My daughter's pediatrician got busted for kiddie porn

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Lucky

On March 13, detectives reportedly found the computer-generated images at Moore?s East State Street office.

note the bolded words.

Also note "?There is nothing alleging any of his patients or local children were part of this,? said Rockford Deputy Police Chief Dominic Iasparro. "

"Iasparro also would not elaborate on why Moore?s arrest came six months after the discovery of the photographs. "

Just because a reporter says "computer generated" does not nessesarily mean "computer generated" the person writing the article could mean JPG images = computer generated imaging, not true photographs of children or digitally taken pictures of kids.

Before you morons sit here and protect this sicko, know the actual facts to the case and quit speculating.

This guy is a freaking sicko for having ANY form of images in any respect on ANY computer. Much less a computer that is in a pediatric office and around kids day to day.

I think you speculated far, far more in that post than my post which you were responding to.

Nah I just put two and two together. All the information is there infront of you. People just don't read it fully and digest it. I really didn't say anything speculative other than who it could have been who ratted him out. But the article tells you 1. It was a citizen 2. it was 6 months ago 3. they have been investigating this since january 4. charges were filed.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
...They were still on his computer. It's obvious a patient or collegue is the one who complained. He's also not defended his these "allegations".

Where do you get that information from? I didn't see it anywhere in the article.

"The 10 counts against Dr. Burton E. Moore, 57, a practicing physician at all three area hospitals, stem from a citizen complaint and a subsequent Rockford Police Department investigation that began in January."

Now using LOGICAL thinking, who else would be able to see the images on his PC. It is probably either

A. A patient
B. A Colleague

Otherwise it could have been a friend who he told that complained to police or something else. Also noticing that the pictures were found 6 months ago and he was not initially arrested (it began in January) leads one to believe they found something else out or had other complaints. They could have also been watching his Internet usage or things along those lines.

And we could also have an overzelous prosecutor or police officer dealing with anime images. You don't know the details and you are convicting the man. You are the idiot you are calling everyone else.

 

[MikeO]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
...They were still on his computer. It's obvious a patient or collegue is the one who complained. He's also not defended his these "allegations".

Where do you get that information from? I didn't see it anywhere in the article.

"The 10 counts against Dr. Burton E. Moore, 57, a practicing physician at all three area hospitals, stem from a citizen complaint and a subsequent Rockford Police Department investigation that began in January."

Now using LOGICAL thinking, who else would be able to see the images on his PC. It is probably either

A. A patient
B. A Colleague

Otherwise it could have been a friend who he told that complained to police or something else. Also noticing that the pictures were found 6 months ago and he was not initially arrested (it began in January) leads one to believe they found something else out or had other complaints. They could have also been watching his Internet usage or things along those lines.

And you were the one who told people to quit speculating?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Lucky

On March 13, detectives reportedly found the computer-generated images at Moore?s East State Street office.

note the bolded words.

Also note "?There is nothing alleging any of his patients or local children were part of this,? said Rockford Deputy Police Chief Dominic Iasparro. "

"Iasparro also would not elaborate on why Moore?s arrest came six months after the discovery of the photographs. "

Just because a reporter says "computer generated" does not nessesarily mean "computer generated" the person writing the article could mean JPG images = computer generated imaging, not true photographs of children or digitally taken pictures of kids.

Before you morons sit here and protect this sicko, know the actual facts to the case and quit speculating.

This guy is a freaking sicko for having ANY form of images in any respect on ANY computer. Much less a computer that is in a pediatric office and around kids day to day.

I think you speculated far, far more in that post than my post which you were responding to.

Nah I just put two and two together. All the information is there infront of you. People just don't read it fully and digest it. I really didn't say anything speculative other than who it could have been who ratted him out. But the article tells you 1. It was a citizen 2. it was 6 months ago 3. they have been investigating this since january 4. charges were filed.

Must have flew over your head.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: LikeLinusHe's also not defended his these "allegations".

I'm still trying to find where it says 'He's also not defended his these "allegations"'

 

[Kadarin]

Based on the information in the article, I don't think it's safe to assume whether or not the images were truly computer generated. Reporters in these situations are notoriously innacurate, known for getting details wrong. So here's some random thoughts:

Whatever the images were, it appears that they clearly should not have been there. If the story is true and he is the one responsible for those images' presence on his computer, then at the very least he is guilty of acting in an unprofessional manner.

Real or not, the images do call into question his motives for working with children. (Note that I'm not saying he's necessarily guilty of or would ever actually harm a child in any way, as I have no way at this time of knowing that.)

It is very likely that there are details to this story of which we are unaware. Therefore, any speculation should be taken with a grain or two of salt.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: Dezign
:Q:|

She said she was 17.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Lucky

On March 13, detectives reportedly found the computer-generated images at Moore?s East State Street office.

note the bolded words.

child porn cartoons? While they are not right and he should be considered a sick fvck. How is it illegal?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: Dezign
:Q:|

She said she was 17.

LOL

 

[amnesiac]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Lucky

On March 13, detectives reportedly found the computer-generated images at Moore?s East State Street office.

note the bolded words.

child porn cartoons? While they are not right and he should be considered a sick fvck. How is it illegal?

We still don't know the whole story. When/if he pleads guilty do downloading the images himself then we can call him a sick pedo fvck. Otherwise for all we know he could have been set up by a disgruntled former employee or something. It would suck for this guy to have his life and career ruined if he's actually innocent.

 

[00Jones]

Originally posted by: optoman
:Q

 

[Lager]

Chop his balls off and serve it on Fear Factor.

 

[codeyf]

Find a new doc would be the only course of action.

As far as the doc goes, he shouldn't be busted for having computer generated "kiddie" pr0n on his machine. How do you prove the age of the cartoon characters?

Disturbing? Yes. Against the law? No way. Just plain stupid? Definitely.

 

[Sundog]

:Q :frown: :disgust:

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Lucky

On March 13, detectives reportedly found the computer-generated images at Moore?s East State Street office.

note the bolded words.

child porn cartoons? While they are not right and he should be considered a sick fvck. How is it illegal?

IIRC, virtual kiddie porn was made illegal at one time by the CDA (which was later overturned). Maybe someone can confirm this.

Anyway, there's no way to know what he's actually accused of having. As others have pointed out, reporters by and large are fvcking stupid, and could easily have gotten the terminology totally wrong in the story.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: amnesiac
It would suck for this guy to have his life and career ruined if he's actually innocent.

Too late.

 

[BatmanNate]

That's effed up man, sorry to hear it.

 

[Aquaman]

Originally posted by: optoman
:Q

 

[DrPizza]

Referring to Dezign's recent thread about a 20 year old male sleeping with a 14 year old female... quite a few people in that thread (who are posting in this thread) were saying, pretty much, to mind your own business and get over it, stop over-reacting, and that they were both consenting.


What's worse: a 20 year old sleeping with a 14 year old,
or, a 20 year old looking at/taking pictures of two 14 year olds sleeping together? (and, to complicate this question, both 14 year olds looked older and lied about their age)

Hmmm?

 

[Blieb]

man, that sucks bro ...

I know if it were my kid I'd be so pissed ... but if someone was with them, and he conducted himself professionally, you can only assume that he is a professional within the confines of that room.

Thankfully nothing bad happened to your youngin