Pee Wee's troubling Pee Pee problems
Lady Taker
bust (not that I didn't think he wasn't doing what he was accussed of, mind
you, but hell, it WAS a porno theatre -- what did they expect?) but this puts a
whole new spin on soooooo many things. I'll never look at Pee Wee's Playhouse
the same again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 28, 2001 -- Porn raid at Pee-wee house
POLICE have raided the Hollywood house of Paul Reubens, a.k.a. Pee-wee Herman,
and carted off boxes of evidence in a kiddie porn probe.
On Nov. 16, Reubens' home was searched after the Los Angeles Police Department
was told that the comic genius was into child pornography.
But a spokesman for Reubens, 49 - who most recently starred in "Blow" and
"Mystery Men," and hosted the NBC game show "You Don't Know Jack" - claims
that Reubens is an innocent victim of blackmail.
"The search was based on a financially motivated, fabricated claim by an
[unnamed] individual," the spokesman told PAGE SIX.
"The police did have a search warrant, but they were voluntarily allowed into
[Reubens'] home. They seized material from [Reubens'] house including his
vintage kitsch and erotic art and photography collections which Paul has
collected for over 30 years."
A story in next week's National Enquirer will report cops carted off nearly
2,000 videotapes, dozens of boxes of pornographic pictures, magazines and
books, and three computers containing "lewd material."
But the most disturbing claim in the story is that among the bawdy bounty
seized from Reubens' gated mansion were 20 to 30 Polaroids of apparently
underage boys, "some undressed, some performing solo sex acts," Enquirer
editor David Perel tells PAGE SIX.
Reubens' spokesman vowed, "At the end of the day, my client will be completely
vindicated. The story that my client has child pornography is false.
"Paul is a collector of kitsch art and erotica," the spokesman said. "His
house is like a museum. He is a very big pop-art collector from outer-space
images to vintage advertisements to Pee-wee Herman memorabilia."
While no charges have been filed, the Enquirer's Perel maintains that cops are
still "cataloguing" the items and are in the early stages of the probe.
This is not the first time Reubens has been embroiled in an embarrassing sex
scandal.
In 1991, while visiting his parents in Sarasota, Fla., Reubens was arrested in
an adult movie theater for masturbating during a showing of "Nancy Nurse."
In a case that drew worldwide attention, Reubens eventually paid $135 in fines
and court costs, but the resulting publicity caused CBS to cancel "Pee-wee's
Playhouse."
Volfie
"You haven't hit rock bottom until you've fought off the other drunks to suck
on a Hungarian booby pickle." - Mr. Wick, Drew Carey Show
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, isn't this disturbing? I thought he got a bum rap on that porno theatre
> bust (not that I didn't think he wasn't doing what he was accussed of, mind
> you, but hell, it WAS a porno theatre -- what did they expect?) but this puts a
> whole new spin on soooooo many things. I'll never look at Pee Wee's Playhouse
> the same again.
But they're only charges. We don't know anything for sure yet.
Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)
Formica63
>Well, isn't this disturbing? I thought he got a bum rap on that porno
>theatre
>bust (not that I didn't think he wasn't doing what he was accussed of, mind
>you, but hell, it WAS a porno theatre -- what did they expect?) but this puts
>a
>whole new spin on soooooo many things. I'll never look at Pee Wee's
>Playhouse
>the same again.
<snip story>
Hmm. Pee Wee's Playhouse always seemed to me to be flirting with very "adult"
material. That's what was good about it.
I guess I will be taking a "wait and see" approach to this story.
Formica
Kris Baker
Lady Taker wrote in message <20011128165054...@mb-fp.aol.com>...
>Well, isn't this disturbing? I thought he got a bum rap on that
>porno theatre bust (not that I didn't think he wasn't doing what
>he was accussed of, mind you, but hell, it WAS a porno theatre
>-- what did they expect?) but this puts a whole new spin on
>soooooo many things. I'll never look at Pee Wee's Playhouse
>the same again.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>November 28, 2001 -- Porn raid at Pee-wee house
>off nearly 2,000 videotapes, dozens of boxes of pornographic
>pictures, magazines and books, and three computers containing
>"lewd material."
A collection of erotica will always be called "lewd", and
isn't damning in itself.
>But the most disturbing claim in the story is that among the
>bawdy bounty seized from Reubens' gated mansion were
>20 to 30 Polaroids of apparently underage boys, "some
>undressed, some performing solo sex acts," Enquirer
>editor David Perel tells PAGE SIX.
That could be damning.
Kris
Lady Taker
>But they're only charges. We don't know anything for sure yet.
>
>Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)
I'm sorry but Polaroids of little boys whacking off sounds pretty perverted no
matter how you slice and dice it. I mean, really -- how COULD you possibly
explain your way out of that? I don't think the patented perps statement of,
"They're not mine" isn't going to work for Pee Wee this time.
The kitch collection of erotic art, however, reminds me of that collection of
erotic pottery they kept discussing in A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The
Forum. I'm finding it hard to take THAT charge all that seriously.
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> >
> >But they're only charges. We don't know anything for sure yet.
> >
> >Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)
>
> I'm sorry but Polaroids of little boys whacking off sounds pretty perverted no
> matter how you slice and dice it. I mean, really -- how COULD you possibly
> explain your way out of that? I don't think the patented perps statement of,
> "They're not mine" isn't going to work for Pee Wee this time.
But the story says:
But the most disturbing *****claim***** in the story is that among the
bawdy bounty
seized from Reubens' gated mansion were 20 to 30 Polaroids of
*****apparently*****
underage boys, "some undressed, some performing solo sex acts," Enquirer
editor David Perel tells PAGE SIX.
So it's *maybe* there were polaroids, and if there were polaroids, the
subjects *may* have been underage.
Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)(or bi)
Kris Baker
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message <3C0572...@erols.com>...
WHO uses a Polaroid anymore?
Sounds like some pretty old stuff to me.
Kris
mothra...@hotmail.com
Yeah, but age won't matter if it really is kiddie porn.
Martha
Kris Baker
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote in message <3C05A6...@erols.com>...
What if it's obviously "collected" (ie, 1960s stuff, older than
PeeWee?)
Not standing up for anything/anyone, and I can't imagine why
anyone would want it......yuck....but if you're a collector, you
keep what you get.
The sad part about being a creative person in the arts, is
that the very thing that gives you the genius, can make you
a perversion.
Kris
Maggie
>What if it's obviously "collected" (ie, 1960s stuff, older than
>PeeWee?)
>
>Not standing up for anything/anyone, and I can't imagine why
>anyone would want it......yuck....but if you're a collector, you
>keep what you get.
>
>The sad part about being a creative person in the arts, is
>that the very thing that gives you the genius, can make you
>a perversion.
***I don't think kiddie porn turns into art just because it's old. A very old
drawing or painting--maybe. An old polaroid or movie (*real* kids)--uh-uh.
Maggie
"No one said free speech means that you can say whatever you want and everybody
will still love you for it." -- Sacha Zimmerman
AgonyInBlk
>WHO uses a Polaroid anymore?
>
You'd be surprised. We have an in-house pro photo studio and to test lighting,
we use a very expensive, high-end polaroid. The benefits, of course, are that
you get to check out the lighting instantaneously, because you don't have to
take the film to be developed. Now, apply that to somebody taking illicit
pictures without the benefit of a "safe" developing house, or personal
developing lab. No negatives, no developer to see the images, just an
instantaneous image of whatever your subject is.
Home use Polaroids are inexpensive, although the film is a little pricey. But,
if you were taking pictures you feared having anybody see, the ten bucks or so
for a package of Polaroid film and $49 for the camera become worthwhile
investments. And, if you're trafficking these pictures and selling them to
high-paying clients, it's very inexpensive and cuts out the evidence of a
negative.
I've heard Polaroid is in trouble as a company recently, and I think there are
other manufacturers of instant-development film who may pick up the slack if
they're going under, so there's definitely still a market for both the camera
and the film. Unfortunately, illicit photos (including child porn) are among
the uses for such technology/
Best,
JM
___________________________________________
The Nightmare never ends...
AGONY IN BLACK
http://www.chantingmonks.com
Come worship at the new house of horrors
___________________________________________
Kris Baker
AgonyInBlk wrote in message <20011128232556...@mb-dh.aol.com>...
I was thinking Polaroid versus digital, especially IF these
photos were taken by the owner, who happened to own
three computers.
Kris
trisk...@msn.com
Kris Baker wrote:
I used to like Reubens/Pee-Wee a lot back in the 80s, but I've learned too much
about his personality over the last few years to be able to cut him any slack.
Apparently the guy's a real egotistical, narcissistic creep with a sex
addiction. And the way he treated Phil Hartman was truly distasteful. Most of
this has been fairly well-documented in several celebrity profiles, including
E!'s True Hollywood Stories and A&E Biography (not only of Reubens, but Hartman
as well).
And it doesn't matter how old the kiddie porn is, or how he came into possession
of it. Having child porn in your house is as legal as having a meth lab in your
garage. Doesn't matter if you're a speed-freak or not, its still a major felony.
I guess we'll also find out, after the police have time to review the thousands
of tapes they confiscated, whether there were any other forms of child porn in
his possession as well. The Polaroids are fairly self-evident, but tapes & DVDs
and books & computer files have to be sifted through. Plus they seem to have a
wittness/informant who is believed to be an actor. No mention of how old he is,
though.
Odd how this info came out the same day as a global kiddie-porn bust touted as
the "largest ever" (I think it's called Operation Landmark).
Trisk
Dog 3
<mothra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3C0565...@erols.com...
If there was so much as one pic of a young boy he'd have already been
charged. I'm more in agreement with the blackmail story.
Michael <- detestes Pee Wee anyway
AgonyInBlk
>I was thinking Polaroid versus digital, especially IF these
>photos were taken by the owner, who happened to own
>three computers.>>>
True. If it were Reubens, he certainly had the dough to go out and grab a good
Nikon D1X and thus, eliminate the problem with the negatives. Only problem is,
if he wants any prints of the pics, he'd have to run them thru one of his
computers, or transfer the data. I don't think the D1X (or cameras of that
level) can transfer data directly to a hi-quality printer, but perhaps they
can.
I guess maybe something else about Polaroids is that you can carry a few into
the bedroom with you, (or the local porno theater), but lugging a monitor and
hard drive might be a little prohibitive.
JonesieCat
"Maggie" <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote in message
news:20011128232301...@mb-bg.aol.com...
You must not have played around with a Polaroid camera when you were a kid?
I did - we did some funny stuff with a Polaroid, fully dressed and not, but
we didn't think we were being pornographic. You should have seen some of
those photos! Friends did the same, not sure what all *they* got up to.
Wonder if Reubens did too? Is it still
considered child porn if they're of yourself and friends? (Just old are
those photos?) Sometimes isn't it just in the eye of the beholder? His porn
collection is his business and no one else's, seems to me, except if those
20-30 photos (or other stuff) out of the thousands (?) of items in his
collection truly are nasty ones of innocent children being used and abused
(or adults being abused for that matter). I would contend at this early
stage that a naked child does not itself constitute pornography, "solo sex
acts" not
withstanding. The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to piss
off the cops otherwise...
If there is any real nasty exploitive stuff in that collection, no matter
how old, he deserves the worst that can be dished out. I do believe it is
rich collectors that perpetuate an exploitive horrible aspect to the sex
industry (I recently had occasion to meet a woman who runs a brothel, very
enlightening indeed!).
So what did he do to Phil Hartman?
JC, not a PeeWee fan
Lady Taker
>WHO uses a Polaroid anymore?
People who want to take photos that can be developed at home and not run
through the local camera shop where a clerk might call the cops.
Maggie
>
>>I was thinking Polaroid versus digital, especially IF these
>>photos were taken by the owner, who happened to own
>>three computers.>>>
>
>True. If it were Reubens, he certainly had the dough to go out and grab
>a good
>Nikon D1X and thus, eliminate the problem with the negatives. Only problem
>is,
>if he wants any prints of the pics, he'd have to run them thru one of his
>computers, or transfer the data. I don't think the D1X (or cameras of that
>level) can transfer data directly to a hi-quality printer, but perhaps they
>can.
>
>I guess maybe something else about Polaroids is that you can carry a few
>into
>the bedroom with you, (or the local porno theater), but lugging a monitor
>and
>hard drive might be a little prohibitive.
***Not to mention that his monitor and hard drive may be chock full of kiddie
porn. Takes a few days to go through everything, you know. Computer images
are just not the kind of thing that's going to be discovered during the initial
search.
Maggie
trisk...@msn.com
JonesieCat wrote:
>
> You must not have played around with a Polaroid camera when you were a kid?
> I did - we did some funny stuff with a Polaroid, fully dressed and not, but
> we didn't think we were being pornographic. You should have seen some of
> those photos! Friends did the same, not sure what all *they* got up to.
> Wonder if Reubens did too? Is it still considered child porn if they're of
> yourself and friends? (Just old are those photos?) Sometimes isn't it just in
> the eye of the beholder? His porn collection is his business and no one
> else's, seems to me, except if those
> 20-30 photos (or other stuff) out of the thousands (?) of items in his
> collection truly are nasty ones of innocent children being used and abused
> (or adults being abused for that matter). I would contend at this early
> stage that a naked child does not itself constitute pornography, "solo sex
> acts" not
>
Why would anyone have a picture of a child masturbating except to masturbate
over it? And the (very distant) chance the photos might be of himself or a
childhood friend is still creepy.I can't imagine reliving fond childhood
memories as I would over shots of the family gathered around the christmas tree.
I would also suggest you read the official legal definition of child pornography
and evidence of child exploitation. It's pretty cut-and-dried.
The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
> to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to piss
> off the cops otherwise...
Frankly, once you subtract the publicist, it sounds like every report of every
non-celebrity child pornographer & child molester I've read on the newsgroup. In
fact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
celebrity. Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you had
the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into the the
LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of the
pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's just a
matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this case, it was
nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the POST.
> If there is any real nasty exploitive stuff in that collection, no matter
> how old, he deserves the worst that can be dished out. I do believe it is
> rich collectors that perpetuate an exploitive horrible aspect to the sex
> industry (I recently had occasion to meet a woman who runs a brothel, very
> enlightening indeed!).
>
> So what did he do to Phil Hartman?
It's a real long, nasty, petty story. Basically, the Pee-Wee's Playhouse
concept was the product of a collaboration between Reubens & Hartman, as was the
first movie script.
As the Pee-Wee phenom caught on, Reubens didn't want to share the credit and
apparently undertook aggressive legal action to keep Hartman from realizing any
profits or having any say as co-creator. This was about the time Captain Carl
disappeared from the show.
The legal battle became extremely acrimonious, at least on Reubens' side, but
most of it went on behind the scenes, away from the eyes of fans. When Pee-Wee's
porno house bust occurred, Hartman was asked by an interviewer how he felt
about his former friend's fall from grace. Hartman looked genuinely concerned
and said he really felt sorry for Paul, thought it was a bum rap, and hoped he
could recover and continue with the show.
