Curtain could be innocent?major Developement

arcadegame2004

I have another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Gardai knew he was innocent so arranged to stop the trial going ahead so his name couldn't be cleared. Maybe it's a grudge to do with judgements the Gardai didn't like e.g. failed prosecutions.

Victor, what Johnny is trying to say is that some pornography is legal while others isn't. Adult porn (sexual/naked images of adults only) is legal. Child porn (images of naked children and/or images of children in sexual acts) is illegal.

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Did the guards mean "normal" pornography or pictures of child abuse?

We can presumably assume they meant pictures of child abuse (or child porn if you don't like). If they were taking the guy to court for having pornography not including the subset of pictures of child abuse on his computer both the Garda Siochana and DPP are more incompetent than the most cynical of us could assume so I think we can assume, in the absence of evidence or reliable testimony to the contrary that they're at least 10% competent and that the content of his machine included pictures of child abuse. That makes some modicum of sense doesn't it?


edit: I realise the above is putting the cart before the horse in the absence of a conviction. I'm making the assumption that there was some justification for taking the case in the first place and that there was something found on the machine that turned out to be inadmissable in court that would have been relevant had the evidence been admissable. Again I'm assuming at least a low E-grade of competence. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

arcadegame2004

I wouldn't be so sure Sceptre. They have already demonstrated incompetence with the out-of-date arrest warrant.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I wouldn't be so sure Sceptre. They have already demonstrated incompetence with the out-of-date arrest warrant.

Entirely possible I suppose. I've built a house of assumptions up there with no foundation.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I have another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Gardai knew he was innocent so arranged to stop the trial going ahead so his name couldn't be cleared. Maybe it's a grudge to do with judgements the Gardai didn't like e.g. failed prosecutions.

Dare I suggest a third option? The possibility that this was allowed to happen to highlight the serious under-resourcing of the unit responsible for combatting child pornography? Just look at the media coverage this case has attracted, if that was the intention its certainly got plenty of exposure...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Earthman
But having adult porn on your computer isn't illegal.
Having child porn is.
The DPP proceded with a prosecution implying that an offence was committed regarding the possession of child pornography.
Now the DPP must have had evidence of child pornography in curtains possession for to procede with the case.
Otherwise the DPP's office is a farce.

I wasn't trying to deny that.

If the company that ran these alledged child-porn sites also ran 300+ ordinary porn sites, I assume there would be a number of people whose CC details would feature in their records but would be innocent of any wrongdoing.

When you say:

As I mentioned in the other thread,the operation amatheus thing brought up his name because he had used his credit card to authorise a porn download. That in itself is not illegal, but the possession of the child pornography is.
Now how is he innocent if he used his credit card to pay for it?

Its not clear what you mean. A porn download does not mean child porn.

I assume that the authorites did some detective work before they got the warrant to search the judge's house. No doubt his ISP was contacted.

arcadegame2004

It's Operation Amythyst not Ameteust.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It's Operation Amythyst not Ameteust.

Cos thats a really important distinction to make, right?

Gawd bless the Spelling Nazis...

sceptre

Actually, it's "Amethyst" rather than either "Ameteust" or "Amythyst" but like therecklessone I don't see it as that important

I see a number of interesting things from this report. Firstly, all the other 101 searches were apparently valid. Secondly, all the other raids took place within two to three days of the granting of the warrant. The Curtin search took place seven days after the warrant was issued (it was the first granted). As for what was found on the computer, Mary Ellen Ring (State prosecutor with an unfortunate Waltons name) has stated that explicit images of persons under the age of 17 were found on the computer, which finishes the what kind of porn we're talking about discussion. And apparently the DPP has been aware that there were problems with the warrant since at least 16 December 2002. Why they still proceeded with a case based on evidence received with use of an invalid warrant beggars belief, sense and a number of other things.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by sceptre
Why they still proceeded with a case based on evidence received with use of an invalid warrant beggars belief, sense and a number of other things.

Perhaps they didn't want the last thing to be said about this case to be "The DPP has dropped the charges due to a technicality", maybe they wanted it to go trial regardless. But that's just speculation.
I'm getting the feeling the word tribunal is going to start be used wrt this case soon.