OMG, it gets worse!!!!!!!!!

[rdy2go]

Saskatchewan, Canada. A man calls a computer tech to come fix his computer. While the guy was doing his thing, he noticed a couple of links on the machine that were curious. The tech goes to the police to let them know what he saw on dirt bags computer. Links to kiddie porn sites. Cops get warrant, go to house, search the guys computer, find the kiddie porn on his computer and arrest him for having kiddie porn, cart him off to the slammer. At the preliminary hearing the judge throws the case out. Unlawful search of the computer he says. The slime ball is free. Don't even think about razzing me about the rights of the accused on this one. That is WRONG! This dirt bag needs to go to jail, anyone who produces, distributes, or has this stuff should go directly to jail. When you exploit innocent children in this way, you need to be punished. These kids have no recourse, this is exploitation in the most disgusting form, it sickens me that a loop hole allows this jerk to walk, to do it again and again. Who knows he might set up his own operation at some point. That ruling stinks. Ya don't take advantage of innocent children in this or any other way. To let this guy walk is a travesty of justice, and a slap in the face to the victims and their families. But oh my God, the accused have rights too, not this time. lynching is to good for this one. I suggest the gas chamber.

[MarieDelta]

Well at least this guy is known now, its just a matter of time before he gets hammered.

I hope the police learn from this, next time put him away for a long, long, time.

[darkeyes]

Saskatchewan, Canada. A man calls a computer tech to come fix his computer. While the guy was doing his thing, he noticed a couple of links on the machine that were curious. The tech goes to the police to let them know what he saw on dirt bags computer. Links to kiddie porn sites. Cops get warrant, go to house, search the guys computer, find the kiddie porn on his computer and arrest him for having kiddie porn, cart him off to the slammer. At the preliminary hearing the judge throws the case out. Unlawful search of the computer he says. The slime ball is free. Don't even think about razzing me about the rights of the accused on this one. That is WRONG! This dirt bag needs to go to jail, anyone who produces, distributes, or has this stuff should go directly to jail. When you exploit innocent children in this way, you need to be punished. These kids have no recourse, this is exploitation in the most disgusting form, it sickens me that a loop hole allows this jerk to walk, to do it again and again. Who knows he might set up his own operation at some point. That ruling stinks. Ya don't take advantage of innocent children in this or any other way. To let this guy walk is a travesty of justice, and a slap in the face to the victims and their families. But oh my God, the accused have rights too, not this time. lynching is to good for this one. I suggest the gas chamber.

Fran's nite out hun.. ya'll jus havta wait till me givesya nice or not so nice reply..jus havta wait an c... ;) .. but will say me agrees we shud do all we can 2 protect kids.. but wivvin the law not outwiv it... :)

[Doggie_Wood]

Saskatchewan, Canada. . . . . . . . The tech goes to the police to let them know what he saw on dirt bags computer. Links to kiddie porn sites. Cops get warrant, go to house, search the guys computer, find the kiddie porn on his computer and arrest him for having kiddie porn, cart him off to the slammer. At the preliminary hearing the judge throws the case out. Unlawful search of the computer he says . . . . . . . .


Well at least this guy is known now, its just a matter of time before he gets hammered.

I hope the police learn from this, next time put him away for a long, long, time.


. . . . . but will say me agrees we shud do all we can 2 protect kids.. but wivvin the law not outwiv it... :)

The cops can not take "hear-say" evidence as gospel in order to obtain a warrant for search and seizure. They can however obtain a warrant or subpoena the dirt bags IP records as a part of an ongoing felony investigation. After which, if it is found that he had indeed visited the kiddie porn sites - "Book'em Danno"
I agree with Marie in that the dirt bag has now been outed for the sick perv he is.
And I also agree with our dear Fran - it must be done "within the boundaries of the law" - this is for all of our protection. It's a part of our foundation of freedom.

[rdy2go]

Well at least this guy is known now, its just a matter of time before he gets hammered.

I hope the police learn from this, next time put him away for a long, long, time.

Unfortunately Marie, it appears the cops did things right, this time at least, they got a warrant to search the computer. It was the judge who threw it out. In Canada, the cops have that common complaint, they do their jobs, arrest th perp, then a judge undoes it all.

[Donkey_burger]

I don't get it. Doesn't Canada have a process so police can get a search warrant so $h!t like this doesn't happen, or does that make too sense?

I see another forum pissing contest coming, by the way. Bah humbug, y'all.

DB :bipride:

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay color me confused...but to get a warrant, it was signed by a judge. So one judge is overuling another judge?

I really hope they have a task force that can monitor this guy and nail him and whoever is supplying the pictures. Bottom line, no child is a willing participant in sexual crimes. They have no choice, and by getting rid of the people who access, purchase and otherwise enable the criminals who prey on our children is just one step in the right direction.

