten these things, but they are deleted, not 1500 of them kept on the computer! You only get that many child porn pictures by looking for and trading them. You're talking about a GIG of disk space here.
2. If this guy is innocent, then you are also believing that the Exploited Children and the police are of such incompetence that they would attempt to prosecute a case without being sure of their facts or how the guy actually got the porn on his computer.
I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty." It is what our country was founded upon. However, if you feel that this is a miscarriage of justice, or that everyone is convicting him before trial, perhaps it would be helpful for you to present some of the "defense" arguments and assertions that his attorney is using. It would be interesting to hear "The rest of the story." Good day!
Nov 15, '02Only one comment: People aren't always what they appear to be on the surface. Yes, I agree, his appearance is questionable. However, so many people get taken by crooks because they "look nice." Therefore, this poor guy didn't ask to look that way. It'll be interesting to hear what happens. Keep us posted! Thanks for the updates. Interesting comments. I'm not familiar with newsgroups. I think I'll keep my computer turned off, thank you.
Nov 16, '02originally posted by Youda
if you feel that this is a miscarriage of justice, or that everyone is convicting him before trial, perhaps it would be helpful for you to present some of the "defense" arguments and assertions that his attorney is using. It would be interesting to hear "The rest of the story." Good day!
Last edit by Susy K on Nov 16, '02
Nov 16, '02I can't believe we've already convicted this guy!
I'm curious about a few things.
First of all, imho, he was illegally searched and seized...
and, most of all..
was this porn LISTED as child porn?? Much of the porn on the net will list as "barely 18", etc..and the pics look more like 13 or 14 yr olds.
i agree with suzy..i'm still not ready to convict this guy..i actually have yet to see a reasonable cause to SUSPECT this guy of any criminal action, much less convict
Nov 16, '02We're not putting this guy on the table and putting a needle in his arm. We're stating opinions. And, yes, I have a problem with a pediatric nurse having 1500 child porn pics on his computer. I have to wonder about someone who doesn't have a problem with that !!Last edit by Youda on Nov 16, '02
Nov 16, '02I'm certainly NOT a computer wiz. Occasionally we get x-rated stuff in our e-mail. the subjects could be teens, anyway, we delete the e-mail immediately before it opens and delete it from our delete box. (we have a 10 year old to protect) How can you 'accidently" have 1500 files?
I agree that he should be suspended until it gets cleared up for the sole purpose of protecting children; or at least move him to another position not dealing with kids. It would be nice if the newspapers would report his innocence, if that is the case ultimately, as vigorously as his arrest. Anyone remember "Absence of Malice"?