Is anyone else wondering what "incestuous" means in this instance? It could mean Josh and the kids, or it could mean Josh and other family members. My mind is going in strange directions here.
I just hope the family doesn't blame the internet, LE, or the media for this latest news. No one made JP do any of these acts, and each one seems worse than the next.
The newsman said "incestuous images". If the images weren't actual pictures, how would they know it was "incestuous"? The images must have looked very much like the family members.
The news keeps replaying Alina's insane statement that JP was distraught over internet harrassment and such, and how he couldn't take it anymore. Please! If he had killed only himself, sure, he could have been depressed, upset over not having his kids, fearing he was close to being arrested for Susan's disappearance, or his involvement in his father's
case, okay, we could say he couldn't take it. But he murdered his children, brutally and maliciously, even telling them he had a
big surprise for them. Evil is the only answer.
There was much more going on than internet harrassment, these images prove it.
Totally agree. I can't begin to understand why CPS would sign off on home visits with j.
The potential that those images were a legal loophole is nauseatingly disturbing. Another thing- The police do not describe the images as
. What specifically caused LE to firmly describe them as incestuous? Were they named or shockingly obvious images?
Apparently there is a whole
genre which has to do with parents and their kids, or siblings, etc., in incestual situations, but all depicted are adults. The captions or titles or "quotes" of the people depicted indicate they are related. Man, this is one sick, sick family. I think this is a family that violently hated women, except maybe if it was a daughter or sister. I think of the noose found in the house, the alienation of the children against their moms, for generations, the paper mache body with a knife going through it, the sick glee on both the coward and his father's face when they discussed poor Susan wanting a "relationship" with her father-in-law, etc. Evil, sick people. My gosh.
There was a law in the 90's that was basically rendered useless by a federal decision, I think an 11th circuit decision, but then a new federal law, the same one that gave us the federal Amber Alert bill, recriminalized computer generated or cartoon depictions of child
.
But federal law only covers those acts which involve interstate commerce, in this context. So unless the depictions are mailed, sent via e-mail, etc., federal law does not kick in. And if the images involve adults play-acting incest, the feds would have no reason to get involved.
So, while simulated kiddie
is illegal and would involve the feds, I don't know what individual states have to say about such
and unless it is very graphic, the feds may not step in to research and determine whether it was generated by the person having it, or received or sent by such person (which would be a federal offense). The feds have much more live child
to concentrate on and I think their resources are limited.
I'm guessing these were simulated depictions of adult incest. I do not think the boys were sexually abused by their father but I do think he was one sick puppy and all of that pointed to such a disordered mind that he was a deep risk to Susan's sons.
lease: IMO, JMO, etc.
