Curtain could be innocent?major Developement

arcadegame2004

Found this today interesting reading:

"Virus could have downloaded porn without Curtin knowing
Tuesday April 27th 2004
ADVERTISEMENT



GARDAI have admitted that a notorious virus capable of introducing pornographic images into Judge Brian Curtin's computer without his knowledge or consent was on the computer when it was seized.

The Trojan virus, the presence of which was the grounds for four acquittals of suspects charged with possession of child pornography in the UK, was discovered by technicians after they ran a Norton anti-virus check on Judge Curtin's computer. The Irish Independent has learned that the technicians recently discovered a total of four viruses on Judge Curtin's computer, even though it had been seized from his home in Tralee in May, 2002.

A forensic examination of Judge Curtin's computer also revealed that only one credit card transaction was made from the computer, in 1999 - at a time when the website contained adult pornography as well a graphic sexual images of children.

It also emerged that no images from the pornographic website were downloaded and therefore hadn't been stored in the computer.

A week before the case began last week, gardai served a fresh statement of evidence admitting that technicians had discovered the Trojan virus on Judge Curtin's computer.

His legal defence team applied for an adjournment to study the import of the fresh evidence, but events were overtaken by the controversy over the out-of-date search warrant and the unconstitutional seizing of Judge Curtin's computer from his home.

The latest revelation will further complicate the cabinet's discussion today of what to do about Judge Curtin, whose acquittal last Friday threatens to blow into a grave crisis for the administration of justice.

The President of the Circuit Court is expected to ask Judge Brian Curtin for a credible explanation of the circumstances that led to him being charged with possession of child pornography.

It is understood that Judge Curtin would be expected to co-operate and provide a self-exculpatory account of the circumstances surrounding the alleged use of his credit card and pornographic images on his computer.

If Judge Curtin says he was acquitted in the courts and therefore the presumption of his innocence speaks for itself, the only sanction open to the Government would be to impeach him in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Government would be very reluctant to take that unprecedented step, because Judge Curtin could only be impeached for "state misbehaviour".

And if evidence obtained by unconstitutional means was inadmissible in a court of law, it would be impossible to introduce the same evidence to an impeachment hearing in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

However, even Judge Curtin, who has pleaded "not guilty" in court and been acquitted, is likely to see the difficulty of his ever sitting as a judge again.

Experienced constitutional lawyers say that in those circumstances the Government has only two options: either to continue to pay Judge Curtin and not assign any cases to him - or to make a financial settlement involving loss of earnings and pension rights.

But the prospect of making an expensive settlement with Judge Curtin would almost certainly arouse deep anger among the public and opposition.

Meanwhile, the Government will be pressed by Opposition parties in the Dail today to spell out its intentions in relation to Judge Curtin.

The Opposition leaders will question Taoiseach Bertie Ahern following a Cabinet meeting this morning, at which Justice Minister Michael McDowell will brief his colleagues about the issues involved.

Sam Smyth

What do you all think?

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004


What do you all think?

Firstly I think you'll find (if you read the charter) that you're supposed to tell us what you think...

Now to the topic in question...

Should we be commenting on this at all? Is it possible that comment here could backfire on boards?

In theory then, I'm sure someone who understands trojans and how they work could shed some light on this. I do know that browsing dodgy websites can lead to a PC becoming infected with trojans, but usually dodgy websites=very dodgy porn. Anybody with more, shall we say detailed or thorough, knowledge on this?

vorbis

yeah generally those viruses are found on such websites. However it is perfectly legal to view adult porn and those viruses are on such sites as well. I think it'll hinge both on his explanation and the details of what was bought with his credit card. I think people might have been too quick to judge him. btw what exactly was found on his computer? after all the entire case seemed based on the pc's contents.

Hobart

Vorbis is correct. it was the combination of his CC records and the "allegded" material found on his PC that lead to him being charged.

seamus

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
What do you all think?

Once again, incompentence has made a mockery of our justice system.

therecklessone

Originally posted by vorbis
yeah generally those viruses are found on such websites. However it is perfectly legal to view adult porn and those viruses are on such sites as well.

