Originally posted by esoxx
Keep trying though. Pete was arrested on suspicion of POSSESING INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN. You have to drop the charges, regardless of who your atty is when you dont' have ANY on your computer. They searched both his home and office, and found nothing.
Yes, and i'm sure that his expensive atty helped...that is why it took 4 months for them to drop the charges. You are so far off the mark it is scary.
What they found was that he had accessed a site back in 99, 4 years prior to his arrest..an arrest that they thought would garner them someone who was making and distributing child porn.
So, whose story is more credible? Yours..that he is a pedophile or Pete's. Pete who has advocated for child's rights, who has talked about the harm of porn, who has written lyrics/opera in which the main character was sexually abused, a man who openly admitted to being abused as a child, a man who freely told the police about accessing the site and what he saw, a man whose home and office turned up no child porn, a man whose multiple computers housed no child porn.
The police have arrested many wrongly on child porn charges. Do some research.
Here in Phx they were trying to arrest an artist, a woman, for her pics of her own children. Are artistic nude photos of your own children child porn. LOL
Prosec




Comment