[tenni]

Rdy
I'm not sure if this is the same case or not. What I heard is that the tech person reported to the police. The application for the search warrant indicated that the technician had observed “Lolita porn” on the computer and that “the porn” had been removed, not that a link had been removed. The court found this error to be determinative in quashing the warrant, as was the fact that the application for the warrant failed to mention that the child was the accused’s daughter, that she was clothed while being filmed, and that the accused’s wife lived with them.

Writing for the majority, Justice Morris Fish stated,

It seems much more plausible that the accused was simply using the VCR and webcam to videotape his young daughter at play for posterity’s sake, rather than for any purpose connected to child pornography," and that the two links were insufficient to "characterize a person as an habitual child pornography offender of the type that seeks out and hoards illegal images." Furthermore, "The fact that the bulk of the pornographic material that the technician observed at the accused’s house was legal adult pornography suggests that the accused did not have a “pronounced” interest in child pornography.


Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/20/tasha-kheiriddin-jaffer-schmaffer-here-s-something-to-get-really-upset-about.aspx#ixzz0ilGWvgly
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/20/tasha-kheiriddin-jaffer-schmaffer-here-s-something-to-get-really-upset-about.aspx#ixzz0ilFVgTb6


Although the man's actions are questionable, I believe that what he had done was not considered legally "possession" of child porn. He had a link on his desktop to a Lolita website.

[MarieDelta]

Unfortunately Marie, it appears the cops did things right, this time at least, they got a warrant to search the computer. It was the judge who threw it out. In Canada, the cops have that common complaint, they do their jobs, arrest th perp, then a judge undoes it all.


I "hear" this a lot in the US as well. However, the cops need to learn to beat the perps at their own game.

In some cases the media blows things out of proportion, or all the facts of the case are not known. So please be cautious when assuming that the judges threw the case out capriciously.

I'm not sure what Canada's search and seizure laws are, but they need to "play the game" and get it done.

I agree with Fran, whatever steps are taken need to be on the right side of the law. This is the only way to guarantee freedom for all.

[tenni]

I really don't know anything about Canadian pro pedophile judges?

I do know that within the past month that I have heard of at least three cases where the police charged men with kiddie porn charges. Hopefully, they have their search warrants well written. One of the problems seems to be that there is an international link of child porn people. I also recall that I think that it was Phil Collins the singer who was charged with child porn. I think that his reason was that he wanted to know more about it as he had a young child. I have no idea if he was found guilty. I agree with Marie that unless we know all of the facts, we should be careful about making conclusions. I know that it is easy to judge others...but best not to.

[FalconAngel]

There is just something wrong with the way that all ended.

Here in the US, I think that the guy would have stayed in jail, and here's why:
(and remember that my POV is based in US, Not Canadian law)

The warrant was based on the report of a tech that had access to the guy's computer, based on the fact that he was working on it. There is not such thing as "customer-client privilege" even remotely like Attorneys, psychiatry or medical.

It was the responsibility of the tech, as a citizen, to report something that we all know to be illegal.

The warrant is issued based on a tip by a private citizen that actually saw the evidence, so the warrant has to be valid since, for all intents and purposes, the computer tech is a witness to the crime because he had permission to go into the computer to do the repairs.

It would be akin to a mechanic finding a dead body in a car that a customer has brought in to work on.

If Saskatchewan's laws are anything at all similar to our law, then someone must have dropped the ball when the warrant was either issued or served.
There have been cases where warrants were dismissed for something as stupid as typos. It isn't right, but it happens.

In a case like this, (in the US, at least) warrants are pretty specific for cases like this, so there is almost no room for error.
Let's face it, this is pretty much an open and shut case, based on the witness statements and evidence.

So the question needs to be asked; if the warrant was bad, then how did that get screwed up?
And if the warrant was not the problem, then what was there that caused a judge to throw out the warrant?
Finally, if it was the judge, then why is he still on the bench?

[tenni]

Falcon
I think that you need to be aware that this was not just a judge but the Supreme Court. He had been found guilty in 2005 and was under house arrest for eighteen months. Some questioned that as not being severe enough. It would seem to me that he had served his time but the charge was removed due to a technicality. If he was guilty and remained guilty, I believe that he would have been placed on a sex offender list. The Supreme Court decision probably prevents this. It is the tendency to state that he is guilty even though finally found not guilty.

[nuthugger]

These dirt bags who prey on kids need to be put down for good. They will never change. No child deserves their terror.

[FalconAngel]

On another note, I saw the mention of "lolita" porn. Since I wasn't sure of what that exactly was, I tried to look up the definition of it. All I found was a loose description saying that it was older men with much younger women (such as older guys with women who are much younger). This may or may not be kiddie porn, but since I can't seem to find a clear definition (all of the links on my searches have gotten "page not found" responses), then we need to know that to make a clear decision on what is the proper thing to do with the guy.

