From the New Hampshire Union Leader :
A mother and daughter taking care of a neighbor’s pet ended up finding disturbing images in a man’s apartment instead of the cat toy they were looking for, according to court reports.
Disturbing images? Disturbing to a mother and her 5-year-old daughter? That could mean anything from Playboy to snuff pictures.
After an investigation by Littleton police, Richard Swift, 71, of 507 Colonial Court was charged with five felony counts of possession of child pornography.
[...]
The five complaints on file at Littleton District Court graphically describe images of a girl who appears to be younger than 16.
Richard Swift, 71, was out on $10,000 personal recognizance under the conditions that he not have contact with children younger than 17 or go within 50 yards of any school or day care center, or use the Internet to view, download or transmit child pornography. He is now reported dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
A follow up story reports the following:
“These pictures ranged in nature of young girls posing in clothed in provocative ways from a Web site …,” Officer Chris Cote wrote in court papers. “I would estimate these girls to be in the range of 6 to 11 years old.”
There were other images of girls over the age of 18, as well, investigators reported.
Police seized the photographs, as well as two computers, video tapes and “some type of nudist brochure,” which depicted nude children.
Nice work, cops. None of the above describes illegal material and, just for the record, you can buy nudist style photography books that show nude children in many mainstream bookstores including amazon.com. How can that be, you ask? Because the word nude is not interchangeable with the word porn and anyone who doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to distinguish between between the two shouldn’t be employed in the justice system.
For the record, the possession of child porn is not evidence that someone has ever abused a child. That fact is usually overlooked by the public in their haste to grab their pitchfork and noose and join the rest of the torch wielding mob, drooling at the prospect of stringing someone up (quick, before any facts emerge that might diminish their justification). If you think my characterization of the public is too harsh, you only need to read these comments to see how wiling people are to condemn a fellow citizen to death on a mere accusation.
I’d be willing to bet the “child porn” they confiscated will never see the light of day because if it doesn’t actually constitute the legal definition of child porn, they could be sued for false arrest. The justice system is exceptionally adept at covering up its misconduct.