Re: Langham out already....
- From: Richard Miller <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:27:06 +0000
In message <473b56d9$0$13934$fa0fcedb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nick <nospam@xxxxxxxx> writes
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 thereWas it a picture?
were a link between a guy anonymously downloading a picture and a kid
being abused
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.
And I question the suggestion that he was downloading it for sexual titillation.
--
Richard Miller
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: The Todal
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: MM
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Nick
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: ecomania
- 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
- Re: Langham out already....
- From: Nick
- Langham out already....
- Prev by Date: Re: Advice please - College does not want to give money back
- 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
|