Hi /g/ I need some fact-checking from some people experienced

File: Scan 2.jpg (2MB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2480x3508px

>>59992183
Sorry files are huge
2/3

File: Scan 3.jpg (2MB, 2480x3508px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2480x3508px

>>59992197
3/3
What do you think, guys?

Only half way through, but the jury not understanding the caching thing is nothing new, if you read Ghost in the Wires by Kevin Mitnick he gives dozens of examples of being wrongly convicted because the jury is fucking retarded about technology and won't even bother to learn when it concerns a person's sentencing.

>>59992358
That was one of the things I was thinking, feel free to elaborate once you've read the rest

I'm going to assume this happened in burger land. The amount of people falsely convicted of child porn, not to mention the people framed for it, is depressing and something that I fear will one day happen to me. The "jury of old women" is another issue, people are supposed to be judged by a jury of their peers but I don't think people remember what that means any more. I'm going to guess that jury, like all old women, have a blind trust in their police force, never mind them contradicting themselves in court, if they said once upon a time that the man has looked up child porn, then he must've and there's no debate to be had.

This is of course only having read his wife's side of the argument, she could've easily lied about the court proceedings to gather support from her neighbors in an attempt push back against the media. I really doubt that though, every couple of weeks we hear stories like this, whether it's child porn or some poor security researcher getting swatted for daring to use a port scanner. The days of having a consistently informed jury are a long ways off for us

>>59992183
Sounds like your friend was googling for cp and looked at at least a couple pages.

You shouldn't abuse your neighbors though.

>>59992474
>>59992358
both me btw

>>59992183
Your image crashed my craptop, so fuck you.

>>59992474
Britain i'm afraid

Can anyone verify the truth of the part with the thumbnail caches etc?

>>59992650
Makes sense now. Thumbnails in cache has law protecting people from prosecution in New York, and anyone else in the US would have his lawyer use that in his defense.

The UK seems like a giant turd when it comes to anything sex related.

Hopefully the UK has some sort of appeal system. Kevin dindu nufffing.
>>59992717
Well, water sports are illegal over there...

>>59992224
I think that you need to move to another country before they send you off into a forced labor camp. You should expect to see a lot more stuff like this happening in Britain.

The last part of the letter (that i haven't put up cause it's non-pertinent)says he will be appealing for miscarriage of justice

>>59992183
can anyone link a press article of this?

>>59992183
Assuming what is actually written is factual, this is all real stuff.

Juries tend to be brain dead about technology and oftentimes police forces are as well.

In the US, you need to prove actual possession of the images in question for conviction and thumbnails would not suffice as proof as possession. I don't know what UK law would entail, but I would hope it is equally rigorous.

Regardless, the evidence mentioned in the letter is not nearly enough for any reasonable jury to convict assuming the jurors actually know anything at all.

While, once again, I do not know much about UK law, in the US this would probably be grounds for a mistrial I think.

>>59992650
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39328853

your fucked
move country

>>59992224
>not proven

so, scotland then

>>59992183
gotcha

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/news/local/defence-tells-court-indecent-images-charges-not-proven/

suddenly antifa doesn't seem so bad, huh?

>UK
>Pedo
You should tell the wannabe yank to kill herself and her paedo husband.