OK, based on a few trojan's I've found on my PC in the past *cough cough* wouldn't they be able to find where the file originated? So if it came from bustybabes.com then he'd be alright, but if it came from childporn.net he'd be f*cked?

Villain

Isn't just a pitty for everyone's sake that this argument didn't get a chance in a court of Law, at least that way he would either of been found guilty or innocent on the facts and not a technicality.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

vorbis

The virus downloaded it is a standard defense in cases like this. Some guy used it in the UK last year. All you've got to show is that a trojan horse was on your PC, therefore you weren't in 100% control of it. I personally think it's a bit absurd.

I'd agree up to a point. If all the corroborating evidence suggested that the person had been buying child porn or trading it (grassed up by someone else) then such a defence is pretty weak. however if all they have on him is images on his pc and no evidence showing how it got there, then such a defence could be valid. According to the article only one transaction was made from the pc. granted he could have used a different pc but i don't known if the guardai have further evidence of payments. Its entirely plausible that he made a legimitate transaction for adult porn in 1999 and his name only arose because interpol were checking all cc transactions made with that site once it started selling child porn. we'll have to wait and see what the judge does.

As I mentioned in the other thread,the operation amatheus thing brought up his name because he had used his credit card to authorise a porn download.
That in itself is not illegal, but the possession of the child pornography is.
Now how is he innocent if he used his credit card to pay for it? A trojan wouldn't or couldn't do that, its only a porn dialer in this case, it doesn't have his cc details.

I suggest that this information was leaked to help the man as some people wouldn't know the full facts or how a computer operates or that operation amatheus meant he had been caught using his credit card to access this stuff in the first place which is the fact that lead to the search warrant being issued .
It makes some less well informed people think he's innocent.
I don't have the full facts either of course, but lets put it this way, the DPP was satisfied that there was a case to answer which must have meant that there was Child porn on his pc.
We didn't get to hear the extent of this because the warrants were out of date and the evidence was inadmissable.
I'm expecting him to be pushed or he will have to resign.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Earthman
As I mentioned in the other thread,the operation amatheus thing brought up his name because he had used his credit card to authorise a porn download.

My understanding of the couple who ran the operation in the US that led to all the raids was that they ran a couple of hundred sub-based porn sites, and that only a few were for child porn. CC transaction in itself doesn't mean he was downloading child porn.

arcadegame2004

But Earthman, you'r argument is undermined by the fact that, according to Gardai sources, this website also had adult-porn in 1999. Perhaps he was downloading that? How do you account for the total absence of childporn on his computer (also referred to in the article)? And given that Garda sources are cited, why would they want to embarrass themselves to help a judge?

vorbis

was there actually child porn images found on his pc? I'd taken this for a given but have not seen that many people actually saying it. can anyone clarify?

arcadegame2004

Vorbis the article actually states that no childpon images were found on the Hardrive.

alleepally

I think everyone is in the same boat here regarding the full facts of the case. The only man that can answer the questions is sitting at home tonight formulating a response for the government which will hopefully answer all the questions. His life is f*cked anyway. Once a suspicion is there of child porn there is little room for the presumption of innocence.

There is only one thing I can't get my head around. Why on earth did the Gardai leave it until the very last day of the warrant to exercise the search. Is this the norm?

As a total contrast (and forgive me for going slightly o/t but I'm demonstrating a point) I had someone report me to the snitch line for driving there a few months back. To cut a long story short, the Gardai were up to the house at 11pm one night looking for me. I wasn't there and I hadn't a clue what they wanted and they didn't tell the g/f. So I spent another 4 days trying to find out what I was wanted for. Eventually I tracked down the "investigating officer" and was told it was about driving above the 40mph limit on a particular dual carriageway (one of those crazy limits). I was doing 50 and got a caution.

So, I get chased up near midnight by the Gardai based on a snitch line report. They came up to the house not 2 days after this snitch report and give my g/f a heart attack and get the neighbours curtains twitching.

Gardai in another part of the country get a warrant to search a premises of a possible paedophile and they don't exercise the warrant?

