Cop's 8742 child porn mistakes

[HB1965]

Cop's 8742 child porn mistakes
Christine Kellett | March 13, 2008 - 1:57PM

A Queensland police officer caught with more than 8000 child porn images on his home computer has avoided spending any time in jail.

Thomas James Anthony Wilson, 25, pleaded guilty in Brisbane's District Court today to possessing the lewd material, including pictures of boys as young as 10 engaging in sex acts.

He was sentenced to 18 months' jail, but the term was wholly suspended after his lawyer successfully argued Wilson had downloaded the images by mistake.

The former policeman, who has since lost his job, was one of 1717 suspects identified as part of a 2003 child porn investigation by US Customs and FBI agents.

Police traced his credit card to a child porn website titled “Sunshine Boys”, where Wilson had paid a $35 access fee.

A March 28, 2006 raid on his Shorncliffe home on Brisbane’s northside uncovered a computer loaded with pornography.

In all, 8742 images were identified as depicting children aged between 10 and 18 posing nude, masturbating and engaging in sex acts.

Wilson's defence barrister Craig Eberhardt told the court his client had not purposefully sought out child abuse images when he downloaded pornography files from the internet.

He suggested Wilson may have viewed some of it as a way to deal with his own sexuality as a young man.

"(He is) not a pedophile, he does not have pedophilic tendencies," Mr Eberhardt said, citing medical evidence.

"His culpability comes from his failure to get rid of it once he knew it was there."

Judge Tony Rafter SC said a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate because Wilson posed no risk to children and was unlikely to reoffend.

But he said the actions of the disgraced policeman had nonetheless helped to feed an "evil and exploitative industry".

"You should have been accutely aware of the seriousness of the offence because you were a serving police officer at the time," Judge Rafter chastised.

"I accept that you did not actively seek child pornography and these images were accessed somewhat accidentally.

"I am also mindful that as a former police officer, a period of imprisonment would be harsher upon you."

Wilson left court supported by family.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/cops-8742-child-porn-m istakes/2008/03/13/1205126085158.html

 

[HB1965]

Here's my question.

How does did this mistake occur?

 

[Mythical_]

Here's my question.

How does did this mistake occur?

the same way it occurred for pete townsend
it's "research"

 

[shoulderblade]

Here's my question.

How does did this mistake occur?

Which one?

8000+ images downloaded by accident. Or

Walks out of court with his family?

 

[Quoll]

Queensland = pedo paradise.

 

[HB1965]

Which one?

8000+ images downloaded by accident. Or

Walks out of court with his family?

Both at this point. How the fuck do you accidentally download 8000+ images?

 

[The Heretic]

Here's my question.

How does did this mistake occur?

While I doubt this is the case, it is not improbable that 8000+ files could be downloaded by mistake. Anyone who has ever gone to download adult porn from usenet has probably gotten some child porn by mistake - it takes the knowledge to know it is purposely mixed in with adult porn by pedos, and that it can be easily be downloaded by mistake, and a diligent screening process of what you are downloading and have downloaded to be sure you don't get any child porn on your computer - and even then you might wind up with some. This is why I no longer download porn from usenet - it got to be too much work and too risky to make sure I didn't mistakenly download child porn.

Probably ditto with P2P (maybe even more so since it can happen in the background) - I don't do P2P.

That said, a good computer tech/forensic tech could probably discern from the mix of files if the user *probably* intended to download child porn or not; if most of the files were child porn, and most of the files were downloaded over a period of time, not in one or two single sessions - then it is more likely that the downloads were intentional. This is probably the case since there were 8000 of the files - those would be hard to miss - but bear in mind that with usenet it is fairly easy to download thousands of files in one session, and fairly easy to download the wrong ones, or ones that are ambiguously titled.

I would have to know more about the facts of the case - where he downloaded from, when he downloaded (how many sessions), what he downloaded with, what was the mix of files, etc., to come to a valid conclusion.

 

[HB1965]

While I doubt this is the case, it is not improbable that 8000+ files could be downloaded by mistake. Anyone who has ever gone to download adult porn from usenet has probably gotten some child porn by mistake - it takes the knowledge to know it is purposely mixed in with adult porn by pedos, and that it can be easily be downloaded by mistake, and a diligent screening process of what you are downloading and have downloaded to be sure you don't get any child porn on your computer - and even then you might wind up with some. This is why I no longer download porn from usenet - it got to be too much work and too risky to make sure I didn't mistakenly download child porn.

Probably ditto with P2P (maybe even more so since it can happen in the background) - I don't do P2P.

That said, a good computer tech/forensic tech could probably discern from the mix of files if the user *probably* intended to download child porn or not; if most of the files were child porn, and most of the files were downloaded over a period of time, not in one or two single sessions - then it is more likely that the downloads were intentional. This is probably the case since there were 8000 of the files - those would be hard to miss - but bear in mind that with usenet it is fairly easy to download thousands of files in one session, and fairly easy to download the wrong ones, or ones that are ambiguously titled.