This was then intercut with the interviewer relaying said message from Hartman
verbatim to Reubens, whose eyes bugged out of his head in genuine outrage and
said in the pissiest, nastiest voice imaginable: "He said THAT? Tell him I don't
need his pity!"
I was never able to look at Reubens the say way again.
When reporters tried to get Reubens say something about Hartman following his
murder, he mumbled a few things but it was clear that he resented having to say
anything nice at all about Hartman in public. The guy's a creep and I really
can't be surprised by anything anyone says about him anymore.
Trisk
mothra...@hotmail.com
Doesn't matter if he's some kind of "collector"--it's against the law to
possess kiddie porn, not matter how antique it may be. I wouldn't be
surprised if a lot of the child pornography that's traded these days
weren't made back in the 1940s or even earlier.
Martha
Gayle
> Kris asked:
>
> >WHO uses a Polaroid anymore?
> >
>
> You'd be surprised. We have an in-house pro photo studio and to test lighting,
> we use a very expensive, high-end polaroid. The benefits, of course, are that
> you get to check out the lighting instantaneously, because you don't have to
> take the film to be developed. Now, apply that to somebody taking illicit
> pictures without the benefit of a "safe" developing house, or personal
> developing lab. No negatives, no developer to see the images, just an
> instantaneous image of whatever your subject is.
>
> Home use Polaroids are inexpensive, although the film is a little pricey. But,
> if you were taking pictures you feared having anybody see, the ten bucks or so
> for a package of Polaroid film and $49 for the camera become worthwhile
> investments. And, if you're trafficking these pictures and selling them to
> high-paying clients, it's very inexpensive and cuts out the evidence of a
> negative.
>
> I've heard Polaroid is in trouble as a company recently, and I think there are
> other manufacturers of instant-development film who may pick up the slack if
> they're going under, so there's definitely still a market for both the camera
> and the film. Unfortunately, illicit photos (including child porn) are among
> the uses for such technology/
>
> Best,
> JM
Jeffrey Dahmer had stacks of them on a coffee table when the police came the
second time. Polaroid photos are portable, developed in anonymity, and easily
accessible to those without computer access or don't want to put the image in
their system. As one who has wriiten for Polaroid (and who reads a lot of crime),
I'm convinced that less-than-savory use sells a LOT of film. Apparently not
enough, though. as your're right about their death throes.
They did step up to the plate when it came to their efforts to decrease domestic
violence. They donated cameras and film to emergency rooms so that injuries could
be documented. But it turned out that those who were photographed (whether they
had intentions to press charges, or not) were much more likely to be involved in
another incident soon after. The program was discontinued.
Gayle
JonesieCat
<trisk...@msn.com> wrote in message news:3C065AA0...@msn.com...
>
>
> JonesieCat wrote:
>
> >
> > You must not have played around with a Polaroid camera when you were a
kid?
> > I did - we did some funny stuff with a Polaroid, fully dressed and not,
but
> > we didn't think we were being pornographic. You should have seen some
of
> > those photos! Friends did the same, not sure what all *they* got up to.
> > Wonder if Reubens did too? Is it still considered child porn if they're
of
> > yourself and friends? (Just old are those photos?) Sometimes isn't it
just in
> > the eye of the beholder? His porn collection is his business and no one
> > else's, seems to me, except if those
> > 20-30 photos (or other stuff) out of the thousands (?) of items in his
> > collection truly are nasty ones of innocent children being used and
abused
> > (or adults being abused for that matter). I would contend at this early
> > stage that a naked child does not itself constitute pornography, "solo
sex
> > acts" not
> >
>
> Why would anyone have a picture of a child masturbating except to
masturbate
> over it?
I would have no idea. (Also not sure yet I believe that's the way the photo
ought to be characterized.) (If he was into kiddie porn I'd have expected
that have been a major part of his collection, not just a few photos.)
And the (very distant) chance the photos might be of himself or a
> childhood friend is still creepy.I can't imagine reliving fond childhood
> memories as I would over shots of the family gathered around the christmas
tree.
Nope, me either. I kept some of my photos from when my friends and I played
around as a child tho. No sex, but "sexy" poses with little on, some of
them. Those photos are ancient now. We were children.
(Now in the context of all the porn stuff they found at PW's house, could be
you all are right. I just feel compelled to play devil's adv for some
reason.)
> I would also suggest you read the official legal definition of child
pornography
> and evidence of child exploitation. It's pretty cut-and-dried.
Online? Anybody know where? I would like to read it.
> The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
>
> > to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to
piss
> > off the cops otherwise...
>
> Frankly, once you subtract the publicist, it sounds like every report of
every
> non-celebrity child pornographer & child molester I've read on the
newsgroup. In
> fact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
> celebrity.
Yes, PW's spin team is probably very effective.
>Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
> found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
had
> the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into
the the
> LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of
the
> pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's
just a
> matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this case, it
was
> nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the
POST.
I'd love to be able to do that. That'd be so cool, stolling down to the
courthouse, pouring over tc files. That's going to be my hobby when I
retire. One of them. I wonder if the Smoking Gun will put this stuff up,
bet they will.
I had no idea. (Hartman and Reuben stuff.) That all went right by me. Phil
Hartman certainly lived under a black cloud didn't he.
I'm probably being silly thinking those 30-40 photos might be innocent,
given the context. Yet, I do believe folks might have sex stuff or
whatever, and lots of it, that is legal and private and nobody's business.
(And, no, I don't have any myself.) And it may be those 30-40 pics that
will be the cause of his demise - so it's important to know exactly what the
deal is with them (even tho he's a sleazeball who deserves to rot in hell in
any case).
I'm still wondering if the cops might have really wanted him for something
else, like maybe he frequents male prostitutes, maybe young ones... and he's
been doing bad things to them, but they won't go on record, but maybe have
told police about the guy's house - and that's how all this came about. And
those pics? Maybe kiddie porn, maybe not. If those pics were child
pornography, who'd he have shown them to who'd have told the police? That's
what I'm wondering.
JC
trisk...@msn.com
JonesieCat wrote:
>
> > Why would anyone have a picture of a child masturbating except to
> masturbate
> > over it?
>
> I would have no idea. (Also not sure yet I believe that's the way the photo
> ought to be characterized.) (If he was into kiddie porn I'd have expected
> that have been a major part of his collection, not just a few photos.)
Well, they still have to go through the 2000+ videos, the computer hard drives &
the other various books & mags they seized. The Polaroids are only the most
self-evident. They don't review everything at the site during a search--they
seize it and take it back to HQ for review.
> > I would also suggest you read the official legal definition of child
> pornography > and evidence of child exploitation. It's pretty cut-and-dried.
>
> Online? Anybody know where? I would like to read it.
You can find it at the Department of Justice & FBI's websites, along with the
various federal statues
> >Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
> > found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
> had> the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into
> the the > LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get
> copies of
> the > pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it.
> It's
> just a > matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this
> case, it
> was > nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the
> POST.
>
> I'd love to be able to do that. That'd be so cool, stolling down to the
> courthouse, pouring over tc files. That's going to be my hobby when I
> retire.
There's an old fellow (60+) who's always at the courthouse when I go, always
sitting at the same PC/microfiche station. I assume he's a retired cop turned
private detective because he's always on a cell phone talking shop to someone
about the perp he's researching.
> One of them. I wonder if the Smoking Gun will put this stuff up,
> bet they will.
Give it a few days. It all ends up there eventually.
> I had no idea. (Hartman and Reuben stuff.) That all went right by me. Phil
> Hartman certainly lived under a black cloud didn't he.
I know a couple of people who knew Hartman professionally back when he was a
graphic artist (he designed the Poco horsey album cover). Apparently he was as
sweet a guy you could imagine, especially in showbiz. Probably too nice, as it
turns out. He'd overlook serious personality flaws in friends, giving them the
benefit of the doubt, clearly to his detriment.
> I'm probably being silly thinking those 30-40 photos might be innocent,
> given the context. Yet, I do believe folks might have sex stuff or
> whatever, and lots of it, that is legal and private and nobody's business.
> (And, no, I don't have any myself.) And it may be those 30-40 pics that
> will be the cause of his demise - so it's important to know exactly what the
> deal is with them (even tho he's a sleazeball who deserves to rot in hell in
> any case).
>
Collecting isn't really a excuse. Maybe if he didn't know he had the crap in the
first place (like from an estate sale), but that's not the case here. In any
case, if a legit art collector comes into a possession of stolen art, but
doesn't realize it was stolen until after he's paid for it, he's still
participating in a felony offense (in that case receiving stolen property).
> I'm still wondering if the cops might have really wanted him for something
> else, like maybe he frequents male prostitutes, maybe young ones... and he's
> been doing bad things to them, but they won't go on record, but maybe have
> told police about the guy's house - and that's how all this came about.
Hard to say. Its fair to say the the cops in LA probably more dirty secrets
about celebrities than anyone else.
> And those pics? Maybe kiddie porn, maybe not. If those pics were child
> pornography, who'd he have shown them to who'd have told the police? That's
> what I'm wondering.
Pedophiles are always looking for vindication of their tastes & beliefs. Hell,
they even have their own club and newsgroups! It's probably a case like the
sicko daycare woman who tried to entice her boyfriend into raping babies...a
gross miscalculation of the other person's interests. Instead of luring the
other person in, it grossed/freaked them out. The witness is apparently another
actor--but whether and adult or kid actor is unknown. Something tells me
there's going to be an interesting can of worms opened in the next few weeks.
Also--it sounds like Reubens might not be in LA--or even California--if he
wasn't home when the search warrant was exercised.
Trisk
Formica63
>But they're only charges. We don't know anything for sure yet.
>
>Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)
Whoa. Of course he's a pervert, Mothy. So are you and I. The question seems
now to revolve around a collection of erotica (harmless) and "apparently"
underage children in polaroids, perhaps performing "solo sex acts." Yes, of
course, if he has exploitative material for whatever reason (that doesn't
matter, does it?) he should be charged. But at this point, it's sounding too
much like a witch hunt, don't you think?
Formica
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
No, not from they just aired on Entertainment Tonight. They named a second actor
who has had his house searched for child porn in connection with the Pee-Wee case:
Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Buellers's Day Off, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow). It seems there
is a 15 year-old boy (the one who apparently went to the cops) involved with
*both* actors. While Jones claims that Reubens is merely "an acquaintance", he
states (like Pee-Wee) its all the result of blackmail. However, that defense only
goes so far. While blackmail is itself a crime, it doesn't mean that the person
being blackmailed isn't guilty. I suspect Jones isn't the only other famous name &
face we're going to see involved in this mess. (Interesting that the only direct
connection I can figure between Jeffrey Jones & Reubens is Tim Burton.)
Trisk
Patty
mothra...@hotmail.com
Well, of course I'm a pervert, but not the sort of pervert that I would
bother labeling as such. I don't like the term pedophile, and I suspect
that it's possible that PeeWee does have material that it's illegal to
possess, only for non-sexual reasons--which won't much matter to a
judge. I can easily imagine that he might have a collection of vintage
pornography--hell, my husband confiscated a Felix the Cat porno comic
from one of his sixth-graders *and threw it away!!!!* Such material
does exist, and serious collectors probably are interested in it, but I
imagine too that it's dangerous to collect and possess. It makes me so
sad that his sex life is of such interest to *someone* that someone felt
it necessary to turn him in like this. His arrest in the theater always
seemed like legal harassment, and now this. It feels to me as if he's
being betrayed by someone he trusted.
And naturally (before the flames begin) I understand that it's entirely
possible that he's a slavering child molester and took those Polaroids
himself of children he enticed to his playhouse, or that he bought them
for sexual purposes or a co-sexual-interested person gave him the
material. If that's the case, of course I want him treated in such a
way that he cannot harm any more children. But it just doesn't seem to
me that that's what's happened here.
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
This is very interesting information. Edie McClurg, who was also in
Ferris Bueller, was a member of the Groundlings, with Pee Wee, and was
an actor in the original "PeeWee's Playhouse" show.
Martha
trisk...@msn.com
a...@info.com wrote:
> >
> >No, not from they just aired on Entertainment Tonight. They named a second actor
> >who has had his house searched for child porn in connection with the Pee-Wee case:
> >Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Buellers's Day Off, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow). It seems there
> >is a 15 year-old boy (the one who apparently went to the cops) involved with
> >*both* actors. While Jones claims that Reubens is merely "an acquaintance", he
> >states (like Pee-Wee) its all the result of blackmail. However, that defense only
> >goes so far. While blackmail is itself a crime, it doesn't mean that the person
> >being blackmailed isn't guilty. I suspect Jones isn't the only other famous name &
> >face we're going to see involved in this mess. (Interesting that the only direct
> >connection I can figure between Jeffrey Jones & Reubens is Tim Burton.)
> >
> >Trisk
> >
> They must know each other. Follow thread
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group=alt.movies.tim-burton&rnum=1&selm=3667482D.D2E31635%40home.net
Jesus H. Christ! That posting is certainly, um, open to interpretation! And dating back over 3 years,
too! I wonder how old the original poster (the one being invited to spend the weekend with Jones &
Ruebens) was at the time. Or now, for that matter.
And you're not even on the LAPD. Imagine what they (and the Innocent Images Taskforce) are gonna do when
it comes to scoping out Jones & Reubens' past activities on the net. They're goners.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
Apparently Jones & Reubens were in Dr. Dolittle 2. And according to a damning post on
a Tim Burton newsgroup, they knew each other through another Burton regular well enough
to spend a weekend together. Veddy innnn-teresting. But stupid.
Trisk
Formica63
>No, not from they just aired on Entertainment Tonight. They named a second
>actor
>who has had his house searched for child porn in connection with the Pee-Wee
>case:
>Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Buellers's Day Off, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow). It seems
>there
>is a 15 year-old boy (the one who apparently went to the cops) involved with
>*both* actors. While Jones claims that Reubens is merely "an acquaintance",
>he
>states (like Pee-Wee) its all the result of blackmail. However, that defense
>only
>goes so far. While blackmail is itself a crime, it doesn't mean that the
>person
>being blackmailed isn't guilty.
That's true, but it doesn't mean that there's any reason to assume they are
guilty if, indeed, this is a matter of blackmail.
I suspect Jones isn't the only other famous
>name &
>face we're going to see involved in this mess. (Interesting that the only
>direct
>connection I can figure between Jeffrey Jones & Reubens is Tim Burton.)
But still -- what about this makes it less like a witch hunt? Two witches?
Formica
Formica63
>kris said:
>>What if it's obviously "collected" (ie, 1960s stuff, older than
>>PeeWee?)
>>
>>Not standing up for anything/anyone, and I can't imagine why
>>anyone would want it......yuck....but if you're a collector, you
>>keep what you get.
>>
>>The sad part about being a creative person in the arts, is
>>that the very thing that gives you the genius, can make you
>>a perversion.
Maggie:
>***I don't think kiddie porn turns into art just because it's old. A very
>old
>drawing or painting--maybe. An old polaroid or movie (*real* kids)--uh-uh.
Hmm. What about a very old daguerrotype? Lots of pornographic images were
taken of children in the 19C/early 20C, but would you regard it as "kiddie
porn"? How about Polaroids taken by Andy Warhol, famous for his snaps of
genitals?