How fcuked up is that?

Basically, I think there's a Garda cover up or something. They deliberately stalled so that the warrant would be questionable. Why did they do this? Maybe the good Judge and the superintendent are good friends and a little conversation was had between them? Who knows

Originally posted by therecklessone
My understanding of the couple who ran the operation in the US that led to all the raids was that they ran a couple of hundred sub-based porn sites, and that only a few were for child porn. CC transaction in itself doesn't mean he was downloading child porn.

But having adult porn on your computer isn't illegal.
Having child porn is.
The DPP proceded with a prosecution implying that an offence was committed regarding the possession of child pornography.
Now the DPP must have had evidence of child pornography in curtains possession for to procede with the case.
Otherwise the DPP's office is a farce.

Victor

Originally posted by alleepally
There is only one thing I can't get my head around. Why on earth did the Gardai leave it until the very last day of the warrant to exercise the search. Is this the norm?

It's not the norm. They got about 100 leads from the FBI at the same time and after getting soem of the warrants subsequently decided to search all the premises at the same time to maximise the element of surprise.

Originally posted by alleepally
Basically, I think there's a Garda cover up or something. They deliberately stalled so that the warrant would be questionable. Why did they do this? Maybe the good Judge and the superintendent are good friends and a little conversation was had between them? Who knows

While yes it is possible, thats an awfully big accusation to make - do you have anything to back it up.

vorbis

this is beginning to look suspicious fom the point of view regarding actual perceived guilt. If there were no images on the pc and the cc transaction was for a site that also sold adult porn, then it sounds like the case would have failed even if the warrant is allowed!

Johnny Versace

I hate the way people always confuse pornography with images of children being abused.

They are totally unrelated.

Victor

Johnny you are veering off topic but, pictures of children being sexually abused and sexually explicit pictures of children and both covered under the same Act. How are they so unrelated?

alleepally take a look at this from below: "Mr McDowell has said he concurred with Judge Carroll Moran's judgement that there was no question of deliberate misbehaviour on behalf of the gardaí."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0427/curtin.html

Govt considering impeachment of Curtin
27 April 2004 20:00

The Minister for Justice has said the impeachment of Judge Brian Curtin was a live possibility and one which was being discussed as an option by the Cabinet.

Michael McDowell said the Government was treating the matter as grave, urgent and above politics. He said the Cabinet will await a report from the gardaí and the DPP and a response from Judge Curtin before deciding what to do next.

The Government has written to the judge seeking an explanation of his apparent accessing of a pornographic website, and downloading of child pornography.

Mr McDowell has said he concurred with Judge Carroll Moran's judgement that there was no question of deliberate misbehaviour on behalf of the gardaí.

It has emerged that Judge Curtin is entitled to a pension of less than €10,000 if he steps down from office, based on his two years on the bench.

But Cabinet sources remain adamant that there will be no extra monetary compensation if he resigns.

Earlier, the Taoiseach twice told the Dáil it was the view of the Government that the issue of monetary compensation for the judge did not arise.

Before Bertie Ahern rose to a hushed house, the Ceann Comhairle had warned TDs that they could be called upon to adjudicate in the issue of Judge Curtin, and that they should avoid any prejudicial comment.

In response to Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, Mr Ahern told the house that to his knowledge no one had raised any doubts about Judge Curtin's suitability prior to his appointment.

Asked by Labour leader Pat Rabbitte about the impeachment procedure, Mr Ahern told TDs that the process did not necessarily require legislation.

Warrant was thought to be legitimate - Conroy

In Donegal, the Garda Commissioner said the gardaí who searched Judge Curtin's home using an out of date warrant believed they were operating using a legitimate warrant.

Noel Conroy said that yesterday he furnished a preliminary report on the matter to the Minister for Justice, and that he would have a full report in due course.

He also said the Gardaí would co-operate fully with any Government request on the matter.

alleepally

"It's not the norm. They got about 100 leads from the FBI at the same time and after getting some of the warrants subsequently decided to search all the premises at the same time to maximise the element of surprise."

