Former Member bill barton

[Utevsky]

I did not issue an "apology" for Bill. I just pointed out that addicts are sick people and that we don't know what Bill actually did. That doesn't mean I'm defending him. These allegations trouble me as much as they do anyone. But they are still just allegations.

Earlier in the thread, we talked about how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously a lot of people don't believe in that principle, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system.

[Hot Ptah]

I did not issue an "apology" for Bill. I just pointed out that addicts are sick people and that we don't know what Bill actually did. That doesn't mean I'm defending him. These allegations trouble me as much as they do anyone. But they are still just allegations.

Earlier in the thread, we talked about how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously a lot of people don't believe in that principle, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system.

I believe in that principle. I think there's a difference between stating that principle and what has been posted in this thread.

[jazzbo]

Well, we now know that our Bill Barton is that Bill Barton. My best wishes for justice for all involved. May whatever good can come from this investigation and prosecution come, and quickly.

[king ubu]

My point is merely: I don't want to read any statements any more that addiction is addiction is addiction.

It's simply not true. It's just not the same to be addicted to brandy, heroin, jazz or child pornography. No matter if you produce your own or not, those that come out of it alive will be marked for live, and no one has any right to do that. No one.

This is not saying Bill is guilty. It's the comparisons in this thread that bother me.

[Christiern]

I just came across this thread and it has left me speechless. I am not sure that I ever interacted with Bill here, but I think I did and he was one of the members who knowledge impressed me. No other thread has disturbed me as much as this one does. I don't know what else to say, so I won't goon.

[Niko]

"Earlier in the thread, we talked about how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously a lot of people don't believe in that principle, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system."

i do believe in that principle, it keeps innocent people out of jail etc... but i'm not your legal system and i guess the same is true of you; additionally, we know by now that "our" bill barton was involved in child porn and that "blackbart2010" uploaded to the "dreamboard" at least twice material that was compliant with that board's fierce rules (see the indictement if you haven't)... to me that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that bill is not innocent (and, yes, "proves" doesn't mean that a jury says he's guilty, that he's a monster or whatever); i know far too little to say how guilty he is, which punishment would be "fair" etc - but it's plainly absurd to tell me i should assume bill is innocent!

[AllenLowe]

this is one long thread; he may be out by the time we finish.

[JSngry]

Out of Angola?

In a box, maybe...

[alocispepraluger102]

"Earlier in the thread, we talked about how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously a lot of people don't believe in that principle, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system."

i do believe in that principle, it keeps innocent people out of jail etc... but i'm not your legal system and i guess the same is true of you; additionally, we know by now that "our" bill barton was involved in child porn and that "blackbart2010" uploaded to the "dreamboard" at least twice material that was compliant with that board's fierce rules (see the indictement if you haven't)... to me that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that bill is not innocent (and, yes, "proves" doesn't mean that a jury says he's guilty, that he's a monster or whatever); i know far too little to say how guilty he is, which punishment would be "fair" etc - but it's plainly absurd to tell me i should assume bill is innocent!

there is the unlikely, but completely plausible possibility, that another individual might have used bill's computer.

i don't personally feel that to be the case here, but we should consider it.

[Niko]

yeah, someone may have abused bill's admitted "child porn addiction", uploading stuff from his computer to become a member of the "dreamboard"... wtf

Edited September 6, 2011 by Niko

[Leeway]

QUOTE: Possessing, viewing and trading child pornography are unsavory obsessions, but they are in an entirely different realm than producing it."

I take issue with that statement. The reason that all interactions with child porn are prosecuted is because the demand for the material drives the victimization of children. Even if the individual "only" uploaded child porn, the material was produced to satisfy that individual and like individuals. In the present case, the child porn upload/trade/distribute activities were significant; that means children were being cruelly victimized to produce this poison.

[John Tapscott]

"Earlier in the thread, we talked about how a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously a lot of people don't believe in that principle, but it's a cornerstone of our legal system."

i do believe in that principle, it keeps innocent people out of jail etc... but i'm not your legal system and i guess the same is true of you; additionally, we know by now that "our" bill barton was involved in child porn and that "blackbart2010" uploaded to the "dreamboard" at least twice material that was compliant with that board's fierce rules (see the indictement if you haven't)... to me that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that bill is not innocent (and, yes, "proves" doesn't mean that a jury says he's guilty, that he's a monster or whatever); i know far too little to say how guilty he is, which punishment would be "fair" etc - but it's plainly absurd to tell me i should assume bill is innocent!

there is the unlikely, but completely plausible possibility, that another individual might have used bill's computer.

i don't personally feel that to be the case here, but we should consider it.

