It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

72 charged in online global child porn ring

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 

I believe that the suspects in an ongoing investigation up until the day of a trial, their names should never be posted, this is to ensure that the potential jury is never biased by opinion and the rights are protected under the fullest extent of the law. This way there can be no doubt, no claim of or question if the person in a trial got a fair trial from an unbiased jury. Crimes immediately give that picture from the first day, that the jury finds out who the person is and what they are charged with, and they start to formulate opinion. Some crimes carry a heavier weight against the accused than that of others. Rape and child crimes are the kinds that destroy a person, even if they have been declared not guilty. By posting the names, any one visiting the website, could be potentially biased against said individual, including that in the news.
Best case example would be, you post the name of a man who committed a crime on that web site, and it is over the news, possible, it happens. Public hears about it on the news, the name of the individual, does a web search and then also sees your site, also posting the name, also very possible. Now are you prepared for the outcome? If this is not challenged before trial starts and it goes all of the way through and his lawyers can prove that the jury was bias, then the verdict can be over turned on the grounds of jury misconduct and bias, all cause their client could not get a fair trial due to the number of times his name appeared in the media and online, thus the jury had already convicted him, without the benefit of a trial and therefore his rights were violated. Could you be happy with that? No, nor should anyone. Or would you be happy with the expense that would have to be paid to move and transport this person to another location or state, to get an unbiased jury to be able to have a fair hearing and court case?
Too many times when it is a sex crime of any kind, the moment it goes to print, the person carries that stigma in society, before and during the trial, as the public has already found them guilty, even when the evidence points to another conclusion or the investigation is not even complete. Best case in point in this would either be the Duke LaCrosse case, where the members of the team were accused and what came out? The victim lied about it in front of the media and jury, and the public already had formed an opinion as to that case.
The other was the McMartin Preschool trial where the people, who were found innocent and all charges were dropped, had their lives ruined by the court of public opinion. What ever do you do then if that happens, how do you pay for a good name, how much is it worth? They are still trying to put their lives back together.
It also is bad, cause unfortunately, some in our society like to take justice in their own hands, bypassing the entire justice system and go after these individuals on their own. There are a few cases of where that happened as well.
As I stated before, putting out that this occurred, the state, even the city is acceptable, lets everyone know that such is around, but to print the names of the persons, before the trial is wrong, cause if they are found not guilty, then they have to put the pieces of their lives together from a nightmare. And if they are indeed guilty, then there can be no claim of not having a fair trial by jury as the jury would have been unbiased.




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Unfortunately (for your view at least) almost every State in the Union has an open records law for transparency of government.

I personally want to know if I'm living next door to someone who a grand jury heard testimony and decided to hand down a bill of indictment for the alleged crimes.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


There is a HUGE difference between "viewing violent content" and viewing ANYTHING that violates innocent children in ANY way. Anyone who views or owns that sort of content belongs in prison and, as a society,


So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
Here's a little food for thought. A friend of mine worked for a large charity that helped rehabilitate and rehome offenders. This also included help for paedophiles.

When they're released into a nice free council house (probably near a school) they must report for counselling on a regular basis as part of their release conditions. They DO gather for their meetings in groups, thus meeting like-minded people. Then they're advised by those professionals taking care of them (and the community) - "just don't travel on the same bus home."




This right here.

Rule Number 1 for registered sex offenders on probation or parole - do not associate with other sex offenders.
Rule Number 2 for registered sex offenders on probation or parole - never miss your mandated regular meetings with other registered sex offenders.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


I think what you're not taking into account is that for the Dreamboard community quest4more which was busted by Operation Delego, you couldn't view ANY child pornography until you had uploaded some yourself. And you couldn't stay a member unless you uploaded more every 50 days.

So this isn't just a bunch of researchers who happened to look at a picture. These are guys who worked hard at getting access and keeping it.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


How was this board infiltrated?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Originally posted by Kitilani

So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?


Given medals, bonuses and all the intensive free counseling they need to get past what they had to endure.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


I think what you're not taking into account is that for the Dreamboard community quest4more which was busted by Operation Delego, you couldn't view ANY child pornography until you had uploaded some yourself. And you couldn't stay a member unless you uploaded more every 50 days.

So this isn't just a bunch of researchers who happened to look at a picture. These are guys who worked hard at getting access and keeping it.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


How was this board infiltrated?