Lots of interesting things can be said about the effect of historical distance
as "aestheticising," and of the difference (aesthetic, legal, cultural) between
what is real and what imagined to be real. Where we draw the line, though, is
moot. If Reubens et al had a series of paintings of children engaged in erotic
play, would he be similarly culpable? Would it matter if live models were
involved?
Dennis Cooper wrote a very grisly novel about this, called Frisk.
Formica
Formica63
>Why would anyone have a picture of a child masturbating except to masturbate
>over it?
I don't know, but I tend to think the same about high-heeled shoes these days
(Hi Joe!). Basically, who knows, and unless it's an illegal activity, who
cares?
And the (very distant) chance the photos might be of himself or a
>childhood friend is still creepy.I can't imagine reliving fond childhood
>memories as I would over shots of the family gathered around the christmas
>tree.
Might depend on your family. Doubt the Reubens had a tree.
>I would also suggest you read the official legal definition of child
>pornography
>and evidence of child exploitation. It's pretty cut-and-dried.
Yes, I was thinking that myself, and might go look it up (California, I guess).
>The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
>
>> to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to piss
>> off the cops otherwise...
Trisk:
>Frankly, once you subtract the publicist, it sounds like every report of
>every
>non-celebrity child pornographer & child molester I've read on the newsgroup.
Hmm, I can't say the same. And I wonder at the distinction between
pornographer and molestor, and consumer of pornography. They seem veeeery
different to me.
>In
>fact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
>celebrity.
I tend to think the opposite!
Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
>found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
>had
>the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into the
>the
>LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of the
>pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's
>just a
>matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this case, it was
>nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the POST.
Again, this seems rather non-incriminating. As for the police descriptions, my
own experience with the police as a victim of a burglary suggests they might
not be cataloguing that stuff a la Sotheby's.
Well, again, this is one version of the story.
>When reporters tried to get Reubens say something about Hartman following his
>murder, he mumbled a few things but it was clear that he resented having to
>say
>anything nice at all about Hartman in public.
Huh? That's not what I saw. He might have resented the intrusion, full stop
(or as you might say, period).
The guy's a creep and I really
>can't be surprised by anything anyone says about him anymore.
Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child molestation.
Formica
Formica63
>Doesn't matter if he's some kind of "collector"--it's against the law to
>possess kiddie porn, not matter how antique it may be. I wouldn't be
>surprised if a lot of the child pornography that's traded these days
>weren't made back in the 1940s or even earlier.
Nor would I, but I'd suggest that we all take a breather before looking for a
tree with a straight low branch. The guy's house was raided but NO charges
have been laid. Meanwhile, serious and continuing issues to do with the sexual
exploitation of children around the world go unremarked.
Formica
JonesieCat
JC:
> > I had no idea. (Hartman and Reuben stuff.) That all went right by me.
Phil
> > Hartman certainly lived under a black cloud didn't he.
Trisk:
> I know a couple of people who knew Hartman professionally back when he was
a
> graphic artist (he designed the Poco horsey album cover). Apparently he
was as
> sweet a guy you could imagine, especially in showbiz. Probably too nice,
as it
> turns out. He'd overlook serious personality flaws in friends, giving them
the
> benefit of the doubt, clearly to his detriment.
Talented guy, Hartman.
JC:
> > I'm probably being silly thinking those 30-40 photos might be innocent,
> > given the context. Yet, I do believe folks might have sex stuff or
> > whatever, and lots of it, that is legal and private and nobody's
business.
> > (And, no, I don't have any myself.) And it may be those 30-40 pics that
> > will be the cause of his demise - so it's important to know exactly what
the
> > deal is with them (even tho he's a sleazeball who deserves to rot in
hell in
> > any case).
Trisk:
> Collecting isn't really a excuse. Maybe if he didn't know he had the crap
in the
> first place (like from an estate sale), but that's not the case here. In
any
> case, if a legit art collector comes into a possession of stolen art, but
> doesn't realize it was stolen until after he's paid for it, he's still
> participating in a felony offense (in that case receiving stolen
property).
Well, no, it isn't me who thinks collecting anything is an excuse for
anything.
JC:
> > I'm still wondering if the cops might have really wanted him for
something
> > else, like maybe he frequents male prostitutes, maybe young ones... and
he's
> > been doing bad things to them, but they won't go on record, but maybe
have
> > told police about the guy's house - and that's how all this came about.
Trisk:
> Hard to say. Its fair to say the the cops in LA probably more dirty
secrets
> about celebrities than anyone else.
And now more rumours are coming out of course, about how the raid came
about.
JC:
> > And those pics? Maybe kiddie porn, maybe not. If those pics were child
> > pornography, who'd he have shown them to who'd have told the police?
That's
> > what I'm wondering.
Trisk:
> Pedophiles are always looking for vindication of their tastes & beliefs.
Hell,
> they even have their own club and newsgroups! It's probably a case like
the
> sicko daycare woman who tried to entice her boyfriend into raping
babies...a
> gross miscalculation of the other person's interests. Instead of luring
the
> other person in, it grossed/freaked them out. The witness is apparently
another
> actor--but whether and adult or kid actor is unknown. Something tells me
> there's going to be an interesting can of worms opened in the next few
weeks.
> Also--it sounds like Reubens might not be in LA--or even California--if he
> wasn't home when the search warrant was exercised.
I suppose you're right, sort of that PW may have wanted company in his
hobby, share his interests, show off his stuff or whatever, and showed the
wrong person. But you'd think since he'd had trouble before, plus the
threat it would be to his career, he'd be more careful. I still tend to
think a prostitute (male, I suppose) turned him in. And the "other
actors" - it'll be interesting to learn who were 'perps' v. 'witnesses'. -
And I thought Reubens actually let the police in -?
And what is it with sex crimes at the moment. Seems like they're all over
the place. And that woman who offered the babies to her boyfriend. I hope
she gets serious long-term jail time (too bad flogging can't be added in).
And the bf gets a reward or something, a medal.
Oops, just realized I snipped too much - here's a paste-back-in:
Trisk also said:
There's an old fellow (60+) who's always at the courthouse when I go,
always
sitting at the same PC/microfiche station. I assume he's a retired cop
turned
private detective because he's always on a cell phone talking shop to
someone
about the perp he's researching.
Oooh. That sounds intriguing. I'd like sitting near him. What do you do at
the courthouse?
JC
mothra...@hotmail.com
This has always been a thorn in my paw, this kiddie porn stuff. Of
*course* no one wants children exploited in this way; it's abusive and
wrong for adults to pose children for their own sexual gratification,
and people who do this must be stopped. I understand that possession of
such materials, depicting *real* children, is criminal because a market
for them drives their production, which entails harming children. I
have no argument with any of that.
BUT. A man in Ohio was charged with possessing child pornography based
on a fictional story he had written, for his own entertainment. He
accepted a plea bargain, unfortunately, leading to his incarceration, so
there won't be a court decision on this case, but it seems to me that it
is absolutely wrong to condemn a person based on a creation of hir own
imagination, whether or not it's kept private or distributed to others.
It is not against the law to *be* a pedophile, and it ought not to be
against the law to possess artistic creations which do not involve real
children. As Lars and others have pointed out, *real* pedophiles--like
all of us sexual beings--are "turned on" by all kinds of aspects of the
object of lust, so that to outlaw what we non-pedophiles consider
arousing material really doesn't protect children at large very much at
all, imho. Again, there's no question that the children used to produce
pornography are harmed, perhaps grievously so, and I do not support
that. But I don't understand why, for example, cutting out the faces of
real children from, say, a Sears catalog, and pasting them on the drawn
naked bodies of imaginery children would be illegal--if indeed it
is--and I suspect a person possessing such material with nosy neighbors
might well find himself in trouble with the law.
I think it's immensely important for us to protect children from abuse
of all sorts. But I think it's important, too, to protect creative
people and the products of their imaginations, no matter how distasteful
we find them. There's no easy line to be drawn in matters of child
pornography. Many parents, myself included, have taken photos of our
children in the nude, not for erotic purposes but to memorialize their
beautiful natural perfection. I have seen what I would consider smutty
photos of children displayed in the homes of very conservative people,
people who I am sure would favor the death penalty for anyone possessing
an "artistic" nude of a child--I'm talking about depictions of children
with their one-piece pajama flap open, exposing a round little butt. Is
that child pornography? I think pictures like that are disturbing;
maybe they are arousing to some people--I don't know. We *can't* know
what will arouse anyone else; we can only go by what we find arousing,
and so few of us either are aroused by children or would admit to that
if we were that I doubt there will ever be any understanding by the
general public of how pedophiles feel about children and images of
children.
I'm really wandering all over the place here, but I'm truly confused
about what is and what is not child pornography. The baby photo, naked
on a bearskin rug, is an old joke: is it porn? If a person is drawn to
babies' behinds, it seems to me that it would be. Should the possessors
of such photos be prosecuted? What if PeeWee does own photos that some
people might consider arousing--how do we know that *he* is aroused by
them? Ask him? What if someone were a collector of photos of babies
naked on bearskin rugs--should he be prosecuted? If he is aroused by
those photos, I guess he would be, but what if it's a sweet old lady who
just likes to see babies?
Martha
trisk...@msn.com
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> This has always been a thorn in my paw, this kiddie porn stuff. Of
> *course* no one wants children exploited in this way; it's abusive and
> wrong for adults to pose children for their own sexual gratification,
> and people who do this must be stopped. I understand that possession of
> such materials, depicting *real* children, is criminal because a market
> for them drives their production, which entails harming children. I
> have no argument with any of that.
>
> BUT. A man in Ohio was charged with possessing child pornography based
> on a fictional story he had written, for his own entertainment.
*snip*
God, this stupid example again. It's amazing how the facts in the case have somehow
managed to fly out the window.
The guy who wrote the story was not some innocent Joe Blow sitting in his attic
garret, penning erotica. He was (and remains) a *convicted* child pornographer /child
molester, who was on *probation* for said crimes. And the biggest part of his
probation was that he could not have *anything* related to the sexual exploitation of
children in his possesion--that included commecial or self-created
porno/erotica/whatever. (He probably thought he was being clever by writing his own
little porn stories, as opposed to taking pictures this time out.) And the story for
his "entertainment" concerned the kidnapping & sexual torture of children, written
in a first-person diary-style. (One of the things that concerned the cops is that
child molesters tend to undergo an intense fantasize phase before actually acting on
their desires.) Simply put, when you're on probation, if you don't toe the line, your
probation is revoked and you wind up back in jail--which is what happened to that
creep.
> He accepted a plea bargain, unfortunately, leading to his incarceration, so
> there won't be a court decision on this case, but it seems to me that it
> is absolutely wrong to condemn a person based on a creation of hir own
> imagination, whether or not it's kept private or distributed to others.
> It is not against the law to *be* a pedophile, and it ought not to be
> against the law to possess artistic creations which do not involve real
> children.
However, it *is* against the law to be a child pornographer & child molester, which
this guy is. And he was on *probation*, which specifically forbade him from having
in his possession anything related to the sexual exploitation of children. Basically,
when you're on probation, you surrender a great deal of your individual rights, as
you have entered into a contractyual agreement with the State to keep your ass out of
jail.
The Parole Board series on A&E should give you an idea of the wrangling
involved--here's not much difference between parole & probation, in terms of how the
officers inforce the conditions of the prisoner's agreement with the State.
> But I don't understand why, for example, cutting out the faces of
> real children from, say, a Sears catalog, and pasting them on the drawn
> naked bodies of imaginery children would be illegal--if indeed it
> is--and I suspect a person possessing such material with nosy neighbors
> might well find himself in trouble with the law.
How about cutting out the faces of your children and pasting them onto the bodies of
naked people in porno mags? One guy was found with a stack of that shit. Luckily he
had accidently killed himself in an auto-asphyxiiation masturbation incident.
> There's no easy line to be drawn in matters of child
> pornography. Many parents, myself included, have taken photos of our
> children in the nude, not for erotic purposes but to memorialize their
> beautiful natural perfection. I have seen what I would consider smutty
> photos of children displayed in the homes of very conservative people,
> people who I am sure would favor the death penalty for anyone possessing
> an "artistic" nude of a child--I'm talking about depictions of children
> with their one-piece pajama flap open, exposing a round little butt. Is
> that child pornography? I think pictures like that are disturbing;
> maybe they are arousing to some people--I don't know. We *can't* know
> what will arouse anyone else; we can only go by what we find arousing,
> and so few of us either are aroused by children or would admit to that
> if we were that I doubt there will ever be any understanding by the
> general public of how pedophiles feel about children and images of
> children.
When someone actually stumbles across kiddie porn--or "child erotica"-- there's no
denying what it is. It's like art, obscenity, and evil: you might be able to
describe it, but you know it when you see it.
> I'm really wandering all over the place here, but I'm truly confused
> about what is and what is not child pornography. The baby photo, naked
> on a bearskin rug, is an old joke: is it porn?
No. As with all things, its a matter of degree. One or two pictures of babies on
bearskin rugs is no big deal. However, if you have hundreds of pictures of naked
babies on bearskin rugs, all of them different, and none of them related to you, then
you're someone with a real problem.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
What, exactly, is your definition of a "witch hunt"? Most people nowadays seem to
use it to refer to criminal investigations of someone they like or are
sympathetic to.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
> Trisk writes:
>
> >The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
> >> to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to piss
> >> off the cops otherwise...
>
> Trisk:
> >Frankly, once you subtract the publicist, it sounds like every report of
> >everynon-celebrity child pornographer & child molester I've read on the
> newsgroup.
>
> Hmm, I can't say the same. And I wonder at the distinction between
> pornographer and molestor, and consumer of pornography. They seem veeeery
> different to me.
Man, you *really* need to read the federal statutes regarding child exploitation &
child pornography. As for the difference between molester & pornographer, it is a
known fact in law enforcement that most preferential pedophiles are what they call
"documenters". They creat their own kiddie porn with their victims, either for
their own edification, trading with other child molesters, or commercial sale. Its
exceptionally rare for a preferential child molester to be arrested and no child
pornography, usually of a home-made variety, be found somewhere in their
possession. In the eyes of the federal government, the manufacturer, distributor
and consumer of child pornography are equally culpable, as they are often the same
person.
> >Infact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
> >celebrity.
>
> I tend to think the opposite!
Believe me, if he was a plumber and a 15 year old boy went to the cops and accused
him of being a pedophile and they found 20+ Polaroids of naked, underaged boys
beating the bishop during the inital search, he would be sitting in protective
custody. After OJ & Michael Jackson, the LAPD are so gunshy re lawsuits they're
probably *too* cautious now when it comes to arresting celebs, as witness Robert
Blake.
> Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
> >found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
> >had
> >the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into the
> >the
> >LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of the
> >pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's
> >just a
> >matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this case, it was
> >nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the POST.
>
> Again, this seems rather non-incriminating. As for the police descriptions, my
> own experience with the police as a victim of a burglary suggests they might
> not be cataloguing that stuff a la Sotheby's.
