On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 01:07:34PM -0700, Tom C wrote: > >From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >The question in my mind is what did he specifically admit to? None of us > >know to what he exactly admitted. For example, he may have taken innocent > >pics and his uncle may have sent them to porn sites. He may have some > >peripheral involvement, but not enough to be guilty of any crimes. IOW, we > >on this list do not know enough to make a reasonable judgement. We only > >know what Kevin has said, and he admits to having a bias as his children > >were allegedly photographed. Kevin has not provided enough specific > >information about what this man has allegedly done. Some of the statements > >Kevin has made is leading me to think that he is biased, prejudicial, > >mean-spirited, and irrational. > > > >If we on this list are going to proffer opinions, then we need all the > >facts presented clearly and in an unbiased manner. IMO, we don't have all > >the facts, and those which we have are nothing more than hearsay presented > >by someone who admits to having a personal involvement in the case - IOW, > >not a disinterested party. > > > >That so many people on this list would want to take action against this guy > >frightens me. And lets be concerned about everyone's rights in this > >situation. Trial by an ill-informed internet mailing list does not seem to > >be in anybody's best interest. > > > > > >Shel > > It's far too easy in cases like this for things to be blown far out of > proportion. It's human nature for a story to be exaggerated. What's more, > very often the police, social workers, and prosecuting attorneys > deliberately lie, mislead, distort, and exaggerate in an attempt, to make > the charges stick and build such a wall of "evidence" that the accused > either has little chance of winning or that they give up the fight. Their > job is not to make people appear innocent now, is it? > > I agree with you Shel... I'm afraid too. For those that say some > intevention should be taken... it's simply prejudging the man without > knowing ANY of the FACTS. We've heard one person's very short story on the > matter. > > If the individual is guilty of any heinous crimes, it's for those who > understand the facts and hear the evidence to decide what they believe.
Exactly. Let's face it - I've occasionally taken photographs where there were identifiable young children, and posted those photographs on a public web site. And you know what? I, too, would be more than a little incensed if, based on that, somebody took it upon themselves to 'turn me in' as a child pornographer. But that's just about all we know of the facts in this case. Despite that, though, we've got at least one poster here who is prepared to treat the person in question (not even acused of any crime) as a convicted paedophile and sex offender. I'm saddened, but not surprised.
