Replies

I suppose one can trust the media (the same folks who told you Bill Clinton was such a nice guy, remember?) or you can use the sworn testimony--the transcripts of which have been posted on many threads--which states that he had 64,000 IMAGES, less than 100 of which were questionable. Val whines about Fresno's "screaming HTML" but honestly, Kim, you are the master of it. Especially if you're trying to repeat a lie (64,000 sexually provocative images) enough times that maybe people will think it's true.

The word questionable in this context means "possibly not legal". That of the 64,000 pornographic images, there where less than 100 that were questionable in a legal sense. It was not "less than 100 images were questionably pornographic, but "less than 100 were questionably legal pornography.

Westerfield did indeed have a large and organized collection of pornoagraphy. It is not a lie or a mistake, but a fact.

And Val was not whining, she was humorously pointing out FDA's penchant for drama in comparsion to John Walsh's very valid LEO experience. And she thought she was very funny too!

The transcripts I've seen and the testimony I heard tell a very different story. 64,000 images, not porn images was what I heard, and what I read. I say it this way because I have yet to get the official court transcripts. Usually Court TV or a local newspaper will post them on the internet--so far, no one has done that in this case. The running transcripts are helpful, but not really exact. But I did hear "images" and not "pornographic images." Then again, since Court TV breaks for commercials, perhaps something was said that was not televised.

[10:35] Yes to all
[10:35] first 4 pages appear to be animals
[10:35] thousands of photos - - under 100 objectionable

(snip!)

[11:12] did not find that DW had renamed any files
[11:12] in attemp to hide files
[11:13] officer ?? examiled files ffrom all the computers?
[11:13] many thousands
[11:13] he said no child porn
[11:13] defense objecting
[11:13] not prepubescent girls in images
[11:14] not prepubescent girls in images
[11:14] according to the other cop
[11:14] Collins asked that this other cop look at them
[11:14] Mr. Armstrong
[11:14] is clear - - no one thought they were pre-pubescent girls
[11:14] 68000 images from the pc's
[11:15] Armstrong spent about 1 1/2 hours looking at photos
[11:15] no prepubescent females in photos
[11:16] do you disagree with his conclusions? "Not at all."
[11:16] back to the danielle pix..the daughter of a friend<---judge speaking
[11:16] from the files you downloaded,
[11:16] do you know when they were open? yes
[11:16] do you have a list of those times? yes
[11:17] talking about 6 photos of the real child
[11:17] Discovery page 14-54
[11:17] says when files were open?
resume at 20 til 11

And Val was not whining, she was humorously pointing out FDA's penchant for drama in comparsion (comparison) to John Walsh's very valid LEO experience.

And Val was not whining, she was humorously pointing out FDA's penchant for drama in comparsion (comparison) to John Walsh's very valid LEO experience.

Sorry VP...can't let you get away with that comment, at least not without firing some HTML Code Shriek at ya....

JOHN WALSH IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER....NEVER HAS BEEN, NEVER WILL BE.....

HE IS SIMPLY AN ACTOR/NEWSREADER.....

Bernie Shaw, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw....they read the news, many times crime related.....

But they know about as much about tracking a case toward resolution as Clinton does by becoming a priest, and hearing confessional.....