The initial search warrant inventories are very general--however, if something in
particular (such as nude pix) catches their attention, that will be scribbled onto
the inventory, probably with the tersest description possible.
> The guy's a creep and I really
> >can't be surprised by anything anyone says about him anymore.
>
> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child molestation.
No, but it shows a basic lack of character. And, actually, they used to be best
friends.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
JonesieCat wrote:
> I suppose you're right, sort of that PW may have wanted company in his
> hobby, share his interests, show off his stuff or whatever, and showed the
> wrong person. But you'd think since he'd had trouble before, plus the
> threat it would be to his career, he'd be more careful.
Never underestimate the IQ-sapping power of arrogance.
> I still tend to think a prostitute (male, I suppose) turned him in.
Maybe a child actor? Or a struggling wannabe?
> And the "other actors" - it'll be interesting to learn who were 'perps' v.
> 'witnesses'. -
> And I thought Reubens actually let the police in -?
No, if you read the aricle, the publicist clearly states Reubens was not there
when the police arrived. (Probably a good thing, too.)
> Oops, just realized I snipped too much - here's a paste-back-in:
> Trisk also said:
> There's an old fellow (60+) who's always at the courthouse when I go,
> always
> sitting at the same PC/microfiche station. I assume he's a retired cop
> turned
> private detective because he's always on a cell phone talking shop to
> someone
> about the perp he's researching.
>
> Oooh. That sounds intriguing. I'd like sitting near him. What do you do at
> the courthouse?
I go every now and then to access public records for research purposes.
Trisk
JonesieCat
<trisk...@msn.com> wrote in message news:3C07C1B1...@msn.com...
I'm glad you're here. I really like how you say what you have to say.
JC
====>Wolf
and enlighten us by saying:
Also interesting is the fact that the third party (along with Jones
and Ruebens) was Glenn Shadix - "Otho" from Beetlejuice. Remember
him?
====>Wolf
--
If you utter so much as one syllable, I'll hunt you down
and GUT YOU LIKE A FISH!
-The Grinch, "The Grinch"
trisk...@msn.com
"====>Wolf" wrote:
Not until I saw the post. He was also the voice of the Mayor of HalloweenTown in A Nightmare Before Christmas
(along with Reubens), and Sentaor Nando (the big fat organutan) in Planet fo the Apes. This certainly gives
"Ferris Bueller's Day Off" a far more twisted 'read' now, doesn't it?
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
JonesieCat wrote:
> <trisk...@msn.com> wrote in message news:3C07C1B1...@msn.com...
> >
> >
> > JonesieCat wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose you're right, sort of that PW may have wanted company in his
> > >
> > > Oops, just realized I snipped too much - here's a paste-back-in:
> > > Trisk also said:
> > > There's an old fellow (60+) who's always at the courthouse when I go,
> > > always
> > > sitting at the same PC/microfiche station. I assume he's a retired
> cop
> > > turned
> > > private detective because he's always on a cell phone talking shop to
> > > someone
> > > about the perp he's researching.
> > >
> > > Oooh. That sounds intriguing. I'd like sitting near him. What do you do
> at
> > > the courthouse?
> >
> > I go every now and then to access public records for research purposes.
>
> I'm glad you're here. I really like how you say what you have to say.
Thanks. It comes from years of banging my head against various brick walls.
Trisk
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Formica63, calling from alt.true-crime:
>>kris said:
>>>What if it's obviously "collected" (ie, 1960s stuff, older than
>>>PeeWee?)
>>>Not standing up for anything/anyone, and I can't imagine why
>>>anyone would want it......yuck....but if you're a collector, you
>>>keep what you get.
>>>The sad part about being a creative person in the arts, is
>>>that the very thing that gives you the genius, can make you
>>>a perversion.
>Maggie:
>>***I don't think kiddie porn turns into art just because it's old. A very
>>old
>>drawing or painting--maybe. An old polaroid or movie (*real* kids)--uh-uh.
>Hmm. What about a very old daguerrotype? Lots of pornographic images were
>taken of children in the 19C/early 20C, but would you regard it as "kiddie
>porn"? How about Polaroids taken by Andy Warhol, famous for his snaps of
>genitals?
What about some of the photos taken by Lewis Carroll, who went to
great lengths to capture his subjects naked wherever possible? That
collection of home-made KP is probably housed in the Victoria and
Albert or the Ashmolean museum.
>Lots of interesting things can be said about the effect of historical distance
>as "aestheticising," and of the difference (aesthetic, legal, cultural) between
>what is real and what imagined to be real. Where we draw the line, though, is
>moot. If Reubens et al had a series of paintings of children engaged in erotic
>play, would he be similarly culpable? Would it matter if live models were
>involved?
I don't know about paintings, but I have heard of men being convicted
for the possession of what are called pseudo-images, cooked up in
Photoshop for instance, where childish heads are superimposed on naked
bodies of young adults. There's no justification for this from the
abuse angle (which I don't fully buy anyway) as no child was involved
in the making. I've heard it said that these images were included in
the scope of the offence to prevent computer-generation being used as
a defence in the possession of real KP. Since so many images these
days exist only in digital form anyway, that defence would have been
available to anyone caught with anything. That strikes me as a
cart-before-horse approach to the law. After all, it is a valid
defence: you can't be in possession of obscene images of children if
they're obscene, and images, but not of children.
>Dennis Cooper wrote a very grisly novel about this, called Frisk.
--
AH
Victorhntr
Pee Wee was already shown to be a pervert several years ago in Florida.
Victorhntr
>drawing or painting--maybe. An old polaroid or movie (*real* kids)--uh-uh.
Old child pornography just means there's some middle-aged person out there
somewhere still suffering.
Formica63
>> But still -- what about this makes it less like a witch hunt? Two witches?
Trisk:
>What, exactly, is your definition of a "witch hunt"? Most people nowadays
>seem to
>use it to refer to criminal investigations of someone they like or are
>sympathetic to.
Well, I'd certainly not use it in that way. I mean, a moral panic, as Stanley
Cohen wrote of it -- here's one reader's summary:
moral panic: the idea that 'a condition, episode, person or group of persons'
(Cohen 1972)becomes defined as a threat to 'societal; values and interests'.
Moral panics are supposed to be creations of the media, which seize upon some
state of affairs, or a particular incident, or the activities of a social
group. Using their ability to publicise the subject chosen, the media first
define it as a part of a larger problem (linked to moral decline, growth of
violence, etc.) and then place other events in the same category.The public
becomses 'sensitised' to the situation and in time, the moral panic is further
inflated as the media picks up on increased concern. Stanley Cohen's 'Folk
Devils & MoralPanics' argued that mods and rockers were practically created by
the media, while JockYoung's 'The Drugtakers' took the view that Marijuana
users in Notting Hill became more deviant because of the media condemnation and
the subsequent use of increased policing.Belief in the concept 'moral panic'
depends on accepting certain propositions about the media and society:
that the event which initiates the panic requires amplification (i.e. that it
might not really be as important as the media attention suggests) that the
media really have the power to stir up significant public disquiet that, when
it is achieved , such concern may actually be misplaced (and not, as in some
cases, justified) that there is a link between media campaigns, public opinion,
and some form of state repression.
Stuart Price
Formica
Formica63
>> Trisk writes:
>>
>> >The way it's all described sounds to me like the cops trying
>> >> to justify a raid. In fact, I wonder if Reubens has done something to
>piss
>> >> off the cops otherwise...
>>
>> Trisk:
>> >Frankly, once you subtract the publicist, it sounds like every report of
>> >everynon-celebrity child pornographer & child molester I've read on the
>> newsgroup.
Form:
>> Hmm, I can't say the same. And I wonder at the distinction between
>> pornographer and molestor, and consumer of pornography. They seem veeeery
>> different to me.
Trisk:
>Man, you *really* need to read the federal statutes regarding child
>exploitation &
>child pornography. As for the difference between molester & pornographer, it
>is a
>known fact in law enforcement that most preferential pedophiles are what they
>call
>"documenters". They creat their own kiddie porn with their victims, either
>for
>their own edification, trading with other child molesters, or commercial
>sale. Its
>exceptionally rare for a preferential child molester to be arrested and no
>child
>pornography, usually of a home-made variety, be found somewhere in their
>possession.
But that doesn't hold true in reverse.
In the eyes of the federal government, the manufacturer,
>distributor
>and consumer of child pornography are equally culpable, as they are often the
>same
>person.
Perhaps, but not in my eyes. The consumption of alleged child pornography
(images of men "appearing to be under age") is no different, as far as I can
see, to consumption of the most routine pornography, featuring very frequently
women (and men) who might quite feasibly be under age, and which is,
apparently, the #1 pursuit of the www. From the allegation that some dubious
polariods were found, and the gossipy story of Phil Hartmann, you've now
recalibrated an individual charged with *nothing* as a child molester. I see
no logic in it.
>> >Infact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
>> >celebrity.
>>
>> I tend to think the opposite!
>
>Believe me, if he was a plumber and a 15 year old boy went to the cops and
>accused
>him of being a pedophile and they found 20+ Polaroids of naked, underaged
>boys
>beating the bishop during the inital search, he would be sitting in
>protective
>custody.
If, if, if.
After OJ & Michael Jackson, the LAPD are so gunshy re lawsuits
>they're
>probably *too* cautious now when it comes to arresting celebs, as witness
>Robert
>Blake.
Oh, no, I don't believe this. OJ was convicted in a civil trial, Michael
Jackson's situation is vastly different from this. Whether or not they are
celebrities, you still need to have proof.
>> Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
>> >found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
>> >had
>> >the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into
>the
>> >the
>> >LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of
>the
>> >pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's
>> >just a
>> >matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this case, it
>was
>> >nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the
>POST.
>>
>> Again, this seems rather non-incriminating. As for the police
>descriptions, my
>> own experience with the police as a victim of a burglary suggests they
>might
>> not be cataloguing that stuff a la Sotheby's.
>
>The initial search warrant inventories are very general--however, if
>something in
>particular (such as nude pix) catches their attention, that will be scribbled
>onto
>the inventory, probably with the tersest description possible.
I have "nude pix" of my (child) niece in my home. I wouldn't take the terse
notation to mean much.
Trisk:
>> The guy's a creep and I really
>> >can't be surprised by anything anyone says about him anymore.
Form:
>> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child
>molestation.
Trisk:
>No, but it shows a basic lack of character.
To my mind, spreading unsubstantiated gossip shows a basic lack of character,
but that's just me. I don't know many people who've never had a falling out,
but I don't think that makes them likely pedophiles.
And, actually, they used to be
>best
>friends.
Not sure what difference that makes.
Formica
mothra...@hotmail.com
Oh, but I do understand this, and I am aware of the details of the case.
He did indeed have prior convictions, but the question here is, can the
state make such demands on a person, even a person on parole for a
heinous crime? Can the law legitimately (heh) restrict artistic
expression by someone who has served his time? Does the law have the
right to dictate what a person who is on parole writes in his diary?
This is thought control, imho, and terribly, terribly wrong. I do not
defend this guy's prior record, nor do I dispute his (probably) unsavory
motives in creating his fictions. But the idea that the state has the
right to control expression of private thoughts is horrifying to me. Am
I at risk of arrest, for example, if I write a story in which the
government of the US is overthrown? That's against the law, too, but it
constitutes the core of the plot of lots of popular novels. Try to put
aside for a moment the emotional reaction we all surely have when child
pornography is involved, and think about the overall ramifications of
this case.
>
> > He accepted a plea bargain, unfortunately, leading to his incarceration, so
> > there won't be a court decision on this case, but it seems to me that it
> > is absolutely wrong to condemn a person based on a creation of hir own
> > imagination, whether or not it's kept private or distributed to others.
> > It is not against the law to *be* a pedophile, and it ought not to be
> > against the law to possess artistic creations which do not involve real
> > children.
>
> However, it *is* against the law to be a child pornographer & child molester, which
> this guy is. And he was on *probation*, which specifically forbade him from having
> in his possession anything related to the sexual exploitation of children. Basically,
> when you're on probation, you surrender a great deal of your individual rights, as
> you have entered into a contractyual agreement with the State to keep your ass out of
> jail.
> The Parole Board series on A&E should give you an idea of the wrangling
> involved--here's not much difference between parole & probation, in terms of how the
> officers inforce the conditions of the prisoner's agreement with the State.
I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct. I do not seem to be
making my point clear, though: who gave the state the right, under
*any* circumstances, to control a person's--whether that person is on
parole or probation or even in jail at the time--thoughts and the
expression of them? In jail--maybe on probation, too--the state could
control the *means* of expression, forbidding pencils and paper, for
instance, but if a person has qualified for parole, how on earth could
such prohibitions be put in place? And once a person has access to
whatever sie needs to record thoughts, what right has *anyone* in the
civilized world to dictate what those thoughts should and should not be?
My further point is that what looks like child pornography to most of us
is only a portion of what actually *is* arousing to pedophiles. To keep
child erotic material out of the hands of pedophiles means banning
virtually all depictions of children, fully clothed and engaged in any
sort of activity, from public view. Pedophiles are "turned on" by
images of children in any number of settings, just as we "normals" can
be turned on by attractive people who are fully clothed and, say,
engaged in heavy construction.
The reason images of *real* children in sexual situations are
banned--and rightly so, imho--is that it is harmful to the children who
are being posed that way, particularly if the pictures show actual
sexual activity going on. Simple nude photos are, as I hope I've shown,
really problematical because it's just not possible to assign *motive*
or *potential use* to them, any more than it is to pictures of children
in new school clothes that appear in the papers every September.
>
> > But I don't understand why, for example, cutting out the faces of
> > real children from, say, a Sears catalog, and pasting them on the drawn
> > naked bodies of imaginery children would be illegal--if indeed it
> > is--and I suspect a person possessing such material with nosy neighbors
> > might well find himself in trouble with the law.
>
> How about cutting out the faces of your children and pasting them onto the bodies of
> naked people in porno mags? One guy was found with a stack of that shit. Luckily he
> had accidently killed himself in an auto-asphyxiiation masturbation incident.
I do not see how children are being harmed by that activity. I wonder,
in fact, if such activities might actually help prevent personal abuse
of children. Further, how on earth could we realistically outlaw that
kind of "created" pornography? Anyone can find photos of children's
faces and put them on naked adult bodies--there are no naked children's
bodies involved.
>
> > There's no easy line to be drawn in matters of child
> > pornography. Many parents, myself included, have taken photos of our
> > children in the nude, not for erotic purposes but to memorialize their
> > beautiful natural perfection. I have seen what I would consider smutty
> > photos of children displayed in the homes of very conservative people,
> > people who I am sure would favor the death penalty for anyone possessing
> > an "artistic" nude of a child--I'm talking about depictions of children
> > with their one-piece pajama flap open, exposing a round little butt. Is
> > that child pornography? I think pictures like that are disturbing;
> > maybe they are arousing to some people--I don't know. We *can't* know
> > what will arouse anyone else; we can only go by what we find arousing,
> > and so few of us either are aroused by children or would admit to that
> > if we were that I doubt there will ever be any understanding by the
> > general public of how pedophiles feel about children and images of
> > children.
