President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 24, 2007 06:38 AM UTC
26 Comments
on the basis of too little information. There are plenty of young adult women for whom it is difficult to judge if they are minors or not, so your suppositions are arbitrary. He may have been guilty of downloading child-porn, or he may not have been. We just don’t know, and don’t have enough information to engage in intelligent speculation. And unintelligent public speculation on such a subject at such a moment is simply in bad taste.
For the record, I happen to agree with the opposition to Rio on many (perhaps, most) aspects of this discussion going on in the OpenThread, esp. his apparent lack of sympathy for the Manzanares family, however . . .
I couldn’t resist: How did you come to the conclusion that the young adult women in mainstream porn are indistinguishable from minors, hmmmmmmm?!?! >:-) busted!!! Might we find any tracks to TeenLust.com or barelyEighteen.com on your laptop, you sly dog?
Porn sites are required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257 to keep records certifying that all participants are eighteen years of age or older. If LM visited only those legal sites (and the forensic specialist could demonstrate that he had), Scott Storey would have had no reason to refer images to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
In light of his suicide, we’ll never know whether LM had child porn on the state computer, but when a perp is caught burning down a building that contains a dead body, or a cop is caught fabricating or destroying evidence, he is telling us something by his actions. And what we have here is a theory that fits the facts.
Internet cache (cached images & content) and URL history, which is primarily what you’re making reference to in your post, is only part of the issue. In order to have ready access to images without having to reconnect to a site, a user will often right-click and save the image to some location on his or her hard-drive. At that point, it’s simply a .jpg, .bmp, .mpeg, .bmp, .avi or similar still-image or compressed movie file with little nexus to the “legal site” from which it came.
Therefore, in order to determine if an image may be contraband, the FBI forensic examiner obtains the MD5 hash of the image file (a fingerprint of the file) and compares it to a known database of MD5 hashes. Other means may be necessary to determine if an image is that of a minor and has not been previously cataloged. Moreover, any modification to the image file (such as adding a watermark or a Web site log) will alter the MD5 hash. In such cases, other automated means of comparisons (known primarily to law enforcement) are employed to determine matches with cataloged images of contraband.
These methodologies are not ordinarily observed by non law-enforcement forensics examiners, such as myself, because of the issues in dealing with contraband. One recent case, State v. Brady, 2007 Ohio 1779 illustrates this problem very well.
In conclusion, I would say that, if a computer has a cache of porn on it and it has been seized as part of a criminal investigation of any sort (including, e.g., tax evasion, emailing death threats over state lines, whatever), it may be routine to send off the images for comparison to the known cataloged images.
but Manzanares knew where he had been. If he had been angling through kiddie porn sites and read the affidavit, he was smart enough to know that he would be caught out.
It’s the only theory that makes sense. While the penalties for mere theft are draconian on their face, everyone knows that Manz would have gotten a pass. They didn’t even disbar Chuck Colson, and I doubt that our corrupt attorney regulation system would have disbarred Manz outright. But catching him with kiddie porn would have been a whole ‘nuther matter.
It’s a logical explanation for his suicide.
given the fact that they didn’t trump that up in the media. If they were willing to devote so much ink to possession of porn, how much milage do you think a kiddie porn angle would have given the papers? IOW, the fact that they didn’t say so means that there was none.
Time to find something else to obsess about. And I see that either you or Pols changed the heading of your diary.
They can only go with what they have, and it would really be problematic for to Storey release the videos. The kiddie porn angle is the only logical explanation, as Manzanares was smart enough to know what the likely ramifications of his acts were.
who needs conspiracy theorists? Oh, wait a second…
I meant “Web site logo” not “Web site log.”
Such selective faith in the motives of public officials, and the impeccability of their conduct, given the consistent lack of such faith in almost all of your other posts, seems a bit too convenient. For my part, I simply make no assumptions that are unwarranted, including assumptions concerning how ethical or unethical is any individual’s behavior in the absence of evidence either about the actions in question or about that individual’s prior or habitual conduct (which would make them conclusions rather than assumptions). Therefore, since I have no information about why Scott Storey chose his course of action, I make no assumptions about his motives, and no assumptions about the pornography whose existance he chose to reveal to the public.
