January 6, 2012

"Difficult to verify" a better choice of words

A footnote in the criminal complaint* states that because many of the images involved pubescent or post-pubescent boys or very young men whose ages would be hard to verify, neither was charged with possession of child pornography.
If you know what I'm sayin'.

* WARNING: It's perverse and revolting.

(And you may never peel another carrot again.)

5 comments:

John Foust said...

I thought they were giving these two a pass. I was under the impression that most child porn investigations attempt to do that sort of verification. On page 3, they say "A review of the totality of the evidence suggest that defendant Brian Pierick, intentionally procured [...] images of this type" and that specific images were linked to usernames "Walker04" and "TRussell".

You think they'd do the same if it were a hetero man chasing girls?

illusory tenant said...

Russell is fortunate he hasn't caught an enticement charge.

John Foust said...

"If you're two consenting adults - and which of us isn't? - it's nobody's business who you love. Right? Nobody's business who you love, where you love, which equipment (Ed.: or vegetables] you might use. It's interesting, but it's nobody's business. Actually, the equipment is somebody's business."

Anonymous said...

The Feds will be very interested in where these child porn images originated and they probably have the resources to determine the children's ages via a database of known victims compiled in other investigations. I think this portion of the scandal is only going to escalate. I can see why the DA would pass on this portion of the investigation and let the Feds handle it.

illusory tenant said...

Yep.