black_squirrel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 990
I imagine the family would have never wanted to provoke a person who seemed to be uncomfortable in social situations by asking them to leave. I imagine family was just happy to have everyone together and would not want to make waves. Everyone and every family has a breaking point. I'm sorry if this seems off topic...I'm truly just brainstorming.
I must say I find it peculiar that a poi has so many female friends willing to assume the child *advertiser censored* charges are completely false and take the poi's word as true. I mean no disrespect. It is true that there are innocent people who are falsely accused. I just think of myself in that situation and imagine I would...at least for a while....take a step back and just observe. Doesn't mean I would automatically jump to guilty. Just means I would want to allow myself time to breathe and process everything. I myself have been so sure of MY reality before....only to realize it was just wishful thinking.
Usually in child *advertiser censored* cases, there are thousands of pornographic pictures of pre-adolescent children found on the defendants computer. In those cases, there is no doubt about guilt. It is impossible to accidentally accumulate that many pictures of this nature. In JT's case, there are only 7 photographs that possibly involve minors that were found on his wife's computer (that several people have used). Based on this information, there is no case at all. There could be many explanations for the images:
1. someone else downloaded them
2. JT accidentally clicked on a wrong link and the images entered the cache of his browser
3. the images don't involve young looking adults, no minors
From what I have seen so far, it does not seem to me that JT is a pedophile. In a way he is the opposite, because when his daughter was hosting a sleepover with classmates, he wanted to get out of the house to hunt - the opposite of what a pedophile would do. Also, a pedophile would not be caught with just 7 questionable pictures.
So, usually in child *advertiser censored* cases there is no doubt at all. In this case, there is a reasonable doubt. In fact, based on what we know so far, he seems to be innocent. However, the prosecution has not revealed all that they have yet, so everything can change.