?? So??? There's going to be thousands of Gardai on the street for May day. 100 leads couldn't seriously tax the resources of the force. They had time to plan the operation. They had time to come up to my house on a snitch line report for a minor traffic offense.


"While yes it is possible, thats an awfully big accusation to make - do you have anything to back it up."

I don't, but doesn't the force "have form" so to speak ala the prime time report, McBrearty. Isn't this whole country run on the basis of who your are and who you know...

I know what they are like in my local area and they aren't a nice bunch. a member of my family is crippled with back pain after experiencing "justice" at the hands of two gardai on his way home one night a bit the worse for wear.

Johnny Versace

I mean -

Pornography and pictures of children being sexually abused and sexually explicit pictures of children are not related.

People always assume "pornography found on mans PC" refers to pictures of naked children/children being abused.

Originally posted by Victor
Veering off topic but, pictures of children being sexually abused and sexually explicit pictures of children and both covered under the same Act. How are they so unrelated?

Victor

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
People always assume "pornography found on mans PC" refers to pictures of naked children/children being abused.

Want to rephrase that?

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by Victor
Want to rephrase that?

What exactly don't you understand about this?

Are you saying pornography means pictures of child abuse?

vorbis

i think you're both getting confused by the other.
Pornography can technically include child pron.
However most people would assume the word porn on its own means adult porn.


alleepally:
what exactly do your perceived grievances with the gardai have to do with this?
Its quite possible that the guards made a mistake with one out of 100 warrants. After all its not the norm for them to be waiting so long to use a warrant. usually they use them straight away. Also if it really is a cover up, why arrest him and destroy his name in the first place? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Are you saying pornography means pictures of child abuse?

My, you are being obtuse. Nobody (certainly not on this thread) has been (directly) referring to adult pornography. It's a complete non-issue, other than the fact that a certain website may or may not have once contained adult pornography.

<

---

Johnny Versace ............The point

---

>

alleepally

"alleepally:
what exactly do your perceived grievances with the gardai have to do with this?
Its quite possible that the guards made a mistake with one out of 100 warrants. After all its not the norm for them to be waiting so long to use a warrant. usually they use them straight away. Also if it really is a cover up, why arrest him and destroy his name in the first place"

I posted primarity because I had difficulty understanding why the warrant was left expire. I gave an example of how efficient gardai can be in other matters. I gave my example by way of contrast.

I then put forward a possible reason why the warrant expired as it did.

I was asked then did I have evidence to back up my claim and I merely pointed out (as a illustrative point) that my reasoning was based on a prime time report which reported Garda corruption (do prime time reporters have a "perceived grievance" with Gardai?), and the McBrearty case in Donegal and also a family member. Don't we all draw on our personal experiences when we post here?

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by Victor
My, you are being obtuse. Nobody (certainly not on this thread) has been (directly) referring to adult pornography. It's a complete non-issue, other than the fact that a certain website may or may not have once contained adult pornography.

<

---

Johnny Versace ............The point

---

>

Victor, no, you were simply misunderstanding me. The problem was at your end.

There is no need to always have an attitude. We are just talking here. It's not personal.

Victor

Kindly explain how

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
I hate the way people always confuse pornography with images of children being abused. They are totally unrelated.

relates to the topic at hand and this diagram?

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by Victor
Kindly explain how relates to the topic at hand and this diagram?

Re-read my posts.

There has been a lot of previous replies about whether he had "pornography" on his PC.

People were confused about what this actually meant.

Did the guards mean "normal" pornography or pictures of child abuse?

You (as usual), tried to argue for no reason.

If you think you are making yourself look clever, you're very mistaken.

Now... back to the topic...

Johnny Versace

Originally posted by Victor
Kindly explain how relates to the topic at hand and this diagram?

Also Victor -

If you speak to anyone from child abuse organistions, they will tell you they do not like the term "pornography" being used. They prefer the term "images of child abuse".

I also prefer this distinction.

arcadegame2004

I have another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Gardai knew he was innocent so arranged to stop the trial going ahead so his name couldn't be cleared. Maybe it's a grudge to do with judgements the Gardai didn't like e.g. failed prosecutions.

