Topic: Arrested child molester and pornographer jailed, and allowed to watch CP all he wants.
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #9,068
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/weldon-marc-gilbert-child-porn-jail_n_897564.html
> Weldon Marc Gilbert, a Washington man who is on trial for raping young boys and for producing child pornography, will be allowed in jail to watch as much of that child pornography as he'd like, according to a report from KOMO-TV.
> Weldon Marc Gilbert, a Washington man who is on trial for raping young boys and for producing child pornography, will be allowed in jail to watch as much of that child pornography as he'd like, according to a report from KOMO-TV.
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later[^] [v] #160,470
What??
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,474
sucess
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,475
It it's evidence in his case, he can review it for purposes of his trial. It's like this for all such cases. This shit is misleading.
Let's get people unjustly angry and then try to make more "special" unconstitutional laws that target pedophiles.
So, if a pedophile or suspected pedophile is ever arrested, they can't view evidence to build up a case an possibly demonstrate that 1. This isn't Cp or 2. This isn't me in the CP or 3. One last good fap.
Let's get people unjustly angry and then try to make more "special" unconstitutional laws that target pedophiles.
So, if a pedophile or suspected pedophile is ever arrested, they can't view evidence to build up a case an possibly demonstrate that 1. This isn't Cp or 2. This isn't me in the CP or 3. One last good fap.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,477
@160,470 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
He is representing himself so he gets to see the evidence (CP in this case) to build a case for defense. Pretty hilarious.
He is representing himself so he gets to see the evidence (CP in this case) to build a case for defense. Pretty hilarious.
Voice of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,481
At least he's locked in jail fapping to that stuff rather than risking the exploitation of more children.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,483
@160,475 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
> Mark Lindquist, a prosecutor in Pierce County, told ABCNews.com. "We don't have to turn over the guns used as evidence for a defendant … and it's absurd that we have to turn over the child porn as evidence."
> Mark Lindquist, a prosecutor in Pierce County, told ABCNews.com. "We don't have to turn over the guns used as evidence for a defendant … and it's absurd that we have to turn over the child porn as evidence."
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,486
I do think it's pretty fucked up that he's allowed to question his victims in court (the children he is accused of raping). There should be some kind of mechanism in place to stop that from happening. This guy gives pedophiles a bad name. He is a rapist.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,487
No regrets
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,493
> his face whenNega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,505
@160,486 (E)
You don't allow them to give a testimony via a recorded message?
Cool 19th century guys.
You don't allow them to give a testimony via a recorded message?
Cool 19th century guys.
!JuMPb0dbaE replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,509
@160,483 (A)
It's different. They know its different. There isn't any reason to turn over a gun. For video evidence he has to review it to be able to address what's seen in the videos during his defense. It's not fair for the prosecution to have time to prepare and he doesn't.
Obviously, this guy is scum, but think about the three strikes rule. When you start to change laws because of extremes you end up hurting people who dont deserve it.
The damage has been done. His watching or not watching the CP isn't going to make much of a difference. This time next year his ass will be able to fit a watermelon with ease -- assuming he isn't killed.
He will get his.
It's different. They know its different. There isn't any reason to turn over a gun. For video evidence he has to review it to be able to address what's seen in the videos during his defense. It's not fair for the prosecution to have time to prepare and he doesn't.
Obviously, this guy is scum, but think about the three strikes rule. When you start to change laws because of extremes you end up hurting people who dont deserve it.
The damage has been done. His watching or not watching the CP isn't going to make much of a difference. This time next year his ass will be able to fit a watermelon with ease -- assuming he isn't killed.
He will get his.
!JuMPb0dbaE double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,512
@160,505 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
They have tried to do things like that or to out a meshscreen between the victim and the defendant, but it has caused judgements to be thrown out during appeals. It biases the jury against the defendant.
What they have had recent success with is having service animals in the juror box with the victims during testimony.
The defendants should really just plead guilty and save the kids further humiliation and harm.
If you are accused of raping a child and the child is going to testify, your guilty even if you didn't do it. So, it's really pointless. In this case, there is video evidence. seems absurd to fight it.
They have tried to do things like that or to out a meshscreen between the victim and the defendant, but it has caused judgements to be thrown out during appeals. It biases the jury against the defendant.
What they have had recent success with is having service animals in the juror box with the victims during testimony.
The defendants should really just plead guilty and save the kids further humiliation and harm.
If you are accused of raping a child and the child is going to testify, your guilty even if you didn't do it. So, it's really pointless. In this case, there is video evidence. seems absurd to fight it.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #160,515
It would be silly if he wasn't allowed to see it, as his own lawyer.