Re: Langham out already....
- From: Nick <nospam@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:13:12 +0000
Juan Kerr wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:01 pm, Nick <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:AIUI Langham hadn't paid for any child porn. I'd be astonished if there
were a link between a guy anonymously downloading a picture and a kid
being abused
Was it a picture?
I seem to recall the prosecution made a big thing of advising the jury
that filenames beginning with p_t were specifically pre-teen porn
videos. IOW, he knew full well that he was downloading kiddie porn
videos.
Yes I believe what you say. I was using picture in a very wide sense. I'm not questioning the evidence that Langham was downloading some very nasty videos presumably for sexual titillation. I am questioning any link whereby him secretly downloading this stuff causes children to be abused.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Richard Miller
- Re: Langham out already....
- References:
- Langham out already....
- From: Aidy
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Dave Baker
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Dr Zoidberg
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Dave Baker
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Dr Zoidberg
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Nick
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Juan Kerr
- Langham out already....
- Prev by Date: Remoteness of dammage
- Next by Date: Re: Langham out already....
- Previous by thread: Re: Langham out already....
- Next by thread: Re: Langham out already....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|