Printable View
Dale was arrested in 2005 for possession of hundreds of images of kiddie pron and was just sentenced last month. He got 210 months without parole, lifetime supervision, registration as a sex offender, stay away from places where children are present and banned from the use of computers or the internet for the rest of his life.
Wow.
http://149.101.1.32/usao/txs/release...108Beckham.htm
I cant beleive the Canadians only made him serve time spent :eek:
Regards,
Lee
I think they did that with the intention of deporting him into the hands of the US authorities who were lying in wait. I did that occasionally as a state prosecutor in Iowa; reduce the charges and release the defendant to the federal authorities. Then the state/county no longer had to take care of him but he was still locked up. Canada probably did not want him in their prisons taking up space~Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Crazy stuff !!!
I agree. Why should Canada pay the cost of incarcerating him when the U.S. would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Michael
I agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Very intense and jaw dropping
Im glad that everyone i spoke to decided to all the content he sold them to the day we learnt of his initial arrest.
Given some of the stuff found on his computer a lot of us could have been in for a world of hurt.
Regards,
Lee
Right he was a BIG eye opener for a lot of us, and the reason some of us are so diligent on really knowing who we're dealing with now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
"officials found nearly 1400 images of child pornography on his computers including pictures of adults engaged in sexual activity with children younger than 12 years of age." and this is the guy who seemed so nice and normal. He had talked about coming out to Australia before all this, chilling to the core.
I didn't really know him except for chatting on the board and the one time we met in San Diego at the webmaster party. I was shocked when this first happened because he seemed so nice. But what is that line from Into The Woods? "Nice is different than good." It's really disturbing to think all this was going on the whole time.
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonMike
I only chatted via ICQ and on the phone a couple times. But the ICQ's were often as he was looking to move overseas to get content and was getting a feel for Australia etc. etc. :rat:
At the end of the day you just never really know who anyone is do you?
He always gave me the creeps... made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
I'm glad to see that he won't be a problem for society for quite some time.
Good Gravy.
Yeah, I had no idea.. I remember being the first one to defend him saying that we didnt' know what happened and that maybe he didn't know how old the kid was and blah blah blah.
I'm just feeling like I need a shower now.
Would that be a shower IN the fratpad, with the residents? If so, show time please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasun
shit.. you missed it, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by tombarr
I am sometimes a Polly Anna believing that a prosecutor usually will not file a baseless charge, and my own experience with federal prosecutors was that they only filed indictments when they had a rock solid case. There are notable exceptions, especially in our industry because pornographers are not considered upstanding moral citizens and some holier-than-thou prosecutors just want to "get" pornographers. However, in this case the evidence was overwhelming. Many that knew him believed the charges because of his attraction to very young guys and, in his own words, "super twinks" (not to be confused with Super Twink, which is corny content).
Almost everyone who is accused of a crime will have supporters that say, "I know him! He is just not that kind of person! He would NEVER do that!" and those supporters, without any other basis to be supportive, are usually wrong.
The evidence was overwhelming. When I read the charging document it was obvious-- an innocent man does not have hundreds of explicit images of very young pre-pubescent children in their possession. It is possible to have a couple of those images on your computer without knowing it, but not hundreds. In the guilty plea, he admitted to the charge and laid the foundation for his guilty plea. He did not just say, "Yes, I am guilty". He had to explain WHY he was guilty, that he understood the nature of the charge, the nature of the plea agreement, that he had discussed the plea with his lawyer, knew what evidence would be used against him, that he understood the sentence that he was facing, and that he was giving up his right to a jury trial and rights to appeal. I would say he is guilty.