I would have to know more about the facts of the case - where he downloaded from, when he downloaded (how many sessions), what he downloaded with, what was the mix of files, etc., to come to a valid conclusion.

Since I don't download porn I wouldn't know any of these facts. Interesting but I'm not believing it. The guy kept it on his computer even after he supposedly "figured out" what it was.

 

[Mystic_Jade]

Since I don't download porn I wouldn't know any of these facts. Interesting but I'm not believing it. The guy kept it on his computer even after he supposedly "figured out" what it was.

Well we can all rest easy now that we know he'll never do it again.

 

[HB1965]

Well we can all rest easy now that we know he'll never do it again.

LOL If I could believe that it was a mistake then I could believe that he would never do it again.

 

[basic_desires]

Well we can all rest easy now that we know he'll never do it again.

...or will he....if its an addiction and he doesn't get help, there'll soon enough be another computer...

 

[The Heretic]

Since I don't download porn I wouldn't know any of these facts. Interesting but I'm not believing it. The guy kept it on his computer even after he supposedly "figured out" what it was.

If that is a fact (I almost never believe anything I read/hear in the media) then keeping it after knowing it was there, regardless of how it got there (someone else could have downloaded it too) would be a violation of the law (IMO - IANAL).

I explained some of the possibilities for a couple of reasons:

1) So people will be careful and be aware of what is on their computers.

2) So people will understand what is possible - just because there were 8000 files doesn't mean the downloading was intentional - there are other facts to be considered. That many files could easily be mistakenly downloaded by someone who didn't know what they were doing - it could even happen without the person intending to download any porn at all (inexpert setup of P2P apps could easily open up your computer to being used as a repository for someone else's downloads, or infect you with a virus/etc.).

 

[Mansa Musa]

Bullshit. If he had child pornoraphy on his computer, and he didn't intentionally downloadit, he should have had the brains to get one of the computer technicians to

A. Clean it out

and

B. Start a tracing program

He was a police officer. It should have been all in a day's work to tell someone that he got something extra when he downloaded "Big Booty Hoes III" and "Asian Persuasion" from Gnutella. Instead, if he really didn't have any idea of the amount of filth on his computer and was afraid to come forward, he's lost his job, his professional and personal image, and his self respect. Way to go, genius.

 

[Luk]

Back in the day I used newsgroups for pR0n, music, etc. Child porn was hidden in some files. Not like 5-10 year olds, more like 13-17. Still, people are sick.

I seriously think some were planted as "bait" by some govt. agencies.

 

[Comshaw]

While I doubt this is the case, it is not improbable that 8000+ files could be downloaded by mistake. Anyone who has ever gone to download adult porn from usenet has probably gotten some child porn by mistake - it takes the knowledge to know it is purposely mixed in with adult porn by pedos, and that it can be easily be downloaded by mistake, and a diligent screening process of what you are downloading and have downloaded to be sure you don't get any child porn on your computer - and even then you might wind up with some. This is why I no longer download porn from usenet - it got to be too much work and too risky to make sure I didn't mistakenly download child porn.

Probably ditto with P2P (maybe even more so since it can happen in the background) - I don't do P2P.

That said, a good computer tech/forensic tech could probably discern from the mix of files if the user *probably* intended to download child porn or not; if most of the files were child porn, and most of the files were downloaded over a period of time, not in one or two single sessions - then it is more likely that the downloads were intentional. This is probably the case since there were 8000 of the files - those would be hard to miss - but bear in mind that with usenet it is fairly easy to download thousands of files in one session, and fairly easy to download the wrong ones, or ones that are ambiguously titled.

I would have to know more about the facts of the case - where he downloaded from, when he downloaded (how many sessions), what he downloaded with, what was the mix of files, etc., to come to a valid conclusion.

That's all well and good, and perhaps it is possible to accidentally download that much child porn, I personally think that's bullshit,, but lets say he did. It might hold water IF he hadn't paid an access fee to a child porn site. Unfortunately he did and it is. Actually the unfortunate part is he got away with it. Did he have OJ's lawyers working for him or what?



Comshaw

 

[williamfarmton]

Here's my question.

How does did this mistake occur?

It could happen but not that many times without trying

 

[dolf]

as a cop, why didn't he report it right away?

 

[foodsnob]

Maybe he thought they were all Miley Cyrus pics from Vanity Fair?

 

[Aliea]

I once stabbed an ex 8742 times, but it was a mistake so I got off.

 

[Mystic_Jade]

I once stabbed an ex 8742 times, but it was a mistake so I got off.

I would've let you off had you stabbed him 17484 times.