It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
A grandfather gassed himself just hours after child porn police raided his home - even though he was innocent.
Last night his widow launched a bitter attack on the police after hearing at an inquest how detectives who seized his computers found nothing illegal.
Michael Curtis's home was raided and three laptop computers seized after intelligence led officers to his address after he stumbled upon one indecent picture and viewed it for a matter of seconds.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
They made a bad decision and I hope they learned from it.
I don't understand how accidently looking at one single picture for a matter of seconds in March 2009 has filtered down into an investigation in July 2010.
'They must have known he didn't look at any other pictures or visited any other website afterwards. Surely they can come to the conclusion he stumbled upon it?
I always wondered if some innocent people would get caught up in this type of method, it seems that is exactly what may have happened here.
Durbin added: "I thought it was scary that they could do this. This whole idea that the FBI can put a honeypot out there to attract people is kind of sad.
Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by TheOracle
You should see what the police have done to my life in uk. 24/7 electroinc mind control monitoring, they listen to every word in our home claiming everyone saying anything is me. Jokes are considered by these morons as facts to destroy peopel with.
18 years i have spent with this, without once being aressted or charged, they just absolutely wrecked my life, and enjoyed every moment of there murder campaign.
It is somewhat of a quandary to decide where to draw the line between keeping children safe, and avoiding an oppressive society that treats everyone as a potential criminal. Like I said at the beginning, this is just a very sad story.
Well he did click on the image, and that was enough to convict the guy in the article I posted in another case. But he was innocent in the forensic investigation of his computers according to the story.
Originally posted by Gazrok
Are we so sure this guy is innocent?
The whole idea is to protect the lives of innocent children from abuse, right? I fail to see how anything that happened in this case protected any children.
I agree that's what it seems like and this article mentions entrapment and how difficult it is to use that defense:
Originally posted by beholdblight
reply to post by Arbitrageur
The honey-pot scenario can get them in as much trouble. Its called "Entrapment" and one of the people caught on the date line show got off because of this.
So the courts define entrapment narrowly, apparently, which can make it difficult to use as a defense. But I'm surprised Vosburgh's defense didn't cite entrapment anyway.
Entrapment: Not a defense
So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.
"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached." ...
When asked what would stop the FBI from expanding its hyperlink sting operation, Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied: "Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit."