Reply #219: Just some ideas....

[droidamus2]

As others have noted, if the police/prosecutors had evidence that Bernie Ward was involved in large scale ongoing receiving and distribution of child pornography he would have been jailed 4 years ago.
As I understand grand juries a new one is seated each year and when a case is presented to them it is all the prosecutors show. By that I mean only the prosecutors case is presented no defense is allowed. So is it possible that in those 4 years this case was presented to 4 different grand juries and only this one chose to indict? Why is the case only being brought now? Does a District Attorney have to present a case to a grand jury to be able to indict and try a person or can the DA decide that the evidence is strong enough they can go directly to the court? Is the grand jury used as sort of a test case in those cases where the evidence may be questionable? By that I mean, if I'm the prosecutor and I think I have a case but the evidence isn't absolutely conclusive in my mind I can run it by the grand jury and see if I can convince them with the idea that if I can convince the grand jury with my evidence I will probably have a good chance of convincing a trial jury?

I don't know if Bernie is guilty or innocent. I presume he is innocent. I think the idea that he could have been investigating how the whole process worked for a book plausible. He should probably have checked how the laws were written prior to undertaking the research. Should he have run what he wanted to do passed the police before he did it? Probably would have been a good idea. So he may have made a mistake that falls within the 'letter of the law' as illegal but in the totality of the situation was he really involved in 'criminal activity'. Let's take another scenario, I want to do a book on drug dealing and use in America. To do my research I start hanging out with people involved in the illegal drug business. During my research I am present when drug deals are done, maybe even in a vehicle that is transporting drugs. Though I am not 'selling' or 'transporting' drugs myself would I still be held guilty if the vehicle is stopped? Could I be considered part of an 'ongoing conspiracy to distribute drugs'. I would definitely have knowledge of crimes being committed but if I narc on my research subjects then I can no longer get the kind of in-depth, first hand information I am seeking.

Another question, what good is the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' if it only applies 'in the court'? If we condemn and figuratively 'lynch' an accused person in the public square thus destroying the persons reputation when we do not know the totality of the charges or evidence then what good does it do to be found 'not guilty '? How many times have you heard in a particular case where somebody was found not guilty that "Oh everybody knows/knew he/she was guilty they just go off on a technicality or the jury was just stupid"?