Well, of course not but...
So, I was looking for info on whether child




is, or was, even available on the internet via a web search using the claimed terms of "teen" and "tween" or even "child




". I found a law enforcement article from 2006 that indicated even back then child




sites were basically shut down as soon as they were created.
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/print/
So, I would argue that even if TA searched for "teen" "tween" or whatever, there would have been no child




found as a result. If there was an interest in the subject, what would have been found on his computer would be evidence of belonging to a newsgroup, chat room etc devoted to sharing images. Even if he deleted files they would be found since they all searched for deleted and hidden files and files with innocuous names that could hide other things. Both experts in the first trial testified to that. And since there were no images it is, IMO, basically impossible that TA was interested in any way in child




.
Not that I believe even JSS would allow Nurmi to present testimony about child




on TA's computer to the jury. But if it does happen I hope Juan is prepared to attack the claims on the merits as I find what they are proposing is absurd. Add to that the fact that Nurmi has never even presented any evidence that anything on TA's computer actually led to any actual child




. I am hoping that JSS took note of that.