>
> When someone actually stumbles across kiddie porn--or "child erotica"-- there's no
> denying what it is. It's like art, obscenity, and evil: you might be able to
> describe it, but you know it when you see it.
I do not agree that there is any consensus as to what constitutes art,
obscenity *or* evil--I think these are individual judgements that are
made based largely on the viewer's education and experience. The
history of censorship bulges with examples.
>
> > I'm really wandering all over the place here, but I'm truly confused
> > about what is and what is not child pornography. The baby photo, naked
> > on a bearskin rug, is an old joke: is it porn?
>
> No. As with all things, its a matter of degree. One or two pictures of babies on
> bearskin rugs is no big deal. However, if you have hundreds of pictures of naked
> babies on bearskin rugs, all of them different, and none of them related to you, then
> you're someone with a real problem.
So you would be in favor of having very precise legal definitions of
what could legitimately be collected, even if the collections were
clearly and obviously not for erotic purposes? I would be willing to
bet that there are perfectly innocent people who collect images of naked
children in some form or other--kewpie dolls, for instance--whom you
would not want to see prosecuted.
Martha
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> >Martha (please god don't let PeeWee be a pervert)
>
> Pee Wee was already shown to be a pervert several years ago in Florida.
Oh, dear.
Martha
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
> Trisk:
> >Man, you *really* need to read the federal statutes regarding child
> >exploitation &
> >child pornography. As for the difference between molester & pornographer, it
> >is a >known fact in law enforcement that most preferential pedophiles are what
> they call "documenters". They creat their own kiddie porn with their victims,
> either
> >for their own edification, trading with other child molesters, or commercial
> >sale. Its exceptionally rare for a preferential child molester to be arrested
> and no
> >child pornography, usually of a home-made variety, be found somewhere in their
> >possession.
>
> But that doesn't hold true in reverse.
Huh? So your saying its rare for a child pornographer to be arrested and no
evidence of child molestation/exploitation be found? The reason of child porn
being illlegal is that it is physical evidence of a felony (child molestation),
same as snuff videos.
> In the eyes of the federal government, the manufacturer, distributor
> >and consumer of child pornography are equally culpable, as they are often the
> >same person.
>
> Perhaps, but not in my eyes.
Then again, you're not the one charged with investigating charges of child
exploitation/pornography, nor the one deputized to make the arrest and prosecute
the
case. That is in the hands of the individual states (although child porn is a
federal crime, and they get first swing at bat, unless there are actual, known,
identified victims, then the local law is usually allowed to go first.) And your
perception of the law may be important to you, but it has nothing to do with legal
reality.
> The consumption of alleged child pornography
> (images of men "appearing to be under age") is no different, as far as I can
> see, to consumption of the most routine pornography, featuring very frequently
> women (and men) who might quite feasibly be under age, and which is,
> apparently, the #1 pursuit of the www.
Except that child porn is evidence of a crime, and consumption of said product
renders you an accessory after the fact.
> From the allegation that some dubious polariods were found, and the gossipy
> story of Phil Hartmann, you've now recalibrated an individual charged with
> *nothing* as a child molester.
And the fact a 15-year-old boy has filed a complaint against them.
> I see no logic in it.
We all see what we want to see, whether its there or no.
> >> >Infact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is his
> >> >celebrity.
> >>
> >> I tend to think the opposite!
> >
> >Believe me, if he was a plumber and a 15 year old boy went to the cops and
> >accused
> >him of being a pedophile and they found 20+ Polaroids of naked, underaged
> >boys
> >beating the bishop during the inital search, he would be sitting in
> >protective
> >custody.
>
> If, if, if.
>
> After OJ & Michael Jackson, the LAPD are so gunshy re lawsuits
> >they're
> >probably *too* cautious now when it comes to arresting celebs, as witness
> >Robert
> >Blake.
>
> Oh, no, I don't believe this. OJ was convicted in a civil trial,
Yeah. AS if that's as valid as being thrown in jail for the rest of your life. OJ
is our Lizzy Borden.
> Michael Jackson's situation is vastly different from this.
In what way? He was also claiming to be blackmailed. And he, essentially, paid up
in order to get the charges dropped before he could be dragged into court.
> Whether or not they are celebrities, you still need to have proof.
I think we'll be getting that, in dribs and drabs over the next few months as the
cops review those 3000+ videos.
> >> Search warrants, warrant recovery sheets (which detail the items
> >> >found in t he initial search), etc. are public documents, you know. If you
> >> >had the time, patience & money and lived in the area, you could stroll into
> >the the
> >> >LA courthouse (or whatever county the bust occurred in) and get copies of
> >the pertinent court documents. That's how the National Enquirer does it. It's
> >> >just a matter of knowing the bust went down in the first place. In this
> case, it
> >was nearly 2 weeks between the actual raid and the leak to Page Six at the
> >POST.
> >>
> >> Again, this seems rather non-incriminating. As for the police
> >descriptions, my own experience with the police as a victim of a burglary
> suggests they might
> >> not be cataloguing that stuff a la Sotheby's.
> >
> >The initial search warrant inventories are very general--however, if
> >something in particular (such as nude pix) catches their attention, that will
> be scribbled onto
> >the inventory, probably with the tersest description possible.
>
> I have "nude pix" of my (child) niece in my home. I wouldn't take the terse
> notation to mean much.
You might not.
>
>
> Trisk:
> >> The guy's a creep and I really
> >> >can't be surprised by anything anyone says about him anymore.
>
> Form:
> >> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child
> >molestation.
>
> Trisk:
> >No, but it shows a basic lack of character.
> To my mind, spreading unsubstantiated gossip shows a basic lack of character,
> but that's just me.
Jeez, all this shit was from E! and A&E, involving in depth interviews with all
concerned, plus reference from the civil suit between Reubens & Hartman. How
substantiation do you want?
> I don't know many people who've never had a falling out,
> but I don't think that makes them likely pedophiles.
You're really twisting that one around. If you're just arguing for the sake of
arguing,
I won't be responding any more. I don't understand people who will walk a mile to
get their feelings hurt.
> And, actually, they used to be
> >bestfriends.
>
> Not sure what difference that makes
I, personally, see a difference between a business associate & a good friend.
Which is why the adage of never going into business with your friends is a good
one to follow.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
Yes.
> Can the law legitimately (heh) restrict artistic expression by someone who has served his
> time?
But he hadn't. He was on probation. Probation isn't parole. Probation means you've agreed
to terms to keep *out* of jail. Parole means you've agreed to terms to get *out* of jail.
He had not served his time.
> Does the law have the right to dictate what a person who is on parole writes in his
> diary?
No, but it has the right to look at it whenever it damn well feels like it, and drag his
ass into jail if it violates the terms of his probation.
> This is thought control, imho, and terribly, terribly wrong. I do not
> defend this guy's prior record, nor do I dispute his (probably) unsavory
> motives in creating his fictions. But the idea that the state has the
> right to control expression of private thoughts is horrifying to me.
Then don't get busted & then convicted of a felony. And if you do, don't agree to
probation. Do your time and get out without trying for parole. Then when you're out, it's
on your terms and you're free to do whatever you like. No one *has* to take probation or
parole. It's up to the individual involved. many prisoners skip parole hearings, especially
if they consider the terms of parole too constrictive.
> Am I at risk of arrest, for example, if I write a story in which the
> government of the US is overthrown?
Maybe so, if you were arrested for terrorist activities and then placed on
probation/parole. But that's a moot point. Terrorism is a Federal offense, and there is no
parole or probation in Federal cases.
> That's against the law, too, but it constitutes the core of the plot of lots of popular
> novels.
To my knowledge Tom Clancy and friends were never arrested for crimes against the state,
nor were they on parole or probation when they wrote their various novels. However, some
argument could be made that Clancy violated certain non-disclosure/national security
agreements in his contract with the federal government re information used in his books.
> Try to put aside for a moment the emotional reaction we all surely have when child
> pornography is involved, and think about the overall ramifications of
> this case.
Or, you could look past the ACLU's knee-jerk reaction to the case and see it for what it
is--a situation where someone violated a contractual agreement, the upshot of which would
be his being sent to jail. This would have happened if he was a burglar found with a
detailed journal entry describing casing a jewelry store or a robber writing in detail
about a bank, complete with schematics, timetables, etc. It doesn't matter if the guys says
"It was just blueskying--it's an outline for a novel, honest!" The authorities are under no
obligation to take the perp's word for *anything*, since he has already proved himself in
the eyes of the court to be a felon. In fact, most law professionals must operate on the
assumption that everything they're told is a lie.
If it's a question of public safety over the rights of a felon on probation/parole, I
prefer the authorities err on the side of caution. Then again, no one gets worked up over
the crime that has been thwarted. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. We
could very easily be tsk-tsking about how this guy had managed to kidnap, rape & torture a
couple of kids, even though the probation officer found a journal entry that detailed the
crime beforehand, but failed to act on it.
> > > He accepted a plea bargain, unfortunately, leading to his incarceration, so
> > > there won't be a court decision on this case, but it seems to me that it
> > > is absolutely wrong to condemn a person based on a creation of hir own
> > > imagination, whether or not it's kept private or distributed to others.
> > > It is not against the law to *be* a pedophile, and it ought not to be
> > > against the law to possess artistic creations which do not involve real
> > > children.
> >
> > However, it *is* against the law to be a child pornographer & child molester, which
> > this guy is. And he was on *probation*, which specifically forbade him from having
> > in his possession anything related to the sexual exploitation of children. Basically,
> > when you're on probation, you surrender a great deal of your individual rights, as
> > you have entered into a contractyual agreement with the State to keep your ass out of
> > jail.
> > The Parole Board series on A&E should give you an idea of the wrangling
> > involved--here's not much difference between parole & probation, in terms of how the
> > officers inforce the conditions of the prisoner's agreement with the State.
>
> I have no doubt that you are absolutely correct. I do not seem to be
> making my point clear, though: who gave the state the right, under
> *any* circumstances, to control a person's--whether that person is on
> parole or probation or even in jail at the time--thoughts and the
> expression of them?
You did, as a citizen of the United States of America (assuming you are, of course). or, at
least, your great-grandparents did. The rules and terms of parole & probation were
designed during the early part of the 19th century as part of a liberal reform movement to
humanize the penal institutions of this country.
Before the concept of parole & probation, you either sat in jail for the entire length of
your sentence, or you were rented out as "convict labor" to various companies and
institutions. The concept of probation & parole as a humane measure to empty jails was
gradually accepted, state by state, which is why the procedure is somewhat different
depending on where you live.
As once might expect, it has been a trial-by-error evolution, with the terms, conditions
& safety checks being adjusted according to whether they worked or not. The controls and
strictures placed on today's parolees and criminals on probation are the direct result of
someone, somewhere at sometime getting robbed, raped, beaten or murdered due to good
intentions.
> In jail--maybe on probation, too--the state could control the *means* of expression,
> forbidding pencils and paper, for instance, but if a person has qualified for parole, how
> on earth could such prohibitions be put in place?
It's called a parole/probation officer. They have the legal right to authorize searches of
their client's premises without a search warrant or the client's permission/presence. That
is why it is best never to miss a session with them, or piss them off. If they think you're
up to something, you could find yourself undergoing a surprise search for contraband at 2
am--just like the guards do in the pen.
> And once a person has access to whatever sie needs to record thoughts, what right has
> *anyone* in the civilized world to dictate what those thoughts should and should not be?
See powers & authority given to parole/probation officers by the people of the United
States of America, re various jurisdictions.
> My further point is that what looks like child pornography to most of us
> is only a portion of what actually *is* arousing to pedophiles. To keep
> child erotic material out of the hands of pedophiles means banning
> virtually all depictions of children, fully clothed and engaged in any
> sort of activity, from public view. Pedophiles are "turned on" by
> images of children in any number of settings, just as we "normals" can
> be turned on by attractive people who are fully clothed and, say,
> engaged in heavy construction.
Yes. I'm aware of that. That is why such otherwise innocuous material (but in unusual
quantifies) is usually on a probie's checklist if his client is a sex offender.
> The reason images of *real* children in sexual situations are
> banned--and rightly so, imho--is that it is harmful to the children who
> are being posed that way, particularly if the pictures show actual
> sexual activity going on. Simple nude photos are, as I hope I've shown,
> really problematical because it's just not possible to assign *motive*
> or *potential use* to them, any more than it is to pictures of children
> in new school clothes that appear in the papers every September.
A picture of a 8-year-old boy, stark naked with a boner, but not touching himself, is
evidence that someone (probably the guy taking the picture) talked the kid into taking his
clothes off and arousing himself. It might not be evidence of actual molestation (where the
guy touched the child), but it is clearly evidence of child exploitation (where he talked
the child into doing himself).
>
> > > But I don't understand why, for example, cutting out the faces of
> > > real children from, say, a Sears catalog, and pasting them on the drawn
> > > naked bodies of imaginery children would be illegal--if indeed it
> > > is--and I suspect a person possessing such material with nosy neighbors
> > > might well find himself in trouble with the law.
> >
> > How about cutting out the faces of your children and pasting them onto the bodies of
> > naked people in porno mags? One guy was found with a stack of that shit. Luckily he
> > had accidently killed himself in an auto-asphyxiiation masturbation incident.
>
> I do not see how children are being harmed by that activity.
Yeah, but his kids found out about after the fact.
> I wonder, in fact, if such activities might actually help prevent personal abuse
> of children.
Well, they certainly take the wanker out of the gene pool (eventually).
> Further, how on earth could we realistically outlaw that
> kind of "created" pornography? Anyone can find photos of children's
> faces and put them on naked adult bodies--there are no naked children's
> bodies involved.
You can't stop them from doing it, but you sure as hell can make sure they get some kind of
counciling if they're found with it.
> > > There's no easy line to be drawn in matters of child
> > > pornography. Many parents, myself included, have taken photos of our
> > > children in the nude, not for erotic purposes but to memorialize their
> > > beautiful natural perfection. I have seen what I would consider smutty
> > > photos of children displayed in the homes of very conservative people,
> > > people who I am sure would favor the death penalty for anyone possessing
> > > an "artistic" nude of a child--I'm talking about depictions of children
> > > with their one-piece pajama flap open, exposing a round little butt. Is
> > > that child pornography? I think pictures like that are disturbing;
> > > maybe they are arousing to some people--I don't know. We *can't* know
> > > what will arouse anyone else; we can only go by what we find arousing,
> > > and so few of us either are aroused by children or would admit to that
> > > if we were that I doubt there will ever be any understanding by the
> > > general public of how pedophiles feel about children and images of
> > > children.
> >
> > When someone actually stumbles across kiddie porn--or "child erotica"-- there's no
> > denying what it is. It's like art, obscenity, and evil: you might be able to
> > describe it, but you know it when you see it.
>
> I do not agree that there is any consensus as to what constitutes art,
> obscenity *or* evil--I think these are individual judgements that are
> made based largely on the viewer's education and experience. The
> history of censorship bulges with examples.
If you don't know evil when you see it, you will once its done with you.
> > > I'm really wandering all over the place here, but I'm truly confused
> > > about what is and what is not child pornography. The baby photo, naked
> > > on a bearskin rug, is an old joke: is it porn?