You're on a conspiracy board, you figure it out. The board was discovered when they arrested someone in 2008 who talked...and probably made a deal.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Also, I would ask. Do you feel the same way about when any other criminal's name is listed in a news article...which happens thousands of times across the U.S. every day. Arrested for robbery. Arrested for DUI. Arrested for embezzlement. Do you kick a fit then?


I do.

For one thing, in today's society if someone is in the paper for robbery and gets off, things are probably going to be pretty ok. When someone is named in the paper as a child rapist, there is little coming back from that no matter what happens in court.

Mainly though I do have a problem with tarring the accused in public. I once had a great job with a company that had a policy that if you were ever arrested you would be fired. After a decade of a spotless record, I was arrested. I got off. Was convicted of nothing. The problem was it was really hard to pay my lawyer because I was now jobless simply because my job found out I was accused of something, even though I turned out to be not guilty.

I have a problem with anyone smearing anyone for a crime they have not been found guilty of and when it comes to crimes against children it takes on a whole new meaning. I know a 20 year old kid that is a sex offender because he got caught having sex with his current 19 year old girlfriend a month before her 16th birthday. They are hardly two years apart. Many might still think what he did was wrong and that is fine but two teens having consensual sex is a far cry from raping a toddler. You know what people assume when they find out he is a sex offender? That he raped a child or two. When someone is in the paper for robbery, it is rarely assumed they must also be raping children.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Originally posted by Kitilani

So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?


Given medals, bonuses and all the intensive free counseling they need to get past what they had to endure.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


Endure?

Anyway, I was not asking you. I was specifically asking the person that said ANYONE that views this stuff should be removed from society. Who do you think spends more time looking at pics like that? The task forces actively trying to take them down or the guys they randomly catch?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You're on a conspiracy board, you figure it out.


What?

Because this is a conspiracy board I cannot ask people details about the stories they present? If these questions are too tough, let the OP handle them.

The board was discovered when they arrested someone in 2008 who talked...and probably made a deal.

I did not ask you if they arrested one guy and he probably did something. Why you are in attack mode is a little beyond me but I am specifically asking if you had to upload kiddie porn to get on the board, how did it get infiltrated?

I am asking a question. How about you calm down a bit.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by Kitilani
 



Originally posted by Kitilani

So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?


Given medals, bonuses and all the intensive free counseling they need to get past what they had to endure.


edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)


Endure?

Anyway, I was not asking you. I was specifically asking the person that said ANYONE that views this stuff should be removed from society. Who do you think spends more time looking at pics like that? The task forces actively trying to take them down or the guys they randomly catch?


I think probably the person they are trying to catch. But aside from that, I think the more important question is what either one of them is doing with their free hand. I think the answers on that will be widely different between the two groups.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I think probably the person they are trying to catch.


Mind if I ask why you think that?
Billy bob pervert is looking at the nasty pictures he wants to look at.
Officer child-saver is looking at the nasty pictures Billy bob pervert is looking at as well as all the other perverts they are trying to catch. I do not even understand how you can think such a thing.

But aside from that, I think the more important question is what either one of them is doing with their free hand. I think the answers on that will be widely different between the two groups.

Well my question is still what do you suggest be done with the "good guys" that look at this stuff if you feel ANYONE that looks at this stuff is not fit for society.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Valhall
You're on a conspiracy board, you figure it out.


What?

Because this is a conspiracy board I cannot ask people details about the stories they present? If these questions are too tough, let the OP handle them.

The board was discovered when they arrested someone in 2008 who talked...and probably made a deal.

I did not ask you if they arrested one guy and he probably did something. Why you are in attack mode is a little beyond me but I am specifically asking if you had to upload kiddie porn to get on the board, how did it get infiltrated?

I am asking a question. How about you calm down a bit.


Why would you say I'm in attack mode? I'm not the one who came on the thread insinuating wrong doing by the law enforcement who brought this board engaged in criminal activity down. I just responded to your question. I'm not going to speculate for you. I think you're probably on the right track.

And I gave you information about HOW they found the board, and how they possibly gained access. That's all I did.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Why would you say I'm in attack mode?


Because instead of considering what I actually asked and attempting to provide an answer you simply tried to marginalize me for even asking.


I'm not the one who came on the thread insinuating wrong doing by the law enforcement who brought this board engaged in criminal activity down.


Neither am I. Good now we are on the same team.


I just responded to your question. I'm not going to speculate for you. I think you're probably on the right track.


