It seems he was an owner-operator.

A Babysitter!

A pederast at the ripe old age of 21. He certainly breaks all of the stereotypes of annorak wearing sad old men that live with their mothers until they’re 50 (general profile of IT specialists and Accountants to I think).

And if he has only fronted a commital hearing why are they publishing his name?

Trial by media, as usual.

vp

wonder how jb will creatively kick the cops out of this report…

“how dare they look at his private computer”

Wow Downy, the friends of the AFP have said some abjectly moronic things here but that really takes the cake.

Well Done!

Downy is apt to be a bit Uppity…

I know this fella. His girlfriend is barely 16 and has a penchant for older men.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

hmm, interesting.

but a 21 year old dating a 16 year old isn’t *that* wrong IMHO.

Half your age plus seven. Thats the rule.

21/2 = 10.5

10.5 + 7 = 17.5

So a 21yr old should not have a gf under 17.5 years of age.

The rule works for most ages.

On average, a man’s partner is 4 years younger than him. It’s so predicable that in demographic models when a man dies, you predict that his widow will be his age at death minus 4.

We are a strange type of cattle.

I know him, he doesn’t have a 16 year old gf, he doesn’t have a gf. He is a very nice guy and this story does not show the whole picture, its very biased and makes you want to not like him when in fact many people, who know him well are standing by him. it was not 50 000 child porn pictures on his computer, it was 50 000 images in total, being made up of family holiday pics, other pics, ordinary porn and a very small amount of child porn(he probably didn’t even realise that it was, 17 year olds can look older). If you don’t know the fact don’t pretend you do and judge him.

Fair enough G.

How do you explain the “indecency in front of a 12-year-old boy” story though?

His girlfriend is barely 16 and has a penchant for older men.

What do you mean by that OCMC?!

The indecency in front of a 12 yr old boy is the messed up, drug-addicted family trying to get money out of Aaron by claiming he showed the boy pictures. However he didn’t, wouldn’t, and the boy probably found them himself when he was on Aaron’s computer. As he had access to it while Aaron baby-sat him.
Which explains the ‘nanny’ description.

You have no idea of what you are talking about.

The child porn was not a handful of 17 year olds but 50k of child porn images amongst >100k of porn. Aaron obviously didn’t show you all the toddler images.

And WTF is your comment about biased media concentrating on the child porn and not the holiday snaps. I guess you are a glass half full kind of guy.

“Trial by media” spin462002

I think you’ll find that it’s actually trial by trial.

I happen to know exactly what I am talking about. He does not and would not have pictures of toddlers, they were a couple of pics of 16-17year olds that he got on his computer as a virus while downloading music, my information comes from the horses mouth, I talked to him and he told me the whole story and I beleive him fully and would trust him with my daughter anytime(who happens to be a toddler). He is the victim of a f***ed up family who he did nothing to except help.

Might I suggest that we all wait and see what the court decides?

For it to be classified as child porn the images need to be clearly of someone under the age of 16, and since most experts put a 2-3 year cavent of their reports the i.e looks 14 but could be 2-3 years older. The photos need to be of really young looking people. Unlikely to be a few photos of 17 year old.

Child porn is actually classified as anything under 18. he is just a nice guy that is too trusting.

WTF are you on about TAD, do you even know him?!

He would not, and did not have 50k of Child Pornography, at least not intentionally. Trial by media, is the media telling half truths about things that they don’t understand. Like you, so maybe you should stop saying s**t. Toddler photos? What the hell?! There might have been some of HIM as a child or relatives, he wouldn’t intentionally have 50k of f***ing porngraphic toddler images. They’d only be there if it was the virus. Which is what he is saying it was, and I believe him completely!

Good going Arlyurl, sick of people who know nothing and like to put others down because of their own messed up insecurities

Without knowing anything about this case I do know that a huge benefit of the doubt is given when assessing this material, if for no other reason that a jury needs to be convinced, and not stimulated, by the evidence.

Now to Aaron’s friends, I understand you’re upset, but remember your friend is going to be going on trial, I suggest you consult with his lawyer before trying to mount a PR campaign that could backfire.

I’m sorry, has anyone else had a virus that downloads 50thousand pornography photos?
Never heard of it. And the boys in the IT Crime Lab which is very big in Canberra will be able to confirm that; so he might want to admit before not telling the truth, cause he may even get to spend some time in the new jail in canberra down the line.
Also, he works in the IT Industry if my sources are correct which means he would know how to fix viruses!!!

No matter if it was 50 000 photos or 1 photo, it is still illegal, it IS an illegal act. Being in the child industry he should have known better.

Lets also not forget that it’s not the photos in question but the indecency from last year that is being questioned. The photos are just forming some substantial evidence against him.

I’m more then sure that the courts are not pleased at all as he is being held in the watch house.

No matter what the decision by the courts is, he will never lead the life he was. He’ll never be allowed near children/young adults in working environments. He will be knocked back by organisations or jobs over police checks. Etc Etc

The incident in question has no substance to it what so ever. there was not 50 000 images of child pornography on his computer, it was exaggerated and it was 50 000 images in total

You’re missing the point again. There was some if not all child pornography in those 50 000 images in total.

That is ILLEGAL! And especially if he is into child minding!

Calm down madman, I believe you meant to say those things are alleged?

He looked after the kid as a favour, it was not his job, there were always other people at home with him as well. but that doesn’t matter cause its all going into court anyways. maybe if the parents could get off drugs they wouldn’t need to go after him for the fact that there kid needs help and wouldn’t be trying to get money from him, which they are. the pornographic material has only been classed as questionable.

NO!!!!
I’m saying it is illegal to have just 1 child pornographic photo. So who cares if they say otherwise as there is substantial evidence there is least enough to be used in the court

The AFP have his computer, so it wont be alleged or questionable when they have databased it all.

