Reply #15: Since we know kiddie porn was present, it's not malicious prosecution.

[TexasObserver]

It's overzealous prosecution, at best.

The question is not whether a crime was committed, but who committed it, and more importantly, whether it can be proved.

The prosecutor pursued the party they thought was the perp. They concluded, rightly or wrongly, that Restronics was unlikely to be the guilty party because Restronics found and reported the KP. Of course, that may have been an erroneous premise. As you point out, someone at Restronics may have been using computers in their custody for saving KP. In that regard, I think your theory is a sound one. I agree with you. It's either the foreign student or someone at Restronics.

I don't think you'll have any luck getting a lawyer to represent the nephew in suit of malicious prosecution, unless it is on the basis not of contingency, but hourly fee. The lawyer is a technician, like the guy who fixes your car. He wants to get paid for his work. The CAUSE is secondary to getting paid.