Posted on 01/13/2007 8:39:14 AM PST by JTN
Sixteen-year-old Matthew Bandy was about as normal a teenager as you could find. He actually liked hanging out with his family.
"He was a happy-go-lucky kid," said his mother, Jeannie Bandy. "Very personable, and big-hearted. I sound like a boastful mom, but I guess the biggest thing is that he could always make me laugh."
"We went on vacations and had a lot of fun together," Matthew said. "I just enjoyed the life I was living. But after I was accused, everything changed."
What was Matthew Bandy accused of? Jeannie and Greg Bandy were shocked to discover that their son was charged with possession of child pornography.
One December morning two years ago, Matthew's life took a dramatic turn. In an exclusive interview with "20/20," the Bandy family reveals how the world as they knew it came crumbling down, and how Matthew's life has since changed.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Not only ON his computer but uploaded to Yahoo? Oops.
OK Maybe hackers put those images on his computer. Maybe hackers uploaded them to Yahoo. Sure.
What are the odds that the computer would belong to a 16-year-old male, rather than a 64-year-old mother of 6? And why only 9 images? Why not 90 or 900?
Way too much coincidence. Wouldn't it be something if it turns out the father was the one who downloaded the images?
Shouldn't the government be going after the producers of child porn, instead of the viewers? When was the last time we heard of a kiddie porn filmmaker being busted. Of course, child porn is vile and those who view it should be forced to undergo counseling. But to jail people for ten years for viewing one despicable photo? The laws don't punish many murder convictions that harshly.
Crazy isn't strong enough IMHO. Insidious is more like it.
What I don't understand is why is it a crime to READ Playboy but not a crime to MAKE it? Why is it lewd &
obsene to read it? Is it because he was underage?
For quite some time , I've noticed that whenever someone is busted by federal agents-ATF, eg-in the media accounts of the arrest there's always one line : "Child pornography was found on his computer". Always. The person may have been arrested for income tax fraud, firearms possession, drug trafficking, whatever. But there's always "child pornography found on his computer". This means one of two things : All people who wind up running afoul of federal bureaus are the sort of creeps who naturally would look at kiddie porn. OR federal agents are planting child porn on defendant's computers in the hopes of so riling up the jury that they'll convict no matter what. I mentioned this theory on a long-ago thread, and a freeper sent a cartoon jpeg of Elmira to my hard drive just to show how easy it is for someone who knows how. And another freeper who stated s/he works in a courtroom environment in some capacity (probably an officer of the court like a bailiff or guard) claimed that the EXACT SAME IMAGES will show up in federal cases over and over again. I realize the plural of anecdotes isn't data, so make of that what you will. But watch in the media for articles about people arrested by federal agents-I swear, that line is always there. Even in that case where the guy was arrested mostly for antiabortion protesting (this was some years back ; I can't remember his name.)
I thought that was a little interesting. I hope someone who knows more about this sort of thing can chime in.
What are the odds that the computer would belong to a 16-year-old male, rather than a 64-year-old mother of 6?
I would think they would not be that long.
And why only 9 images?
Why not?
Wouldn't it be something if it turns out the father was the one who downloaded the images?
Yes, it would. And less for the images than the fact that he didn't own up when he saw what his son was going through.
Every ones a ham sandwich now.
In this case, it was passing it to his underage classmates that got him into trouble.
Fwiw, Playboy Magazine doesn't have child porn pics.
I guess that makes every thirteen year old boy in the country, or any boy that was ever thirteen, a felon and a sex offender.
Prosecutorial abuse seems to get worse every day. These people only care about their won-lost record, their future political career, and their ability to push people around. Sometimes they seem just like the psychopaths they are supposed to be protecting us from.
How much more vague could an "expert" possibly get? Here's the thing. The police had no trouble finding these images on the boy's harddrive. Although not stated explicitly in the article (a puff piece by the way) that tends to indicate the images resided in a typical, labelled folder in "My Documents". Since neither Loehrs nor the author of the article saw fit to state where the images were found (a hidden folder? under a deceptive name?) -- a crucual point -- it's reasonable to believe that the location of the images doesn't help the boy's case.
Backdoor hackers do not place their wares out in the open. They hide them.
Also, hackers seldom -- if ever -- have a need or a desire to place images on a computer. They're gleaning information from a user, not giving information to him.
On a probablility basis alone, it's far more likely that the boy did download the images, possibly not because he's a pervert but just because he's a dumb kid.
How do you know?
Not neccessarily. You're only a few clicks away from having child porn in your cached files, for a pro they ain't hard to find.
Simple. The author of the article made an effort to present all the exculpatory evidence available. He did not report that the police had to undergo any extraordinary efforts to find the files. Ipso facto, the files were in a typical, labelled folder.
Of course, the shoddy, one-sided reporting in this piece leaves open the possibiliy that the reporter just doesn't know how to talk about computers or police procedure.
Good to know that the law is protecting us from perverts like Matthew and not from the perverts who push this garbage.
/sarc
It seems to me that the law is violating someone's First Amendment rights. If it is legal for the perverts to provide pornography under the First Amendment, why isn't it legal to view it under the First Amendment?? I'm not pushing that idea, but this seems to be a "good for the goose, good for the gander" situation.
I'm glad Matthew finally beat the charge, but he and his family's life will be scarred forever. This isn't justice - this is a justice system run amok with prosecutors more interestd in making a name for themselves through high profile cases (Nifong comes to mind, here) than actually upholding the law and protecting citizens from criminals!!
Those "clicks" are now criminal, if they are in pursuit of child pornography, according to a growing body of criminal law precedents being set in such cases. A click is an intentional act.
In the above case, the boy and his family are trying to claim that he never executed an "intentional click," but that phantom hackers put the images on his computer. As I've said, on a probability basis alone, given how the vast majority of hackers operate and what they are in the business of doing, it's much more like the boy put the images on his computer, not a hacker.
All speculation of course. But if it was him, he would know his son would pass a lie detector test and his son would be very credible in denying any knowledge. And the son may get off because of his age and clean record (which is what eventually happened, thanks, I'm sure, to the attorney they hired and the thousands they paid him over two years). The father, on the other hand, is screwed, blued, and tatooed if he steps forward.
But back to the 16-year-old. When they say "child porn" it could have been images of a 15-year-old female classmate of his, couldn't it? Technically child porn, but not as damning.
IOW, our first police apologist has arrived.
If you're not convinced that the prosecutor had nothing to prove Matthew's guilt, then just read his interview here. He's obviously embarassed about having to justify this publicly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.