Mass. policeman charged with possession of child pornography

Not equipped or trained to handle a child porn case? He is a criminal just like any other criminal you arrest him and bag and tag the evidence. Let's hope they do it right who ever handles it so this perv gets locked up and away from the public. I feel sorry for his family what a disgrace

LMAO, He'll be real popular in prison...

Jeez, double whammy for that guy; a cop *and* a pedophile. He'll need to be in an isolated cell, or he won't last long at all.

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

i am SPARKLING wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P resumption_of_innocence

I dare say that video tape of the guy is rather incriminating. Makes it a bit harder to say 'wasn't me!' when you're on candid camera.

progressive wrote:

<quoted text>
I dare say that video tape of the guy is rather incriminating. Makes it a bit harder to say 'wasn't me!' when you're on candid camera.

LOL, yeah really! I'm surprised there are so few comments on this story... what a perv

progressive wrote:

<quoted text>
I dare say that video tape of the guy is rather incriminating. Makes it a bit harder to say 'wasn't me!' when you're on candid camera.

and i dare ask ... how many times did you personally view the tape?

i am SPARKLING wrote:

<quoted text>
and i dare ask ... how many times did you personally view the tape?

None, but video tape showing the guy beating his brain against his leg is certainly going to anchor him more in the 'guilty' category than a he-said/she-said accusation.

If I'm not mistaken, officers need to sign in and out of an evidence room; one only need to look at both the video and logs to see who was in the room at the time that video was made. If he didn't sign in, but he's still on tape (which the Police Department is stating, which also lead to his arrest), a defense attorney is going to have to be *very* creative in regards to how they shore up their story against him being on candid camera, caught with his pants down.

I'm interested in knowing how the video made it onto that disc; was he that stupid?(Perhaps, since he jerks it to kiddie porn, at work, as an officer of the law, ON TAPE, no less) Was he set up?

Video evidence has both incriminated and vindicated people. Following the line of logic, which way do you *think* this is going? No rocket science necessary.

progressive wrote:

<quoted text>
None, but video tape showing the guy beating his brain against his leg is certainly going to anchor him more in the 'guilty' category than a he-said/she-said accusation.
If I'm not mistaken, officers need to sign in and out of an evidence room; one only need to look at both the video and logs to see who was in the room at the time that video was made. If he didn't sign in, but he's still on tape (which the Police Department is stating, which also lead to his arrest), a defense attorney is going to have to be *very* creative in regards to how they shore up their story against him being on candid camera, caught with his pants down.
I'm interested in knowing how the video made it onto that disc; was he that stupid?(Perhaps, since he jerks it to kiddie porn, at work, as an officer of the law, ON TAPE, no less) Was he set up?
Video evidence has both incriminated and vindicated people. Following the line of logic, which way do you *think* this is going? No rocket science necessary.

since you answered "none", then everything you say after the "but" is conjecture.
“The invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning”- Stephen Jay Gould
the truth is, you don't know if there was anything falsified or omitted from the story the is being told to & by the media.
we should consider what we say (as any of us could be falsely accused of a crime & be skewered in the court of public opinion) & refrain from judgement 'til after he's either offered a deal & pleads guilty, or has had his day in court.
my guess is it'll be the first, because judging by the internet lynch mob on these threads, there's no way he'll be able to get a fair trial in this area.

i am SPARKLING wrote:

<quoted text>
since you answered "none", then everything you say after the "but" is conjecture.
“The invalid assumption that correlation implies cause is probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning”- Stephen Jay Gould
the truth is, you don't know if there was anything falsified or omitted from the story the is being told to & by the media.
we should consider what we say (as any of us could be falsely accused of a crime & be skewered in the court of public opinion) & refrain from judgement 'til after he's either offered a deal & pleads guilty, or has had his day in court.
my guess is it'll be the first, because judging by the internet lynch mob on these threads, there's no way he'll be able to get a fair trial in this area.

Conjecture/hypothesis..six of one, yadda yadda. Correlation does not imply cause? I'd find it hard to believe a video tape of the guy being 'circumstantial evidence'. If his computer is seized and found to contain child pornography, and he's on tape choking the chicken to child pornography, 2+2 is going to equal 4.

If we should refrain from judgment, dear fellow poster, then news shouldn't be published until after the 'fact'. The forum is specifically for conjecture/conversation/debate , otherwise, it wouldn't exist.

The MA Police Department has video tape of the man. It's pretty hard evidence to refute, unless the quality is poor and the lawyer comes up with something creative, like 'that wasn't my client's (word for the appendage he was using while watching videos), and I implore the prosecution to prove otherwise'.

Perhaps a Freedom of Information Act request for policies and procedures at said Police Department would help clarify some of the situation; if it's required of officers that they sign in to the evidence room, or that there are specific officers only that are allowed in that room, that would help to affirm or debunk who the person responsible for viewing the materials and enjoying themselves is/was.

Given that there is a 'code of brotherhood' in many police departments, the nature of this particular crime is such that I can't imagine an officer being falsely accused of it, or it being covered up. That doesn't mean that it's not a possibility, but there is a line of logic here that simply needs to be followed.

What isn't answered is how the video came to be part of the packet of information being sent out. Maybe a trip to Western MA is in order, to attend the hearing. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Looks like court is approaching for this 'gentleman', and it also looks like this article:

http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp...

provides more info, specifically regarding my questions around who had access to the room, if he was identifiable on the video tape, etc.

Hard to squirm your way out of that tight a spot...

and another interesting take on it:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/04/massachu...