A plausible possiblilty? Sounds pretty far-fetched. Not one of us here knows all the details and I know you have to consider all the evidence in total, but to me, that sounds like the kind of last ditch argument that a defense lawyer would throw out hoping to raise just a bit of doubt in jurors' minds.

Edited September 6, 2011 by John Tapscott

[thedwork]

as much as i understand why this thread is here, i want to voice my opinion that i am uncomfortable with its existence on the board. yes, there are interesting and important issues being discussed here and people are making measured, and respectful arguments. but there is now a 6 page thread on our board which is essentially about child pornography. it doesn't seem right that it's here. i know i'm not the most prolific nor the most respected/popular member here, but i'd just like to say out loud that i think this thread should be removed. and i, of course, understand why many here will feel it should be left open.

Edited September 6, 2011 by thedwork

[Chuck Nessa]

As someone attending the birth of a grandchild in the last week, I think this thread should not be stopped.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Chuck Nessa

[TedR]

Wading through this thread has been depressing and nauseating. But Chuck's post gave me an uplift. Congratulations Chuck. What a great time of life this will be for you and your wife. And blessings to your grandchild.

[Chuck Nessa]

Thanks. I have mixed feeling of euphoria and depression. The good stuff seems to be winning.

[Utevsky]

Indeed, congratulations, Chuck! Grandparenthood must be wonderful.

And Thedwork, if the thread bothers you, I suggest that you not read it. There's no reason why others should censor themselves because of your sensitivity to the topic.

[Jazzmoose]

Possessing, viewing and trading child pornography are unsavory obsessions, but they are in an entirely different realm than producing it.

I suppose you'd separate actually committing the act and merely holding the camera as well...

And yeah, I would have much more sympathy for someone hooked on drugs than someone who rapes babies, or even just enjoys watching others do so. I guess I'm funny that way.

Edited September 7, 2011 by Jazzmoose

[Jazzmoose]

Sorry guys; I guess I've left "stunned" and entered "anger". I understand standing by a friend and keeping an open mind, but when people start making excuses for stuff like this, my blood boils.

[alocispepraluger102]

as much as i understand why this thread is here, i want to voice my opinion that i am uncomfortable with its existence on the board. yes, there are interesting and important issues being discussed here and people are making measured, and respectful arguments. but there is now a 6 page thread on our board which is essentially about child pornography. it doesn't seem right that it's here. i know i'm not the most prolific nor the most respected/popular member here, but i'd just like to say out loud that i think this thread should be removed. and i, of course, understand why many here will feel it should be left open.

in fairness to our board members, i started this thread wondering if anyone had heard from bill barton, wondering if he was ok.

had i known where it would have led us, i would not have begun it.

[Chuck Nessa]

Bill was a "business/music" friend for many years. I am truly sorry he has this problem. I don't think I can "forgive". Bad for Bill, worse for others.

[Tom Storer]

These allegations trouble me as much as they do anyone. But they are still just allegations.

David, you posted the Facebook message in post #177. Bill requested a friend post on his Facebook account that he had fallen back into a child pornography addiction and subsequently been arrested for trafficking it. Don't you read that as Bill admitting guilt? Surely if it were not, he would have asked his friend not to post that, but an indignant refutation. No?

[Tom Storer]

I understood from the indictment that those uploading files had produced new material, and that this was required, in order to stay in that particular online community.

No, the board's rules as described were that members had to regularly upload "new" material, in the sense of material that had not yet been uploaded to the board. Those who produced their own were given greater access to this vile stuff.

He had to know that he was not participating in a victimless community, at the very least. Innocent small children were having their lives ruined, as part of the online community he volunteered to be part of. He had to know that.

This, alas, is right, as is Leeway's post #212.

[Dave James]

As addictions go, it doesn't get any worse than this. Call it a sickness if you will, but that's just a cop out. Many addictions only directly effect those who are addicted, some effect immediate family members, some, the victims of the crimes that are committed in their behalf, but this...this one preys on those who are least able to defend themselves and in a way that will almost certainly leave them scarred and dysfunctional for the balance of their lives. Sorry, but there's no sympathy here. Nothing I can imagine is any more disgusting, heinous or incomprehensible. Nothing.

[Niko]

on another eminent jazz discussion board, bill's name was changed the day we found out here and that's it (more accurately, he's still named bill but there's no barton anymore) - i very appreciate that you give us a place to come, jim, wouldn't want to be alone with this...