Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
Thanks again to everybody who has responded already to my previous questions on this topic. Here is a new one. What should I do to counter an argument that the images depicted are not real children, but rather are some sort of digitally created, super-lifelike cartoon? Who is the person to testify that the kids are real? The pediatrician to whom I gave the evidence posed this question yesterday. Thanks, Johnny | ||
|
Member |
I thought the Supreme Court ruled that digitially created images and/or drawings are not considered child pornography. | |||
|
Member |
They may well have ruled that way. What I'm interested in is : 1. Do I need a witness to say: "The person in this pic is a child, not a digitally animated image;" 2. If so, who is this witness? Thanks, Johnny | |||
|
Member |
If that is a defense tactic in your case I do think you need an expert or two. I would suggest a computer forensic expert and a doctor. Have you run your pics through the NCMEC ? They have a database of "common" child porn where they have ID'ed the victims. Your best resource of experts is at the AG's office. They have two VERY experienced VERY talented cyber prosecutors and a host of forensic guys. Dallas and Houston have great forensic teams too. [This message was edited by Stacey L. Brownlee on 08-03-06 at .] | |||
|
Member |
quote: The AG's office has AWESOME prosecutors, forensic guys, and DON'T FORGET THE INVESTIGATORS! They are highly dedicated. Seriously, I've seen some great crosses of shrinks, scientists and other experts, but I'd never seen anything until I saw Angela Goodwin cross. Jeez, it should have been taped to show at seminars, it was that good. They are always willing to help as well. | |||
|
Member |
I tried to email a response, but the email would not go through. I did post one other consideration for you as a private topic. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© TDCAA, 2001. All Rights Reserved.