I believe there is evidence of *advertiser censored*. Weather it is child *advertiser censored* or not I really do not remember. I think what happened about the *advertiser censored* issue is the fact that so many people had access to the computer, it could not be determined who the *advertiser censored* really did belong to so the investigation just came to a standstill. The only way to prove where the images came from would be through a credit card account or email and if multiple people shared the computer at SA Mom's house, no telling who it was obtained through.
As for the flash drives and such. I remember a comment from LE during this case where they said every piece of digital imaging in SA possession had *advertiser censored* on it. Weather he put it there or not is the BIG question. They would have to be able to prove it belonged to him and I don't think they can at this point. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist tho...JMO
They also said his devices at BDs house had CP on it, and that was false, so I wouldn't put too much stock on what Toombs was alleged to have said.
Actually SA didn't have much in the way of digital storage devices at all. IIRC it was his phone, one or two DVDs, and that was it. With so little in his possession it is pretty clear that he likely didn't use a computer for much of anything, other than occasionally doing browsing/email/facebook/boards....that sort of thing. I think that any *advertiser censored* he watched was incidental, and it was not some sort of obsession in any shape or form. The amount of *advertiser censored* on his stuff is trivial compared to what was on the mother's home computer. Apparently SA did most of his computer time on the machine at the GM's house, not the one at the mothers house, and the GM's computer apparently had
one image on it. So I think it is safe to say that SA did not spend much time looking at *advertiser censored*. I know some of you will disagree with that, but there is zero evidence for a contrary view, and the fact that the guy did not even have his own computer pretty much rules out a *advertiser censored* obsession.
The computer at the mothers house had about 100k *advertiser censored* images on it. So who did all that belong to? None of it was CP however, the alleged CP was recovered later by the FBI from empty part of the hard drive. FYI, when a file is stored on a hard drive the data is filed in one area, and pointers to the data stored in another area. When the file is deleted, all the computer does is delete the pointer, not the actual file. Although you can't see it, the file is still there, until that part of the hard drive is used to store something else, at which time the old data will be overwritten.
Most likely they were able to find suspect images in these empty areas, but did not have any record of the pointers, which would have information about when it was downloaded etc. So it would be impossible to say who downloaded it.
But, the fact that there was 100k+ *advertiser censored* files on the computer that were not deleted (in other words, a collection) tells us that whoever did download it probably was not looking for CP, but rather regular *advertiser censored*. If they were downloading it from newsgroups or torrent feeds, chances are they would have accidently downloaded CP as well since they would not know exactly what they were downloading until the files were on their computer. The CP thus downloaded was apparently completely deleted since nothing remained in the otherwise large collection. Whoever created the collection was collecting *advertiser censored*, not CP.
Given the size of the *advertiser censored* collection it is almost certain that it belonged to someone living in the mothers house. It usually takes a fair amount of time to download files from torrent sources, so it would require someone to be using the computer on a daily basis when they could have extended periods of uninterrupted use.
As I understand it, there was a teenager living in the house, and IMO they would be the most likely candidate. Lots of time alone away from prying eyes while the adults are at work. If you have a teenager in the same house as a computer connected to the internet, there is a 99.9% probability that the computer is going to be used to view *advertiser censored* or other dubious material. That is just how it is.
And if he had no history of the striking part, a person with BDs personality would not be too worried about him hand waving.
You're right about teenagers and *advertiser censored*. Both sexes. Even if they're just mildly curious, they'll get some weird stuff -- and probably be overcharged for it, too. Which doesn't prove that any particular teenager downloaded anything, of course. 
