Replies

I'd say that the pics are still child porn--what else could they be called?.

Apparently the "actors" were not clearly under the age of 18. It seems that it was difficult to determine.

While I find all pornography disgusting, it may be that DW did not know it was child porn. If the age was hard to tell, he may not have willfully broken the law.

Furthermore, it doesn't appear that he had a thing for real young girls as far as the porn evidence indicates.

I guess we all need to reread the article in question..because the only charge of complaint by the defense attny was that there was no child porn on the puter..as reported. SO...if the alleged pics were questionable, he would have replied on those too, right?? Regardless, charges made by the police dept are not rumors per say.. they are allegations made by teh police dept for the prosecuting attny who believes there is enough evidence to convict. Besides, it wasn't the prosecuting attny's office who claimed their was child porn..it was the PD..we all stood corrected when the child porn on puter allegation was clarified by the defense attny.