Victor, what Johnny is trying to say is that some pornography is legal while others isn't. Adult porn (sexual/naked images of adults only) is legal. Child porn (images of naked children and/or images of children in sexual acts) is illegal.

sceptre

Originally posted by Johnny Versace
Did the guards mean "normal" pornography or pictures of child abuse?

We can presumably assume they meant pictures of child abuse (or child porn if you don't like). If they were taking the guy to court for having pornography not including the subset of pictures of child abuse on his computer both the Garda Siochana and DPP are more incompetent than the most cynical of us could assume so I think we can assume, in the absence of evidence or reliable testimony to the contrary that they're at least 10% competent and that the content of his machine included pictures of child abuse. That makes some modicum of sense doesn't it?


edit: I realise the above is putting the cart before the horse in the absence of a conviction. I'm making the assumption that there was some justification for taking the case in the first place and that there was something found on the machine that turned out to be inadmissable in court that would have been relevant had the evidence been admissable. Again I'm assuming at least a low E-grade of competence. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

arcadegame2004

I wouldn't be so sure Sceptre. They have already demonstrated incompetence with the out-of-date arrest warrant.

sceptre

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I wouldn't be so sure Sceptre. They have already demonstrated incompetence with the out-of-date arrest warrant.

Entirely possible I suppose. I've built a house of assumptions up there with no foundation.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
I have another conspiracy theory. Maybe the Gardai knew he was innocent so arranged to stop the trial going ahead so his name couldn't be cleared. Maybe it's a grudge to do with judgements the Gardai didn't like e.g. failed prosecutions.

Dare I suggest a third option? The possibility that this was allowed to happen to highlight the serious under-resourcing of the unit responsible for combatting child pornography? Just look at the media coverage this case has attracted, if that was the intention its certainly got plenty of exposure...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Earthman
But having adult porn on your computer isn't illegal.
Having child porn is.
The DPP proceded with a prosecution implying that an offence was committed regarding the possession of child pornography.
Now the DPP must have had evidence of child pornography in curtains possession for to procede with the case.
Otherwise the DPP's office is a farce.

I wasn't trying to deny that.

If the company that ran these alledged child-porn sites also ran 300+ ordinary porn sites, I assume there would be a number of people whose CC details would feature in their records but would be innocent of any wrongdoing.

When you say:

As I mentioned in the other thread,the operation amatheus thing brought up his name because he had used his credit card to authorise a porn download. That in itself is not illegal, but the possession of the child pornography is.
Now how is he innocent if he used his credit card to pay for it?

Its not clear what you mean. A porn download does not mean child porn.

I assume that the authorites did some detective work before they got the warrant to search the judge's house. No doubt his ISP was contacted.

arcadegame2004

It's Operation Amythyst not Ameteust.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
It's Operation Amythyst not Ameteust.

Cos thats a really important distinction to make, right?

Gawd bless the Spelling Nazis...

sceptre

Actually, it's "Amethyst" rather than either "Ameteust" or "Amythyst" but like therecklessone I don't see it as that important

I see a number of interesting things from this report. Firstly, all the other 101 searches were apparently valid. Secondly, all the other raids took place within two to three days of the granting of the warrant. The Curtin search took place seven days after the warrant was issued (it was the first granted). As for what was found on the computer, Mary Ellen Ring (State prosecutor with an unfortunate Waltons name) has stated that explicit images of persons under the age of 17 were found on the computer, which finishes the what kind of porn we're talking about discussion. And apparently the DPP has been aware that there were problems with the warrant since at least 16 December 2002. Why they still proceeded with a case based on evidence received with use of an invalid warrant beggars belief, sense and a number of other things.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by sceptre
Why they still proceeded with a case based on evidence received with use of an invalid warrant beggars belief, sense and a number of other things.

Perhaps they didn't want the last thing to be said about this case to be "The DPP has dropped the charges due to a technicality", maybe they wanted it to go trial regardless. But that's just speculation.
I'm getting the feeling the word tribunal is going to start be used wrt this case soon.