> >
> > No. As with all things, its a matter of degree. One or two pictures of babies on
> > bearskin rugs is no big deal. However, if you have hundreds of pictures of naked
> > babies on bearskin rugs, all of them different, and none of them related to you, then
> > you're someone with a real problem.
>
> So you would be in favor of having very precise legal definitions of
> what could legitimately be collected, even if the collections were
> clearly and obviously not for erotic purposes? I would be willing to
> bet that there are perfectly innocent people who collect images of naked
> children in some form or other--kewpie dolls, for instance--whom you
> would not want to see prosecuted.
You're assuming law officers & prosecutors have a lot more time on their hands than they
actually do. There are enough skilled clinicians and jurists out there who can figure out
whether someone is a classic pedophile/child molester or not. They actually have more than
a few behavioral & rules-of-evidence checklists to rely on before making an arrest in such
a case.
I don't see where troops of Men In Black are marching into peoples houses and dragging them
out into the streets as pedophiles for no reason other than a couple of bare-butt baby
pictures. The vast majority of these arrests involve people who have a history of such
activity, or have done something collosally stupid, like try to set up meetings with law
officers posing as children in chatrooms, taken their film to be developed at Wal-Mart, buy
kiddie porn from a FBI sting operation, or a child has come forward and accused the person
of molesting them. They've done something to set off alarms and bring John Law down on
them.
God, I've already spent more time of this than I intended.
Trisk
Formica63
>> Trisk:
>> >Man, you *really* need to read the federal statutes regarding child
>> >exploitation &
>> >child pornography. As for the difference between molester & pornographer,
>it
>> >is a >known fact in law enforcement that most preferential pedophiles are
>what
>> they call "documenters". They creat their own kiddie porn with their
>victims,
>> either
>> >for their own edification, trading with other child molesters, or
>commercial
>> >sale. Its exceptionally rare for a preferential child molester to be
>arrested
>> and no
>> >child pornography, usually of a home-made variety, be found somewhere in
>their
>> >possession.
Form:
>> But that doesn't hold true in reverse.
Trisk:
>Huh? So your saying its rare for a child pornographer to be arrested and no
>evidence of child molestation/exploitation be found?
Well no, I am saying that possession of pornography (alleged) doesn't suggest
prima facie that the posessor is involved in the manufacture of pornography.
The reason of child porn
>being illlegal is that it is physical evidence of a felony (child
>molestation),
>same as snuff videos.
Perfectly appropriate.
>> In the eyes of the federal government, the manufacturer, distributor
>> >and consumer of child pornography are equally culpable, as they are often
>the
>> >same person.
>>
>> Perhaps, but not in my eyes.
>
>Then again, you're not the one charged with investigating charges of child
>exploitation/pornography, nor the one deputized to make the arrest and
>prosecute
>the
>case. That is in the hands of the individual states (although child porn is a
>federal crime, and they get first swing at bat, unless there are actual,
>known,
>identified victims, then the local law is usually allowed to go first.) And
>your
>perception of the law may be important to you, but it has nothing to do with
>legal
>reality.
Well, yes and no. The ambit of the statutes can be distinguished from other
issues. In my experience (in Australia, not the US), there's a significant
difference between how the police investigate and how laws have been drafted.
>> The consumption of alleged child pornography
>> (images of men "appearing to be under age") is no different, as far as I
>can
>> see, to consumption of the most routine pornography, featuring very
>frequently
>> women (and men) who might quite feasibly be under age, and which is,
>> apparently, the #1 pursuit of the www.
>
>Except that child porn is evidence of a crime, and consumption of said
>product
>renders you an accessory after the fact.
Yes, which might have the uncomfortable consequence of making every third
internet maven an accessory after the fact. I'd be perfectly happy should that
be the case; I'm not happy to see such blinding inconsistency in how the law is
read, but more importantly (to me) how ethics are understood.
>> From the allegation that some dubious polariods were found, and the gossipy
>> story of Phil Hartmann, you've now recalibrated an individual charged with
>> *nothing* as a child molester.
>
>And the fact a 15-year-old boy has filed a complaint against them.
Allegedly.
>> I see no logic in it.
>
>We all see what we want to see, whether its there or no.
Well, yes, that's rather my thought.
>
>> >> >Infact, I suspect the only reason he's not under arrest right now is
>his
>> >> >celebrity.
>> >>
>> >> I tend to think the opposite!
>> >
>> >Believe me, if he was a plumber and a 15 year old boy went to the cops
>and
>> >accused
>> >him of being a pedophile and they found 20+ Polaroids of naked, underaged
>> >boys
>> >beating the bishop during the inital search, he would be sitting in
>> >protective
>> >custody.
>>
>> If, if, if.
>>
>> After OJ & Michael Jackson, the LAPD are so gunshy re lawsuits
>> >they're
>> >probably *too* cautious now when it comes to arresting celebs, as witness
>> >Robert
>> >Blake.
>>
>> Oh, no, I don't believe this. OJ was convicted in a civil trial,
>
>Yeah. AS if that's as valid as being thrown in jail for the rest of your
>life. OJ
>is our Lizzy Borden.
It obviates the lawsuit anxiety.
>> Michael Jackson's situation is vastly different from this.
>
>In what way? He was also claiming to be blackmailed. And he, essentially,
>paid up
>in order to get the charges dropped before he could be dragged into court.
Voila!
<snip>
>> Form:
>> >> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child
>> >molestation.
>>
>> Trisk:
>> >No, but it shows a basic lack of character.
Form:
>> To my mind, spreading unsubstantiated gossip shows a basic lack of
>character,
>> but that's just me.
Trisk:
>Jeez, all this shit was from E! and A&E, involving in depth interviews with
>all
>concerned, plus reference from the civil suit between Reubens & Hartman. How
>substantiation do you want?
I'm just not keen on using gossip to sling mud around.
Form:
>> I don't know many people who've never had a falling out,
>> but I don't think that makes them likely pedophiles.
Trisk:
>You're really twisting that one around. If you're just arguing for the sake
>of
>arguing,
>I won't be responding any more. I don't understand people who will walk a
>mile to
>get their feelings hurt.
My feelings aren't hurt. This is a newsgroup, where people discuss these
matters.
>> And, actually, they used to be
>> >bestfriends.
>>
>> Not sure what difference that makes
Trisk:
>I, personally, see a difference between a business associate & a good friend.
>Which is why the adage of never going into business with your friends is a
>good
>one to follow.
Still not sure how it makes a difference, but never mind.
Formica
DedNdogYrs
possession of what are called pseudo-images, cooked up in Photoshop for
instance, where childish heads are superimposed on
naked bodies of young adults. There's no justification for this from the abuse
angle (which I don't fully buy anyway) as no child was involved in the making.
I've heard it said that these images were included in
the scope of the offence to prevent computer-generation being used as a defence
in the possession of real KP. Since so many images these days exist only in
digital form anyway, that defence would have
been available to anyone caught with anything. That strikes me as a
cart-before-horse approach to the law. After all, it is a valid defence: you
can't be in possession of obscene images of children if
they're obscene, and images, but not of children.>
What about, what about, what about. If it shows children being abused and it's
in the possession of a convicted child molester on probation I have no problem
putting a dangerous pervert back in the joint. I would expect a post against
that coming from Belgium. This is where a molester was allowed to imprison and
slowly and painfully starve a couple of children to death in his basement while
his stupid wife stayed upstairs and did absolutely nothing and the law let this
creep run wild until he did this horrible thing. Then they let the wife get off
totally free. Where I live he'd be on death row and she'd do life. Piss on
psychopaths and their "rights".
Dogs & children first.
Michael Newton
DedNdogYrs <dednd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011202053704...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> <I don't know about paintings, but I have heard of men being convicted for
the
> possession of what are called pseudo-images, cooked up in Photoshop for
> instance, where childish heads are superimposed on
> naked bodies of young adults. There's no justification for this from the
abuse
> angle (which I don't fully buy anyway) as no child was involved in the
making.
> I've heard it said that these images were included in
> the scope of the offence to prevent computer-generation being used as a
defence
> in the possession of real KP.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be addressing this point sometime in the
new year, ruling on the legality of "virtual" KP.
mn
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip guy in Ohio stuff>
I did not mean to get into a detailed discussion of the guy in Ohio. I
mentioned his case not because I don't understand what he did wrong and
how he got into further trouble, but because his case illustrates to me
a dangerous trend of mind control, apparently willingly ceded to the
state. I understand that people on parole and probation are subject to
strictures; what I dispute is that allowing the state to put strictures
on what is and is not acceptable artistic (for all values of artistic)
creation is desirable, no matter what the condition of the creator.
Following from this is my contention that it is very difficult to
determine for society at large exactly what consistutes child
pornography, and to limit creative expression by anyone based on someone
else's conception of child pornography is wrong.
I do not doubt that you can recognize evil when you see it; I'm sure we
all can. The question isn't whether an individual knows what is right
and wrong--after all, that's what we're arguing about, isn't it--but
whether any person or group of persons should have the right to declare
moral judgements for society at large, particularly in an area as
slippery as defining child pornography.
You believe that a sweet old lady who innocently collected photos of
naked babies on bearskin rugs would be guilty of possessing child
pornography; I disagree. I wonder if you would have a different opinion
if the old lady were the grandmother and great-grandmother of all the
children depicted. You did not answer my question as to how you would
judge a collection of Kewpie dolls, which are after all representations
of naked children. A woman who lives near me is moderately famous for
her creation of life-like dolls made to resemble actual children--she is
a sculptor who creates "statues" that are meant to be played with or
collected. When those dolls are undressed, are they pornography? Does
someone who orders a doll made to look exactly like a niece or nephew
and who then keeps the doll undressed possess child pornography?
We are, I think, agreed that images of children in overtly,
unmistakeable sexual postures and conditions is child pornography,
whether they are alone in the image or not. Beyond that, I think you
enter into the realm of trying to determine motive and use, and that
would make something that is clearly pornography in one person's hands
innocent material in another's--and that's no way to make or enforce
laws, imho.
Martha
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
> >> From the allegation that some dubious polariods were found, and the gossipy
> >> story of Phil Hartmann, you've now recalibrated an individual charged with
> >> *nothing* as a child molester.
> >
> >And the fact a 15-year-old boy has filed a complaint against them.
>
> Allegedly.
This is from the current National Enquirer:
'The shocking scandal began when a 15-year-old boy complained to L.A.P.D's
Hollywood Division that he had been sexually abused by Reubens and Jones.
"The boy said he had performed oral sex on Paul and Jeffrey as well as having sex
with the men on many occasions--but now he was frightened", the source said. "He
said he felt they were becoming more abusive and he was afraid of what might happen
to him if it continued."
When investigators went to Reubens' home to talk to him about the boy's
allegations, the actor wasn't home. But guests staying at the house invited the
police to 'look around'--and once inside, police were stunned to find sexually
explicit photographs of young naked boys in compromising positions in open view.
They obtained a warrant to search the premises.
"L.A.P.D. detectives and crime lab unit personnel spent eight hours each at Paul
and his pal Jeff Jones' homes seizing a truckload of potentially illegal
materials," the source said. "At Pee-Wee's home alone, police filled a flatbed
truck with almost 2,000 videotapes, dozens of boxes of pornographic photos and
books, and at least three computers containing lewd images. But the most
potentially damaging items seized were the Polaroid photographs. There were 20 to
30 Polaroid pictures of naked boys lying on a bed, some undressed and some
masturbating."
Police strongly believe the boys in the Polaroid were under the age of 18. Some
appeared to be 13 to 16 years old.
The police also discovered and confiscated drugs in Ruebens' home--Esctasy pills.'
Believe me, in this country, anyone else in this situation would be so far under
the jail at this point it wouldn't be funny.
Except that, in this case, there is considerable evidence of a Federal crime:
possession of child pornography. Even if the kid drops the suit or is bought off,
the Feds can (and no doubt will) proceed with prosecution for the kid porn.
> <snip>
>
> >> Form:
> >> >> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child
> >> >molestation.
> >>
> >> Trisk:
> >> >No, but it shows a basic lack of character.
>
> Form:
> >> To my mind, spreading unsubstantiated gossip shows a basic lack of
> >character,
> >> but that's just me.
>
> Trisk:
> >Jeez, all this shit was from E! and A&E, involving in depth interviews with
> >all
> >concerned, plus reference from the civil suit between Reubens & Hartman. How
> >substantiation do you want?
>
> I'm just not keen on using gossip to sling mud around.
>
Then why are you on Usenet?
> Form:
> >> I don't know many people who've never had a falling out,
> >> but I don't think that makes them likely pedophiles.
>
> Trisk:
> >You're really twisting that one around. If you're just arguing for the sake
> >of
> >arguing,
> >I won't be responding any more. I don't understand people who will walk a
> >mile to
> >get their feelings hurt.
>
> My feelings aren't hurt. This is a newsgroup, where people discuss these
> matters.
>
Really. It's been my impression, for the most part, that newsgroups consist of
people arguing until their blue in the face about pointless minutiae, exchanging
equally pointless one-liners, insulting one another, or flaming people for daring
to ask if they stay on-topic.
Trisk
Alan Hope
This was me:
><I don't know about paintings, but I have heard of men being convicted for the
>possession of what are called pseudo-images, cooked up in Photoshop for
>instance, where childish heads are superimposed on
>naked bodies of young adults. There's no justification for this from the abuse
>angle (which I don't fully buy anyway) as no child was involved in the making.
>I've heard it said that these images were included in
>the scope of the offence to prevent computer-generation being used as a defence
>in the possession of real KP. Since so many images these days exist only in
>digital form anyway, that defence would have
>been available to anyone caught with anything. That strikes me as a
>cart-before-horse approach to the law. After all, it is a valid defence: you
>can't be in possession of obscene images of children if
>they're obscene, and images, but not of children.>
>What about, what about, what about. If it shows children being abused and it's
>in the possession of a convicted child molester on probation I have no problem
>putting a dangerous pervert back in the joint.
Um, yeah. That wasn't the question, though. And a doctored image would
be one that doesn't show a child being abused, but allows the user to
imagine it does.
>I would expect a post against
>that coming from Belgium. This is where a molester was allowed to imprison and
>slowly and painfully starve a couple of children to death in his basement while
>his stupid wife stayed upstairs and did absolutely nothing and the law let this
>creep run wild until he did this horrible thing. Then they let the wife get off
>totally free. Where I live he'd be on death row and she'd do life. Piss on
>psychopaths and their "rights".
You're very confused. He wasn't "allowed" to imprison children any
more than Dahmer was "allowed" to boil up parts of young men.
The law let him run free until he was arrested and imprisoned. That's
usually the way with law enforcement and criminals.
If you think the wife got off scot-free, you'd better get in touch
with her lawyer. He's under the impression she's been in prison since
August 1996, and the damn fool keeps going back to court every month
to argue for her release.
And if you think he'd be on death row where you live, you're revealing
a side to the US system I don't think I like. He hasn't been tried
yet, you see. I believe the US also has defendants go through that
little formality before disposing of them, though I'll listen if you
want to correct me.
