black_squirrel: I personally talked to KT after the initial incident. She went to a business (State Farm agency) very near her house and said she told them that she had to call 911. Now, did the lady at the office call 911 and merely passed on the information KT told her or did she give the phone to KT. I'm not sure but the press articles seem to indicate KT talked to the 911 dispatcher. I think all this is a moot point now.
It has been alleged that:
1. JT was homicidal, the day of his arrest.
2. JT threatened grandma Rose.
3. JT threatened people at the hospital.
If true, this would look incriminating in regard to Julia's homicide. However, these allegations seem to be untrue, or at least exaggerated.
1. As far as I know, nobody witnessed KT saying that JT was homicidal. The free press obtained the 911 tape and they don't mention anyone saying that JT was homicidal (I'm sure they would have reported it if someone did say that he was homicidal).
2. If JT threatened grandma Rose, why did she wait more than 2 years to ask for a PPO? I don't think she felt threatened at the time.
3. Early reports that JT allegedly threatened people in the hospital, has been disputed by a witness in court.
I'd like to know where everyone found any information about why JT was found "not guilty". From what I recall, the verdict had nothing to do with the child *advertiser censored* but the fact that the prosecution could not prove it was JT using the computer at the time these were saved.
I agree with Dazed here. Nobody knows what Jurors discussed, only that they didn't discuss for long. As far as I know, there was no evidence that the people in the images were minors, other than the images themselves, so jurors probably couldn't tell with any certainty if there was any child *advertiser censored* at all. They may not even have
discussed who put the images on the computer.
I wish everyone would understand that there was *advertiser censored* (child *advertiser censored* or not) on the computer that was in their house and was used by the young daughter quite a bit. Did she see it? Is it OK to have that on a computer that a young girl could possibly see?
I am not bothered by *advertiser censored* on the computer, as long as it is not child *advertiser censored*. Pornographic images are easy to obtain on the internet, so whether there are images on the hard-disk doesn't really change the accessibility to *advertiser censored*. I presume that if someone did save *advertiser censored* on the computer, that they took measures to cover it up. The fact that a forensic data analyst can find the images, doesn't mean that a young girl can.
It is difficult if not impossible to shield teenagers from *advertiser censored* because it is all over the internet. It is already difficult enough to shield them from being sexually active at an early age, and having unprotected sex. When KT was at the age that the youngest daughter is now, she was pregnant.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the real cold weather hits the area.
Snow is coming tomorrow!