Based on what is written in the article, that could be the reason that the judge threw out the conviction. If the porn is young adult women playing "teen schoolgirl", then the judge is right to throw it out. If the evidence showed Kiddie porn, then the judge needs to be removed from the bench.

The big issue is that we have turned this very serious issues of child pornography and child sexual abuse into a witch hunt, more often than not, taking things well over the top.

Some of these people caught in this effort have gotten punished well beyond what is reasonable (I can think of a couple cases here in the US for that), but by the same token, we have gotten some serious violators off the streets. And while that is a good thing to do, we also cannot allow ourselves to let innocent people get caught up in the net, either.

Based on what was OP'd and what the news has written, I cannot say whether the guy is guilty or innocent, but if he is guilty, then he needs to be held in accordance with the law.
But if what was reported was a case of "witch hunt fever" and there was no actual kiddie porn there in the first place, then the guy got a bum rap.

[FalconAngel]

Falcon
I think that you need to be aware that this was not just a judge but the Supreme Court. He had been found guilty in 2005 and was under house arrest for eighteen months. Some questioned that as not being severe enough. It would seem to me that he had served his time but the charge was removed due to a technicality. If he was guilty and remained guilty, I believe that he would have been placed on a sex offender list. The Supreme Court decision probably prevents this. It is the tendency to state that he is guilty even though finally found not guilty.

I noticed that when I sat through the article. And the article just brings up more questions about the issue, which my most recent previous post brings up.

[tenni]

"The man actually had icons on his computer that directed to a porn website. The Supreme Court found a difference since he had not down loaded any porn. He therefore was not in possession of porn. The laws refers to having possession of child porn."

""While the reviewing judge found no deliberate attempt to mislead, it is nonetheless evident that the police officer’s selective presentation of the facts painted a less objective and more villainous picture than the picture that would have emerged had he disclosed all the material information available to him at the time," said Justice Morris Fish, writing for the majority."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2010/03/19/supreme-court-morelli.html#ixzz0ilnC7i0y

It seems that the Supreme Court with a decision 4 to 3 decided the above. The police are accused of being selective with the information that they gave the justice of the peace who wrote the search warrant. There was insufficient evidence to even do a search warrant. There was no evidence of the man possessing child porn as the tech guy accusing him without seeing any porn. The social worker would be required by law to report this to the police. The police seem to have screwed up. The tech guy had not seen any child porn on the computer. This has been found to be a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is part of our constitution. I'm not sure which section at this time.

The more that I read about this; the more that I'm inclined to write that the man was under house arrest and was not guilty.

[Karasel]

Saskatchewan, Canada. A man calls a computer tech to come fix his computer. While the guy was doing his thing, he noticed a couple of links on the machine that were curious. The tech goes to the police to let them know what he saw on dirt bags computer. Links to kiddie porn sites. Cops get warrant, go to house, search the guys computer, find the kiddie porn on his computer and arrest him for having kiddie porn, cart him off to the slammer. At the preliminary hearing the judge throws the case out. Unlawful search of the computer he says. The slime ball is free. Don't even think about razzing me about the rights of the accused on this one. That is WRONG! This dirt bag needs to go to jail, anyone who produces, distributes, or has this stuff should go directly to jail. When you exploit innocent children in this way, you need to be punished. These kids have no recourse, this is exploitation in the most disgusting form, it sickens me that a loop hole allows this jerk to walk, to do it again and again. Who knows he might set up his own operation at some point. That ruling stinks. Ya don't take advantage of innocent children in this or any other way. To let this guy walk is a travesty of justice, and a slap in the face to the victims and their families. But oh my God, the accused have rights too, not this time. lynching is to good for this one. I suggest the gas chamber.

That doesn't even make any since, the cops got a warrant to search his home, and anything in the home (including his computer) counts. The tech guy saw links to kiddie porn on his computer that is enough to get a warrant, because the links couldn't have gotten on there if the owner of the computer hadn't clicked on it. He shouldn't have been let free.. Course I'm not too familiar with Canadian law.

Pretty despicable.

[TwylaTwobits]

Kara, it appears THIS guy was innocent. Many others aren't. They followed up on a bad tip from a tech, there was no child porn, but there was porn. Read what Tenni posted.

[darkeyes]

..an thats why Twyla me darlin'.. we have properly constituted criminal justice systems in our societies.. to protect the innocent as much as pursue and remove the guilty from society.. sometimes, because the public get a jaundiced view of suspects/defendants, because of the way the media covers the story, and often because of our horror at the crime perpetrated, too many simply assume guilt.. and lives of the innocent are often ruined as a consequence..