Alleged is an allegation. Obviously it’s not an allegation if they have solid evidence, it then turns to material and not allegations.

Like i said before the only real thing he has done wrong is be too trusting, too innocent and too helpful. You just can’t be a good person these days, it gets spat back in your face.

One *WOULD* be illegal but it is yet to be proven that he had one.

Now you can pull your head in, or I can dump you into the moderation queue, but cool it with the language while we wait for the courts to make a finding of fact.

But it’s the whole:

If you have a crack pipe, you obviously smoke meth.

If you have a license, you obviously drive.

If you have child porn, it obviously arrouses you.

he has not hadformal charges placed against him yet, they are still trying to find evidence, its still only illedged.

We’ll just wait then… 24th May I think it said.

The magistrate will have the findings.

for the record, i never used any language

Thus spake the lynch mob madman.

Now stop it or piss off.

johnboy, don’t know who you are but thanks. aaron deserves a fair go, and it should be remembered that it is “innocent until PROVEN guilty”

For the record, I too am a friend of Aarons.

The argument as to the number of child pornography images will be a circular argument until the information is presented in court. Unless someone can provide an accurate, reliable and definitive source in the meantime.

As to the allegation of indecency, it is still just that, an allegation.

If the legal system has a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, should that not be case here as well

what constitutes pornography ?

a friend of mine sent me some holiday snaps, incl a few of her two kids 3 and 5 on the beach in the nude.

i know the youngest kid is going to be a nudist as she has to fight to make him keep his clothes on. turn around for 5 minutes and hes stripped off. in public you can see it begin when the shoes suddenly go missing…

its sort of cute and funny.

anyway, i instantly deleted the email and photos as i know that innocent holiday photos can be viewed quite differently when police are preparing a brief of evidence.

as kiddie porn/fiddler is the new ‘burn the witch’ allegation of the age, better safe than sorry. no matter whether this bloke gets off or is found guilty – the allegation will dog him forever.

yet another reason why males avoid any child caring ocupations.

Paedophiles generally can be quite charismatic which is unfortunately a skill that assists in gaining the trust of others (and their children). I’m sure your friend is quite believable but how well do we really know anyone.

50,000 sounds like a lot of images, but if you recall the child porn raids a couple of years ago there were many examples even higher. There is a tendency for child porn collectors to be obsessive collectors.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi279.pdf

BTW the “a virus downloaded them” defence is very easily said and easily disproven. (Particularly when that “virus” burns off the collection to discs)

If you have child porn, it obviously arrouses you.

So if I got a virus, and ended up with porn, that automatically means I get aroused by it. And following the same logic, if I watch murder shows, I’m interested in becoming a murderer.
I don’t think so.

The ‘indecency in front of a child’ is worded in such a way that it makes him look bad, when in fact it’s simply alleged that he showed the boy a DVD. And if he actually had said DVD’s, wouldn’t the police have found them, and therefore it would be included in the allegations?

I empathise your situation and by all means support your friend. Just don’ do it blindly.

Thankyou TAD

I can assure you that the ‘virus’ defence is an excuse being provided by a desperate man who has nothing else to cling to when confronted by family and friends. As a friend you do not want to believe, however more often than not it is sadly true.

In order for the police to seize his computer longer than 24 hours they need belief that child pornography is on the computer; belief usually comes from the police actually seeing it themselves.

There is no excuse to having that crap on your computer. The links to sites or trojans etc that ’cause’ the content to be downloaded come from either other pornographic websites, or are shared by likeminded individuals.

I am sure everyone has seen reference to child pornography on p2p programs like limewire; curiosity killed the cat, and in this case its dead. Police don’t accidentally stumble across these offenders, the internet is too big a place to monitor, somebody I would suggest has given a tip off, and for good reason too, as child pornography was found.

All bs aside, people that download that crap are supporting the abuse of children one way or another. They are sick and deserve everything the court dishes out.

I know Aaron, & fear what the future brings for him. He is a very nice young man – the type of guy a trusting family allowed into their lives. For the record, they are a decent hard working family who HAVE NOT asked for a cent.I know this because I am the aunty of the 12yr boy in question- a child who anguished for months over the decision to tell his parents because he worried it would be too upsetting for his mother. So to the person stating “the messed up, drug-addicted family trying to get money out of Aaron”, please be sure that you REALLY know what you are talking about – as this type of trashing not only does not help Aaron, but causes more distress to the family involved

The information I have been given is that the family making the bogus allegations has boxes and boxes of pornographic material in there possession which apparently has been shown to this 12year old boy on numerous occasions. I think it is more aaron who was trusting, trusting that decent people still existed, not paople who would stab him in the back with false accusations just to serve their own perverted interests

For the record, I too am a friend of Aarons. by madman

You are not a friend. A friend is someone who stands by you, trusts you and beleives in you. Therefore, from what you have said, you are not a friend.

“A friend is someone who stands by you, trusts you and beleives in you”

To do that unquestioningly is not to be a friend, it’s to be a moron and a moral cretin.

Now G if you can’t stop throwing these allegations around you too are bound for the moderation killfile.

To the aunty of the 12 year old boy, maybe rather then beleiving your family outright, which is what you are saying we are doing wrong, you should find out all the facts, how do you know you REALLY have all the facts and we don’t, we can only do what we think is right, which is stand by our loved ones, In our case aaron, in your case your family and wait for the court to decide. It looks like aaron is guilty cause he is custody, but a childs word is always taken over an adults word, but realisticly its not like a kid has never lied about this kind of thing before. He gets caught doing something he shouldn’t and blames someone else to get out of trouble and before he knows it the story has been blown beyond his control and he is too scared to turn back. not saying thats the case here, but it has happened.