What you did was speculate and that is why I said I would rather wait for the real answer. I am not trying to be on a track at all. What I am doing is asking questions and mainly because this is a conspiracy board. How often do we read about whistelblowers or good guys who suddenly become silenced because they were caught with child porn? It is the perfect catch all. Say child porn and people reel back in disgust. No one wants to defend you, talk to you, help find out if it is even true. That label gets on you and you are pretty much done. So when I see a bunch of named yet not convicted people from a child porn ring and people screaming about ANYONE looking at those pics should be taken out of society (whatever that means) and it quite clear that these agents and the courts had to see these images as well or else there would be no arrest, I have some questions.

That ok?


And I gave you information about HOW they found the board, and how they possibly gained access. That's all I did.


And again I do not care what your guess is. Thanks for trying but when I asked, I wanted the real answer. Not guesses. Sorry if that is too taxing around here.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
There is too much of this happening.

Name and shame them, let it be public record.

S & F



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

So....the officers and investigators that spent hundreds of hours viewing this stuff should be...?


so what does the above imply then????



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
They can defend themselves in court and either prove themselves innocent in a court of law, or not.

You appear to have that the wrong way around. They don't need to prove their innocence. The prosecutors need to prove their guilt.

Be careful when you walk the fine line of presuming and assuming innocence or guilt. The legal system is faulty. People do get wrongly convicted and framed for things they never did.

Don't make it any easier for a corrupt system to have it's way with innocent people.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Valhall
They can defend themselves in court and either prove themselves innocent in a court of law, or not.

You appear to have that the wrong way around. They don't need to prove their innocence. The prosecutors need to prove their guilt.

Be careful when you walk the fine line of presuming and assuming innocence or guilt. The legal system is faulty. People do get wrongly convicted and framed for things they never did.

Don't make it any easier for a corrupt system to have it's way with innocent people.


I think you are assuming more about me than I am about them. They have been named and indicted as having been members of a board that required illegal activity to be a member of. If those indictments are not proved out, then they become accused and found not guilty.

And by the way, for most of the thinking world, not guilty does not always equate to innocent. But nonetheless, the freedoms that come with both are the same. You are correct, they don't have to prove anything. They can go to court and set there like a bump on a log and not present a single stick of defense. If the evidence convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, they will be convicted...without ever proving a thing about themselves, other than they could not come up with a defense.
edit on 8-4-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani


And again I do not care what your guess is. Thanks for trying but when I asked, I wanted the real answer. Not guesses. Sorry if that is too taxing around here.


Again, the belligerence is confusing. I told one fact for you to go off and either speculate or find out more. They found the board via a squealer who was arrested in 2008. Past that, as I stated to you previously, I'm not going to do your speculating for you. You have intimated that law enforcement gained entry via posing as a member. I said "I think you're on the right track".

What you appear to be doing is playing word games with Springer. You want to take his statement that anyone that looks at pictures like these is basically guilty of a crime. I never took his statement as verbatim literal statement. I read it with a sense of logic applied. As someone else said, if you're a researcher writing a book on internet child pornography and you look at a picture, or you're a law enforcement officer looking at a picture during an investigation, that's a totally different intent than someone who is actively committing criminal acts in order to get access to more of a repository of 126 terabytes of pornography to jack off to. I didn't have any problem understanding what Springer meant. Maybe that's because I know him, maybe that's because I used sense when I read his statement. I'm not sure which.

Would you just take the time to read the indictment which includes the rules that had to be met in order for members to become members and then remain members? The indictment has the copy/paste of the exact verbage for the requirements of maintaining membership and climbing up the hierarchy of the membership so that you could gain access to more and more child porn.

www.shreveporttimes.com...
edit on 8-5-2011 by Valhall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I would also like to know how the DOJ got into the ring when you had to upload child porn first to become a member. Where did they, the DOJ, get their child porn to upload to the sites? Do they just have child porn laying around in their headquarters? Or did they upload some of the videos confiscated in other rings? If so, doesn't that violate the children in those videos?

Sadly, I think there was a study done on pedophiles and most of them were sexually abused themselves. So its basically an ugly cycle. Most of these pedophiles were normal and they get molested as children. Their brain wirings get all screwed up and in turn, become pedophiles them selves. It's quite sick and sad at the same time when you think about it. But I'm a believer in pedophilia being untreatable. So what's the answer? I don't know...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join