..of course in serious cases which involve murder, rape, child abuse, terrorism and other awful crimes, the authorities have a duty to protect us, and punish the guilty as they do in respect of all crime.. but they have a duty to protect us by getting it right. Not by either fitting people up as happens all too often, or by getting those they think are guilty at whatever cost as also happens far too much, and breaking the rules which are there to protect us from being unfairly sent to jail.. victims demand justice as do we all.. justice is not achieved by assuming guilt and sending the innocent to prison.. it is not served by the law of the mob.

No one hates heinous crime more than I, and feel so much for vistims who never receive justice. I have good reason to feel this way, but hate injustice equally, and many are sent to gaol who are innocent for all kinds of crime.. trial by mob, trial by media and trial by any other method than a properly constituted and efficient criminal justice system are as heinous as the original crime when all too often the wrong person ends up in gaol or even worse, losing their life. Victims do not want just anyone punished for the crimes which have been perpetrated against them.. they want the person who dun the dirty deed.. no one else...

[TwylaTwobits]

Exactly, Fran, but we need to have a properly balanced justice system first for that to work as planned. Take the case of Richard Jewell, he was accused of terroristic acts at the Olympics. The FBI rushed to release all the information to the media and crucified the guy, hell they even took his Tupperware. When it was all said and done, his rep was in tatters and he was INNOCENT. Will he be remembered for his innocence? Probably not. He will be remembered as that guy suspected of placing a bomb in Centennial Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

But child porn is a very serious accusation and one that this man won't walk away from lightly, no matter how many statements are issued about his innocence. Some will insist he just hid the kiddie porn better or deleted it before the tech arrived to cover his tracks. It's a miscarriage of justice for sure, but my previous statement stands. They need to deal harshly with people who do peddle in this pornography or it will never cease being a moneymaking venture and the road to nightmares for years for young children.

[tenni]

Since this decision was a 4 to 3 decision, it shows that the Supreme Court found the entire case questionable. The dissenting vote (those 3 Justices) mentioned several things. I do have to wonder though about labelling the man a child porn collector versus adult porn collector. Clearly the man realized that the tech guy had seen his "favourite" list and he was concerned about the fact that the tech guy knew that he was interested in porn. Conclusions were "jumped to" by the tech guy that since Moreli dumped the "favourite" links that he must be guilty.

How many guys (maybe women) have links to porn on their "favourite" list?

How many people clear the history of their computer once they have been on this site?..or another site with sexual content?

If you do remove the history, do you do that just in case someone checks your computer's history?

Might this Moreli guy have been just as uncomfortable knowing that the tech guy had seen his favourite list with porn links? So, what was he really guilty of? ...It looks like having an interest in links to porn?...gee

Here was the summary dissenting decision(saying that he had some guilt)
Are the justices being a bit prudish or ?

"Justice Marie Deschamps, writing the dissenting opinion, said that while the information used to obtain the search warrant could have been more elaborate, it did supply the judge with enough credible information to issue the warrant.

Deschamps said the information used to get the warrant had references about the removal of child pornography from Morelli's computer that "cannot be characterized as false."

"Viewed in context, there is no question that what had, according to the technician, been removed from the computer were the links in the “favourites” list to child pornography."

The fact that there were several links to both adult and child pornography in the “favourites” list and that a “graphic” pornographic image was prominently displayed on the computer justified the judge reasonably inferring that Morelli had "a conspicuous interest in this type of material," Deschamps wrote.

The position of the camera, the fact it was connected to a videotape recorder, along with the presence of labelled and unlabelled videotapes, showed Morelli "was interested in reproducing images, accumulating such material, and keeping it for his future use," Deschamps wrote.

"There was a credibly based probability that the accused was in the habit of reproducing and saving images and had a propensity to pornography, and more specifically to child pornography."

[darkeyes]

I agree Twlya.. the system is balanced now, but it is, as such things conceived and operated by human beings always are, far from perfect.. and it is human beings who have the responsibility of making it much better than it is.. there have been improvements certainly in the Scottish and English systems over the years, but equally there are things which have set back justice and are actually of no comfort to victims.. what is important is that the system punishes the guilty and provides proper justice for the victim and that means punishing the guilty and punishing them in such a way as to properly reflect the seriousness of the crime.. for the purposes of this thread I will not go into the rehabilitation of the guilty for it is not relevant although is an important yet controversial issue in itself.... it must also provide justice for the innocent defendant of whom we both agree I think that there are too many...

.. and child porn is an awful, awful crime.. it is like any kind of child abuse something and must be subject to severe punishment for those who perpetrate such crimes..every week almost, there seems to be in the media stories of police raids, trials or the discovery of another child porn ring somewhere in Britain.. those who are responsible have to be put somewhere which prevents them from perpetuating a shocking and disgusting crime. It does encourage paedophila in the wider world and brings every child into a danger which we agree they should not have to face...

[TwylaTwobits]

Thank you, Tenni, for posting more info on this as it is a volatile issue in a lot of people's minds.