Replies

As a matter of fact, the first time I was exposed to this type of pornography was back around 1977.

Many of these 'porn' images are from photographs that old, I believe.

After reading the article posted here,

http://64.225.95.82/dcf/Danielle/2038.html

It seems like the kind of organizing into folders and subfolders that would be set up on the site where these files were downloaded from.

Even so, in the testimony that I saw, they have not been able to get anyone in Law Enforcement to unequivocably say that those images were of ' underage' girls. The fact that they appeared to be underage is the biggest selling point of the images. That is why the vendor/website advertizes them as the following:

PRE-TEEN
GIRLS WITH FARM ANIMALS
FAMILY AFFAIRS
YOUNG LOLITAS

etc....

Now, let me ask you this, anyone. Do you think that if these images REALLY contained underage kids, the Mag vendors, movie vendors, websites, COULD CONTINUE TO SELL THEM, MAKE THEM AVAILABLE TO DOWNLOAD and VIEW from the INTERNET, it that were really the case. Don't you think that our LEO's would have been after them (since this exact stuff has been available for 25 years or more).

Did the public think Westerfield might have taken these pictures himself ?, or gotten them from a source that no one else in the U.S. has?

Sorry to be so graphic, but it is funny, almost, to see how a large section of the FR readership, and the general public can be swayed , and not think of some of the more obvious things.

LIKE, what were the other 63,900 images of, if only 100 were porn?

Were they are related to images of a sexual nature ?

If you got onto a website and downloaded 64000 images of country scenes, they would probably be organized into folders by type, doncha think?

Would that mean (or prove) because they were organized into folders, that YOU were anal-retentive (neat freak)? These are the questions the sheep dare not ask.

Hi Guys! I bet you are right and hit the nail on the head... I've downloaded organized zip files for various reasons. IE:Games, animated mouse pointers/trailers for my webpage. Makes perfect sense. Now, to the files other than the 100. Look at this and tell me what you think. They've categorized the porn into 2 subjects.
1)Under 18, which supports their child porn charge.
2)And the rest of the porn helps prove intent. (as quoted earlier..between attny and judge mudd)

Lastly, you pointed out legal ways of selling/producing online porn. Ah, there's also the non-commericial porn files... IE:homemade stuff, black market stuff, free stuff: all of which does not fall under commercial law/business law?...the list can go on and on..right?