If you feel like lecturing me again about events in Belgium, it might
be an idea if you'd try not to get every single fact wrong. It helps
your argument no end when you allow a smidgeon of accuracy to creep in
from time to time.
--
AH
trisk...@msn.com
mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> trisk...@msn.com wrote:
> >
> > mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip guy in Ohio stuff>
>
> I did not mean to get into a detailed discussion of the guy in Ohio. I
> mentioned his case not because I don't understand what he did wrong and
> how he got into further trouble, but because his case illustrates to me
> a dangerous trend of mind control, apparently willingly ceded to the
> state. I understand that people on parole and probation are subject to
> strictures; what I dispute is that allowing the state to put strictures
> on what is and is not acceptable artistic (for all values of artistic)
> creation is desirable, no matter what the condition of the creator.
The situation in which this guy was arrested was of his own construction.
The only reason anyone found out what he was doing was because he was on
probation & a convicted sex offender. Period. Worrrying about your First
Amendment rights because of what this case "means" is, in and of itself,
meaningless, and gives pedophiles a victim-flag to wave.
You would be better off worrying about market-driven "censorship", where
sales and marketing experts are responsible for the dumbing-down of our
literature and newspapers.
> Following from this is my contention that it is very difficult to
> determine for society at large exactly what consistutes child
> pornography, and to limit creative expression by anyone based on someone
> else's conception of child pornography is wrong.
There is a precise, legal definition for child pornography. It is as
follows: visual depictions of children under 18 engaged in sexual conduct.
Congress and all states have passed laws dealing with child pornography, and
the Supreme Court upheld them in New York v. Ferber, (1982) and Osborne v.
Ohio (1990).
There are evidentiary & psychiatric checklists law officers can (and must)
refer to prior to making arrests. You can find out more about these
checklists at the Center for Missing & Exploited Children, where they have a
downloadable PDF version detailing the warning signs of a possible
pedophile, the tell-tale signs of sexual abuse, etc. It was written by
forensic criminal behavioralists at the FBI, if I recall correctly.
The soft-core kid porn (naked or half-naked children not touching
themselves) is usually not considered grounds for arrest, unless
accompanied by the hard-core variety. However, it is considered a major red
flag, and, taken in context with other warning signs on the checklist, can
result in the suspect being subjected to questioning or further
surveillance.
> I do not doubt that you can recognize evil when you see it; I'm sure we
> all can. The question isn't whether an individual knows what is right
> and wrong--after all, that's what we're arguing about, isn't it--but
> whether any person or group of persons should have the right to declare
> moral judgements for society at large, particularly in an area as
> slippery as defining child pornography.
>
> You believe that a sweet old lady who innocently collected photos of
> naked babies on bearskin rugs would be guilty of possessing child
> pornography; I disagree. I wonder if you would have a different opinion
> if the old lady were the grandmother and great-grandmother of all the
> children depicted. You did not answer my question as to how you would
> judge a collection of Kewpie dolls, which are after all representations
> of naked children. A woman who lives near me is moderately famous for
> her creation of life-like dolls made to resemble actual children--she is
> a sculptor who creates "statues" that are meant to be played with or
> collected. When those dolls are undressed, are they pornography? Does
> someone who orders a doll made to look exactly like a niece or nephew
> and who then keeps the doll undressed possess child pornography?
I consider this example comparable to the "Colombian drug dealers killed
O.J's ex-wife by mistake and the cops framed O.J." defense. Sure, something
like that is within the realm of possibibility--but is it truly probable?
Trisk
JonesieCat
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:el2l0ug2nihl6uvt0...@4ax.com...
LOL! You make me laugh so often, Alan! LOL! "... damn fool keeps going back
to court..." hahaha! LOL!
JC
mothra...@hotmail.com
>
> mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > trisk...@msn.com wrote:
> > >
> > > mothra...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip guy in Ohio stuff>
> >
> > I did not mean to get into a detailed discussion of the guy in Ohio. I
> > mentioned his case not because I don't understand what he did wrong and
> > how he got into further trouble, but because his case illustrates to me
> > a dangerous trend of mind control, apparently willingly ceded to the
> > state. I understand that people on parole and probation are subject to
> > strictures; what I dispute is that allowing the state to put strictures
> > on what is and is not acceptable artistic (for all values of artistic)
> > creation is desirable, no matter what the condition of the creator.
>
> The situation in which this guy was arrested was of his own construction.
> The only reason anyone found out what he was doing was because he was on
> probation & a convicted sex offender. Period. Worrrying about your First
> Amendment rights because of what this case "means" is, in and of itself,
> meaningless, and gives pedophiles a victim-flag to wave.
> You would be better off worrying about market-driven "censorship", where
> sales and marketing experts are responsible for the dumbing-down of our
> literature and newspapers.
No, that's not true. It doesn't matter what the content of the created
material is--it is *wrong* for the state to have the power to dictate
what is and what isn't acceptable artistic expression. It happened
under Hitler, and it happened under Stalin, and I don't want it
happening here and now. I wish this Ohio guy's case had come before a
judge, that's all.
>
> > Following from this is my contention that it is very difficult to
> > determine for society at large exactly what consistutes child
> > pornography, and to limit creative expression by anyone based on someone
> > else's conception of child pornography is wrong.
>
> There is a precise, legal definition for child pornography. It is as
> follows: visual depictions of children under 18 engaged in sexual conduct.
> Congress and all states have passed laws dealing with child pornography, and
> the Supreme Court upheld them in New York v. Ferber, (1982) and Osborne v.
> Ohio (1990).
But it isn't precise, if this guy's fictional account was considered
child pornography. And "sexual conduct" might be very difficult to
define, particularly when a true pedophile is involved--for him, a
glance, a particular turn of the head, is "sexual conduct" in the object
of his lust. At one time, a woman's exposing her ankle was considered
"sexual conduct."
>
> There are evidentiary & psychiatric checklists law officers can (and must)
> refer to prior to making arrests. You can find out more about these
> checklists at the Center for Missing & Exploited Children, where they have a
> downloadable PDF version detailing the warning signs of a possible
> pedophile, the tell-tale signs of sexual abuse, etc. It was written by
> forensic criminal behavioralists at the FBI, if I recall correctly.
>
> The soft-core kid porn (naked or half-naked children not touching
> themselves) is usually not considered grounds for arrest, unless
> accompanied by the hard-core variety. However, it is considered a major red
> flag, and, taken in context with other warning signs on the checklist, can
> result in the suspect being subjected to questioning or further
> surveillance.
I have no problem with any of this. I want people arrested who are in
possession of materials showing real children in sexual situations.
That isn't my beef. I do not want people prosecuted for the nature of
their creative efforts.
>
> > I do not doubt that you can recognize evil when you see it; I'm sure we
> > all can. The question isn't whether an individual knows what is right
> > and wrong--after all, that's what we're arguing about, isn't it--but
> > whether any person or group of persons should have the right to declare
> > moral judgements for society at large, particularly in an area as
> > slippery as defining child pornography.
> >
> > You believe that a sweet old lady who innocently collected photos of
> > naked babies on bearskin rugs would be guilty of possessing child
> > pornography; I disagree. I wonder if you would have a different opinion
> > if the old lady were the grandmother and great-grandmother of all the
> > children depicted. You did not answer my question as to how you would
> > judge a collection of Kewpie dolls, which are after all representations
> > of naked children. A woman who lives near me is moderately famous for
> > her creation of life-like dolls made to resemble actual children--she is
> > a sculptor who creates "statues" that are meant to be played with or
> > collected. When those dolls are undressed, are they pornography? Does
> > someone who orders a doll made to look exactly like a niece or nephew
> > and who then keeps the doll undressed possess child pornography?
>
> I consider this example comparable to the "Colombian drug dealers killed
> O.J's ex-wife by mistake and the cops framed O.J." defense. Sure, something
> like that is within the realm of possibibility--but is it truly probable?
Until lately, I would not have believed it likely that a man's personal
sexual fiction would get him in trouble, either. We are talking about
laws here; you *have* to consider all the possibles when you make law.
Martha
Formica63
>My further point is that what looks like child pornography to most of us
>is only a portion of what actually *is* arousing to pedophiles. To keep
>child erotic material out of the hands of pedophiles means banning
>virtually all depictions of children, fully clothed and engaged in any
>sort of activity, from public view. Pedophiles are "turned on" by
>images of children in any number of settings, just as we "normals" can
>be turned on by attractive people who are fully clothed and, say,
>engaged in heavy construction.
The only avowed pedophile I've known to speak on such matters was a keen reader
of all those kiddie fashion magazines -- Vogue Bambini, etc.
>The reason images of *real* children in sexual situations are
>banned--and rightly so, imho--is that it is harmful to the children who
>are being posed that way, particularly if the pictures show actual
>sexual activity going on. Simple nude photos are, as I hope I've shown,
>really problematical because it's just not possible to assign *motive*
>or *potential use* to them, any more than it is to pictures of children
>in new school clothes that appear in the papers every September.
Yep. When I have been in Japan, it has been hard *not* to react to flocks of
schoolgirls in mini-mini-mini skirts and long white socks as some kind of
performance porn, and while I do not doubt that's how many people view them,
what can be done about it? People do have a right to their own thoughts,
surely.
>> > But I don't understand why, for example, cutting out the faces of
>> > real children from, say, a Sears catalog, and pasting them on the drawn
>> > naked bodies of imaginery children would be illegal--if indeed it
>> > is--and I suspect a person possessing such material with nosy neighbors
>> > might well find himself in trouble with the law.
>>
>> How about cutting out the faces of your children and pasting them onto the
>bodies of
>> naked people in porno mags? One guy was found with a stack of that shit.
>Luckily he
>> had accidently killed himself in an auto-asphyxiiation masturbation
>incident.
>
>I do not see how children are being harmed by that activity. I wonder,
>in fact, if such activities might actually help prevent personal abuse
>of children. Further, how on earth could we realistically outlaw that
>kind of "created" pornography? Anyone can find photos of children's
>faces and put them on naked adult bodies--there are no naked children's
>bodies involved.
Yes. Whether or not I find it personally repugnant is surely beside the point.
I find the notion that Rush Limbaugh has a sex life (and genitals) repugnant
if I dwell on it too.
>
>> > There's no easy line to be drawn in matters of child
>> > pornography. Many parents, myself included, have taken photos of our
>> > children in the nude, not for erotic purposes but to memorialize their
>> > beautiful natural perfection. I have seen what I would consider smutty
>> > photos of children displayed in the homes of very conservative people,
>> > people who I am sure would favor the death penalty for anyone possessing
>> > an "artistic" nude of a child--I'm talking about depictions of children
>> > with their one-piece pajama flap open, exposing a round little butt. Is
>> > that child pornography? I think pictures like that are disturbing;
>> > maybe they are arousing to some people--I don't know. We *can't* know
>> > what will arouse anyone else; we can only go by what we find arousing,
>> > and so few of us either are aroused by children or would admit to that
>> > if we were that I doubt there will ever be any understanding by the
>> > general public of how pedophiles feel about children and images of
>> > children.
>>
>> When someone actually stumbles across kiddie porn--or "child erotica"--
>there's no
>> denying what it is. It's like art, obscenity, and evil: you might be able
>to
>> describe it, but you know it when you see it.
>
>I do not agree that there is any consensus as to what constitutes art,
>obscenity *or* evil--I think these are individual judgements that are
>made based largely on the viewer's education and experience. The
>history of censorship bulges with examples.
>
Totally agree, Mothy. And even individuals shift in their opinions. The notion
that there could be a consensus is sadly not supported by history.
>>
>> > I'm really wandering all over the place here, but I'm truly confused
>> > about what is and what is not child pornography. The baby photo, naked
>> > on a bearskin rug, is an old joke: is it porn?
>>
>> No. As with all things, its a matter of degree. One or two pictures of
>babies on
>> bearskin rugs is no big deal. However, if you have hundreds of pictures of
>naked
>> babies on bearskin rugs, all of them different, and none of them related to
>you, then
>> you're someone with a real problem.
Martha:
>So you would be in favor of having very precise legal definitions of
>what could legitimately be collected, even if the collections were
>clearly and obviously not for erotic purposes? I would be willing to
>bet that there are perfectly innocent people who collect images of naked
>children in some form or other--kewpie dolls, for instance--whom you
>would not want to see prosecuted.
There's a swag of people who collect this stuff on ebay. Mostly they are
called Mari Lou and live in Dayton. A room full of these representations would
be no more potentially creepy to me than a roomful of "artistic"
representations of cupids etc. That would include most national art galleries.
Formica
Formica63
>Or, you could look past the ACLU's knee-jerk reaction to the case and see it
>for what it
>is--a situation where someone violated a contractual agreement, the upshot of
>which would
>be his being sent to jail. This would have happened if he was a burglar found
>with a
>detailed journal entry describing casing a jewelry store or a robber writing
>in detail
>about a bank, complete with schematics, timetables, etc. It doesn't matter if
>the guys says
>"It was just blueskying--it's an outline for a novel, honest!" The
>authorities are under no
>obligation to take the perp's word for *anything*, since he has already
>proved himself in
>the eyes of the court to be a felon. In fact, most law professionals must
>operate on the
>assumption that everything they're told is a lie.
I assume you aren't including lawyers? They explicitly operate with the
contrary assumption.
> If it's a question of public safety over the rights of a felon on
>probation/parole, I
>prefer the authorities err on the side of caution. Then again, no one gets
>worked up over
>the crime that has been thwarted.
Which crime was thwarted? Masturbation?
t's a damned if you do, damned if you
>don't scenario. We
>could very easily be tsk-tsking about how this guy had managed to kidnap,
>rape & torture a
>couple of kids, even though the probation officer found a journal entry that
>detailed the
>crime beforehand, but failed to act on it.
Is that what it detailed?
It strikes me that it's a moot point whether or not a violation occured.
>Before the concept of parole & probation, you either sat in jail for the
>entire length of
>your sentence, or you were rented out as "convict labor" to various companies
>and
>institutions. The concept of probation & parole as a humane measure to empty
>jails was
>gradually accepted, state by state, which is why the procedure is somewhat
>different
>depending on where you live.
Hmm. I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that they replaced the more generous
provision of pardons and commutations, as was certainly the case here
(following british law).
Formica
Formica63
>This is from the current National Enquirer:
>
>'The shocking scandal began when a 15-year-old boy complained to L.A.P.D's
>Hollywood Division that he had been sexually abused by Reubens and Jones.
<snip>
I don't regard the Enquirer as an unimpeachable source, sorry.
>Believe me, in this country, anyone else in this situation would be so far
>under
>the jail at this point it wouldn't be funny.
Yes, but then the enquirer wouldn't have any reason to exaggerate and
scandalise such a story if it were anyone else. I assume you can see the point
I am making -- this inconsistency has more than one interpretation.
We will see.
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Form:
>> >> >> Being nasty to a former colleague isn't quite the same as child
>> >> >molestation.
>> >>
>> >> Trisk:
>> >> >No, but it shows a basic lack of character.