I am quite prepared to consider the possibility that partisan politics entered into this equation — starting with “Cocaine Mary” Mullarkey, and going through to Storey — and did so in a separate diary entry. However, the suicide speaks volumes, changing the dynamic irrevocably.
Applying Ockham’s Razor to this affair, it makes more sense that Storey played it more-or-less straight, and that kiddie porn was suspected. There are competing theories, but none explain the facts as well.
The best stance to take when multiple scenarios are comparably plausible is “I don’t know.” This too-seldom uttered phrase is the starting point of intelligence.
. . . no more so than any other blogger on this site but, more than a few times, I’ve begged off of a hard line by acknowledging that I didn’t have all the facts or don’t have all the answers. Your observation is excellent.
It may not be as much fun as watching a flame-war play out but, it preserves dignity, rapport and cred needed for future discussions.
….but in this case, you don’t need a lot of them to come to a conclusion. The interview given to Tony Kovaleski and the unfortunate meddling by Mary Mullarkey essentially sealed Manzanares’ fate.
…that a seasoned Harvard Law grad would buy a laptop from a street vendor for $300, sight unseen, without even stopping to see if it was functional? And how hard would it be to notice that it was “hot?”
Manzanares shot himself in the foot with that preposterous story, which was captured for posterity by Tony Kovaleski. It all comes down to how hard the jury’s collective eyes would roll when Manz told that absurdity on the stand, and whether they would suffer permanent damage to their optical nerves in the process. The downloading of porn and subsequent attempts to delete it further prove that he was making use of it, and knew it was stolen when he was using it.
When you have a very plausible scenario (he stole it) and an incredibly implausible one (he bought it, but didn’t know it was stolen) which requires a plethora of absurdities, doesn’t Ockham’s Razor require you to pick the plausible one?
he was innocent of the charges against him, or that they were not plausible. In fact, I have made no comments of any kind regarding his innocence or guilt, nor have any of my comments been made in such a way that they can reasonably be generalized to that completely separate question. You have simply exchanged a different topic for the one to which my comments clearly and explicitly referred: The necessity of finding deeper reasons than those already in evidence in order to explain his suicide.
The two questions, one regarding his guilt or innocence, and one regarding whether his suicide is explicable with the information we already have, are completely independent of one another. Conflating them does not strengthen any arguments regarding either one.
because the poor guy’s dead, and anything we may decide isn’t going to have any practical effect. All I am concerned about is that we not lionize Larry Manzanares, and that we not blame the media for his final selfish act.
There are potential reasons for his suicide that have nothing to do with what the media did or did not do.
Can I but in here for a minute? Since it’s plainly obvious that we have primarily a handful of apparently capable lawyers reading through and responding to this thread (with the exception of a J.D., who presently does not practice law and shall remain nameless), please allow me to shamelessly plug and divert your attention to a Web page of mine, hosting some legal services-needed classified ads (click here). One of the cases, thereon, of which I assure you I have absolutely no personal interest,1 has the potential of resulting in a repeat jury award of $320K (excluding adjustment for inflation) based upon a nearly identical set of facts. Thank you for your attention and we now return you to your regular program, already in progress.
1 Disclaimer: I bear no responsibility for the truth or falsity of any statement or assertion herein made.
hasn’t deleted this diary or at least edited the title. The things they have taken down sounded tamer than this.
Pols would have speculated a blue streak.
….a civil suit for defamation cannot be maintained by the personal representative of his estate (presumably his wife). In essence, assholes like Rio can say anything they want and get a free pass.
It’s debatable whether L.M.’s widow would have a cause of action against the asshole for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
From abovethelaw.com:
http://www.abovethel… It looks to me as if the horse left the barn long ago….
Do you read everything you read on the Web? Do you honestly think that his son is sitting around the house surfing the Web and the blogs, like OverLawyered.com, LegalUnderground, AboveTheLaw, UnderneathTheirRobes, HowAppealing, MayItPleaseTheCourt, MyShingle, etc. ?!?!?
To make out a claim for IIED, you have to prove causation, and it’s patently obvious that my eminently reasonable speculation is not unique.
“Do you
readbelieve everything you read on the Web?”The Web is more inherently reliable.