Re: Langham out already....
- From: Juan Kerr <juan.kerr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:38:33 -0800
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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Nick
- 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
- Langham out already....
- Prev by Date: Re: reason 22 and a half
- Next by Date: Re: 28 days
- Previous by thread: Re: Langham out already....
- Next by thread: Re: Langham out already....
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|