Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
*advertiser censored* =/ Child *advertiser censored*
So even if there is *advertiser censored* on TA's computer and even if TA actually downloaded it himself, which has not been shown, let alone proven, it still isn't CHILD *advertiser censored* unless or until someone sees it, verifies it and determines that yes, it does exist and yes, it is child *advertiser censored* and yes, it was downloaded on Such&SuchADate when TA was alive and JA was not on his computer nor was anyone else (which they probably can't prove anyway). They have yet to tie TA to anything the defense alleges, but they're sure spending a lot of time trying to confuse the judge and everyone else.
And it's the "child" *advertiser censored* issue the defense is pushing, which does not appear to exist at all, in any form, connected with TA.
That is the salient issue which keeps getting subverted into other things.
So even if there is *advertiser censored* on TA's computer and even if TA actually downloaded it himself, which has not been shown, let alone proven, it still isn't CHILD *advertiser censored* unless or until someone sees it, verifies it and determines that yes, it does exist and yes, it is child *advertiser censored* and yes, it was downloaded on Such&SuchADate when TA was alive and JA was not on his computer nor was anyone else (which they probably can't prove anyway). They have yet to tie TA to anything the defense alleges, but they're sure spending a lot of time trying to confuse the judge and everyone else.
And it's the "child" *advertiser censored* issue the defense is pushing, which does not appear to exist at all, in any form, connected with TA.
That is the salient issue which keeps getting subverted into other things.