>>
>> Form:
>> >> To my mind, spreading unsubstantiated gossip shows a basic lack of
>> >character,
>> >> but that's just me.
>>
>> Trisk:
>> >Jeez, all this shit was from E! and A&E, involving in depth interviews
>with
>> >all
>> >concerned, plus reference from the civil suit between Reubens & Hartman.
>How
>> >substantiation do you want?
>>
>> I'm just not keen on using gossip to sling mud around.
>>
>
>Then why are you on Usenet?
Because I am interested in crime.
>> Form:
>> >> I don't know many people who've never had a falling out,
>> >> but I don't think that makes them likely pedophiles.
>>
>> Trisk:
>> >You're really twisting that one around. If you're just arguing for the
>sake
>> >of
>> >arguing,
>> >I won't be responding any more. I don't understand people who will walk a
>> >mile to
>> >get their feelings hurt.
>>
>> My feelings aren't hurt. This is a newsgroup, where people discuss these
>> matters.
>>
>
>Really. It's been my impression, for the most part, that newsgroups consist
>of
>people arguing until their blue in the face about pointless minutiae,
>exchanging
>equally pointless one-liners, insulting one another, or flaming people for
>daring
>to ask if they stay on-topic.
Well, that too.
Formica
Alan Hope
alt.true-crime:
>When investigators went to Reubens' home to talk to him about the boy's
>allegations, the actor wasn't home. But guests staying at the house invited the
>police to 'look around'--and once inside, police were stunned to find sexually
>explicit photographs of young naked boys in compromising positions in open view.
>They obtained a warrant to search the premises.
Anyone else think this explanation sounds stinky? Invited in by guests
who hadn't noticed dirty pictures "in plain view"? With friends like
that ...
Does a house-guest have the authority to invite the police in without
a warrant? The cops must've known these people weren't the
householder.
It all sounds a bit too pat.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>LOL! You make me laugh so often, Alan! LOL! "... damn fool keeps going back
>to court..." hahaha! LOL!
Easy now. You'll have an accident.
--
AH
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
Yes! That's why the probie was freaked out and had him arrested on the spot! He
thought it was an actual journal entry dealing with kidnap/rape/murder of two
young boys!
Its also important to remember that these types of child molesters (the
preferentials) go through certain phases prior to acting out their desires--the
most well-known of which is intense fantasizing. I don't mean dayfreaming or
anything you & I have enagged in, but a delusional state nearly indistinguishable
from (and prefereable to) reality.
That was what made the jounral entry equally troubling, after they discovered that
the children mentioned (by name) in the entry were safe & sound.
Then there is no point in talking to you. Who hacve decided to argue the point,
regardless of the facts in the matter. Just like President Reagan used to do.
> >Before the concept of parole & probation, you either sat in jail for the
> >entire length of your sentence, or you were rented out as "convict labor" to
> various companies
> >and
> >institutions. The concept of probation & parole as a humane measure to empty
> >jails was
> >gradually accepted, state by state, which is why the procedure is somewhat
> >different
> >depending on where you live.
>
> Hmm. I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that they replaced the more generous
> provision of pardons and commutations, as was certainly the case here
> (following british law).
Pardons are obtainable, but not usually automatic, and usually are received after
petitioning the governor or the president, depending on the crime involved.
American law is American law & British law is Britsh law. Parole & probation are
the most common means of emptying the jails in the US.
Personally, I find the UK's history of censorship far more disturbing than our
own, what with the banning of "video nasties", etc.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
Formica63 wrote:
> Trisk:
>
> >This is from the current National Enquirer:
> >
> >'The shocking scandal began when a 15-year-old boy complained to L.A.P.D's
> >Hollywood Division that he had been sexually abused by Reubens and Jones.
> <snip>
>
> I don't regard the Enquirer as an unimpeachable source, sorry.
Their celebrity coverage is extremely good. And when it comes to criminal actions
of
celebs, they usually make sure their asses are covered. More importantly, the LAPD
has not denied the reports, they simply refuse to comment on them. That means an
investigation is under way.
>
>
> >Believe me, in this country, anyone else in this situation would be so far
> >under
> >the jail at this point it wouldn't be funny.
>
> Yes, but then the enquirer wouldn't have any reason to exaggerate and
> scandalise such a story if it were anyone else. I assume you can see the point
> I am making -- this inconsistency has more than one interpretation.
*What* inconsistency?
frankly, I suspect a lot of people are feeling extremely weird about all this
because they used to watch PeeWee as a kid or used to enjoy his act. They are
unsure as to hohow to react to alarming news about a man they thought they "knew"
but have never met. Also, those who defended him during the masturbation debacle
(which i agree was over-blown and stupid) now feel used and are disturbed by the
possibility that they have shown sympathy , at one time, for a man who very well
may have not deserved it.
Trisk
trisk...@msn.com
Alan Hope wrote:
It's not a set-up, for christ's sake!
And house guests (or renters, for that matter) can allow cops into the house just
like they can allow anyone else, whether the owner of the property is there or not.
Of course, if they had any sense they would have told the cops to come back later,
and the cops would have had no other choice but to leave. If the cops had seized the
pix immediately, without a search warrant, that would have been illegal and reason to
raise eyebrows. However, they left and came back with a warrant.
What I suspect will now happen is that Reubens will dodge any attempt to be
interviewed by the cops re the kid's charges and the pix. (Does anyone know if he's
even in the US? I know Jones is, because i saw him addressing the cameras outside the
police HQ .) Reuben's publicist will then start dropping suggestions that the photos
(and drugs) were the property of the house guests. House guests will hit the roof and
roll on Pee-Wee, because I don't care how good a friend someone might be, they ain't
gonna sit still and have someone pin kiddie porn charges on them.
Trisk
mothra...@hotmail.com
Well, I am a PeeWee Herman fan, and I am sorry to see a performer whose
work I enjoy--not least for its sexual undertones--in such serious
trouble. But too much about the story is screwy, imho. Surely Reubens
knows that he is under scrutiny for sexual misbehavior after being
caught masturbating at a (straight, afaik) porno theater; is he so
stupid as to leave in plain view photos as unquestionably illegal as
they sound? And I would like to hear from a defense attorney on the
situation where "houseguests" allow the police to come in and "look
around" in the owner's absence--I've never heard of such a thing! If
these photos were in plain view and were so obviously child pornography,
why on earth would someone a good enough friend of Reubens' to be
staying (unsupervised, yet) at his house allow the police to see them?
It seems to me as if the "house guests" were either setting Reubens up
or the police used questionable methods to gain entry for that first
"look around," perhaps implying that they had a legal right to do so.
It isn't that I am invested in Reubens' innocence but that there are
things in the story as we know it so far that don't seem
common-sensical.
Martha
Formica63
>Formica63 wrote:
>
>> Trisk:
>>
>> >This is from the current National Enquirer:
>> >
>> >'The shocking scandal began when a 15-year-old boy complained to L.A.P.D's
>> >Hollywood Division that he had been sexually abused by Reubens and Jones.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't regard the Enquirer as an unimpeachable source, sorry.
>
>Their celebrity coverage is extremely good. And when it comes to criminal
>actions
>of
>celebs, they usually make sure their asses are covered. More importantly, the
>LAPD
>has not denied the reports, they simply refuse to comment on them. That means
>an
>investigation is under way.
Really? Well, I guess I will just wait and see.
>>
>>
>> >Believe me, in this country, anyone else in this situation would be so far
>> >under
>> >the jail at this point it wouldn't be funny.
>>
>> Yes, but then the enquirer wouldn't have any reason to exaggerate and
>> scandalise such a story if it were anyone else. I assume you can see the
>point
>> I am making -- this inconsistency has more than one interpretation.
>
>*What* inconsistency?
You are suggesting that he has got celebrity treatment and not been charged,
whereas John Doe would have been charged. I am suggesting that it's equally
likely that the celebrity treatment is represented by the Enquirer's interest,
and the failure of the LAPD to lay charges might suggest the story has been
overblown.
Formica
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from trisk...@msn.com, calling from
alt.true-crime:
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
>> programme, like this one from trisk...@msn.com, calling from
>> alt.true-crime:
>> >When investigators went to Reubens' home to talk to him about the boy's
>> >allegations, the actor wasn't home. But guests staying at the house invited the
>> >police to 'look around'--and once inside, police were stunned to find sexually
>> >explicit photographs of young naked boys in compromising positions in open view.
>> >They obtained a warrant to search the premises.
>> Anyone else think this explanation sounds stinky? Invited in by guests
>> who hadn't noticed dirty pictures "in plain view"? With friends like
>> that ...
>> Does a house-guest have the authority to invite the police in without
>> a warrant? The cops must've known these people weren't the
>> householder.
>> It all sounds a bit too pat.
>It's not a set-up, for christ's sake!
You sound very sure, on the basis of nothing whatsoever.
>And house guests (or renters, for that matter) can allow cops into the house just
>like they can allow anyone else, whether the owner of the property is there or not.
>Of course, if they had any sense they would have told the cops to come back later,
>and the cops would have had no other choice but to leave. If the cops had seized the
>pix immediately, without a search warrant, that would have been illegal and reason to
>raise eyebrows. However, they left and came back with a warrant.
Yes, I know that. But the cops are not allowed to go off and get a
search warrant to come back and seize something they already found on
an illegal search. Fruit of the poisoned tree, you see. If they had no
right to be there in the first place, then they cannot legally have
seen anything, including the photos. If the situation is as you
describe, then whatever heinous crime is attested by the photos, it's
a Fourth Amendment breach, and it will be struck down. I watch The
Practice, you know. Remember the murdered nun in the closet?
>What I suspect will now happen is that Reubens will dodge any attempt to be
>interviewed by the cops re the kid's charges and the pix. (Does anyone know if he's
>even in the US? I know Jones is, because i saw him addressing the cameras outside the
>police HQ .) Reuben's publicist will then start dropping suggestions that the photos
>(and drugs) were the property of the house guests. House guests will hit the roof and
>roll on Pee-Wee, because I don't care how good a friend someone might be, they ain't
>gonna sit still and have someone pin kiddie porn charges on them.
That's a decent fallback. But if the house-guests let the police in,
anything the police saw is fruit of the poisoned tree.
--
AH
Formica63
>> It strikes me that it's a moot point whether or not a violation occured.
Trisk:
>Then there is no point in talking to you. Who hacve decided to argue the
>point,
>regardless of the facts in the matter. Just like President Reagan used to do.
Huh? You know, I am not particularly interested in this case, just in the
difference between texts (self-authored) and representations of others.
>> >Before the concept of parole & probation, you either sat in jail for the
>> >entire length of your sentence, or you were rented out as "convict labor"
>to
>> various companies
>> >and
>> >institutions. The concept of probation & parole as a humane measure to
>empty
>> >jails was
>> >gradually accepted, state by state, which is why the procedure is somewhat
>> >different
>> >depending on where you live.
Form:
>> Hmm. I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that they replaced the more generous
>> provision of pardons and commutations, as was certainly the case here
>> (following british law).
Trisk:
>Pardons are obtainable, but not usually automatic, and usually are received
>after
>petitioning the governor or the president, depending on the crime involved.
I meant, historically. Historically, pardons were not so problematic.
>American law is American law & British law is Britsh law.
Yes and no. American law is modelled on British law. You mentioned an
historical precedent, which afaik must be understood in its historical context.
Parole & probation
>are
>the most common means of emptying the jails in the US.
Yes, of course. I was pursuing your *historical* point, about the introduction
of parole.
>Personally, I find the UK's history of censorship far more disturbing than
>our
>own, what with the banning of "video nasties", etc.
Well, I guess I'd not feel terribly well qualified to compare the two. I'd be
more interested in comparing recidivism rates and parole conditions in this
case. Outcomes seem to be more important than anything else. Definitions of
pornography seem irrelevant to that question.
Formica
trisk...@msn.com
Alan Hope wrote:
Except that the kid also mentioned child porn being in the house to the cops before hand.
And, lo and behold, there seems to have been some.That's something that will be very
difficult for Rubens' lawyers to get around, as it can be argued that this was the basis
for the search. For all we know, the kid described totally different porn (videos,
computer images, whatever). And I suspect that they're gonna find a lot more than those
Polaroids once they start sifting throught he boxes of porn they carted away.
And does getting off on a technicality look any better in a case like this?
Trisk
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from trisk...@msn.com, calling from
alt.true-crime:
>Except that the kid also mentioned child porn being in the house to the cops before hand.
>And, lo and behold, there seems to have been some.That's something that will be very
>difficult for Rubens' lawyers to get around, as it can be argued that this was the basis
>for the search.
Then how come they turned up without a warrant?
>For all we know, the kid described totally different porn (videos,
>computer images, whatever). And I suspect that they're gonna find a lot more than those
>Polaroids once they start sifting throught he boxes of porn they carted away.
>And does getting off on a technicality look any better in a case like this?
I suppose it's marginally better than being sent to jail.
--
AH
trisk...@msn.com
Alan Hope wrote:
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> programme, like this one from trisk...@msn.com, calling from
> alt.true-crime:
>
> >Except that the kid also mentioned child porn being in the house to the cops before hand.
> >And, lo and behold, there seems to have been some.That's something that will be very
> >difficult for Rubens' lawyers to get around, as it can be argued that this was the basis
> >for the search.
>
> Then how come they turned up without a warrant?
>
I suggest you read the article more closely.
They went to his house to "discuss" the sexual abuse allegations (which are extremely serious,
in and of themselves). Which is a polite way of saying they were there to invite him back to
HQ for questioning, and were probably prepared to arrest him on the spot if they had reason
to. (I would recommend you watch L&O as well as The Practice. Police procedure is as important
as law in this instance)
All we know is that Reubens was not home when they arrived, whether he was out of the house on
location or had just run down to the corner store is unknown. However, if someone is staying
in the house with the owner's knowledge & permission, they can allow the cops in, much the
same way room-mates, family members or personal staff can. As I said before, they *shouldn't*
have, but they did, since most people in this country are oblivious of their rights re the
police...until they land themselves in real trouble, then they learn the hard way. And since
the cops didn't seize the pix when they were there the first time, without a warrant, the
Polaroids will probably not be excluded, since the cops were there to investigate allegations
relating to the activity portrayed in the pix. The drugs, however, may very well end up
excluded from evidence. Plus, if the kid described the sexual abuse and being shown child
porn as occurring in Reubens' house, then a search warrant was probably already being put
together when the officers went to talk to Reubens, and what they reported back to HQ simply
expedited the matter. I am curious to see what the time-stamp on the search warrant reads, to
see how much time elapsed between the judge okaying the warrant and the searches
themselves.
Trisk
Jason P
Alan Hope wrote:
>
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> programme, like this one from trisk...@msn.com, calling from
> alt.true-crime:
>
> >Except that the kid also mentioned child porn being in the house to the cops before hand.
> >And, lo and behold, there seems to have been some.That's something that will be very
> >difficult for Rubens' lawyers to get around, as it can be argued that this was the basis
> >for the search.
>
> Then how come they turned up without a warrant?
They can be invited in without a warrant!
They didn't search/remove anything without the warrant being in place!
ciao
Jason