Another Assistant State Attorney, Pete Magrino, made the following quote:
“There was no evidence found by law enforcement that the computer was used in the manufacturing or production of child pornography, only that there were a limited number of items that were viewed,” Magrino said. “To expend additional law enforcement resources and prosecutor resources to make a case, when balancing societal goals. I mean, Mr. Lunsford’s been through enough.”
Mr Lunsford's been through enough? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Does he now have a free ticket to do as he likes because some sick bastard killed his daughter? Does the law not apply equally to him anymore?
Ultimately there's no way of knowing who was looking at those images. Given that his son has gone on to be found guilty of raping a child it may well have been him. Regardless, the case should have been investigated as it would have been for anyone else.
So, yes, there is an important correction. Mark Lunsford's computer was NOT found to have child pornography on it. It was found that someone using Mark Lunsford's computer had been viewing child pornography. Perhaps to most people the distinction is irrelevant but it still must be made.
2 comments:
That's not true. According to the Citrus County Chronicle, it stated that the CP pictures were found in the computer's recycling bin. You don't get files in your recycling bin by simply looking, you've had to download it. If you want the copy of the Citrus County Chronicle article which Lunsford had them taken down, I have a PDF copy of the article.
You should also check this out:
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/03/couey-trial.html
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2009/03/mark-lunsford-threatens-clark-county.html
You should check out the lasted at my Anti-AZU blog
Post a Comment