UPDATED: Top Chef Just Desserts contestant indicted on child porn charges

blairfilm, anonymous:

Morgan Wilson, a contestant on Top Chef Just Desserts, will face a Judge on October 27, 2011. Wilson, an Executive Pastry Chef with the Ritz Carlton, 38 years of age, has admitted to downloading child pornography from his computer. Verizon Internet Security alerted police of the downloaded pornography. Police brought 3 photos to Wilson, who later signed each of the 3 photos and advising investigators that he did download and view the videos of young children, some of toddler age, engaging in sexual activities. He faces 3 Felony Counts of Possession of Child Pornography and the INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY and will face a judge on October 27th, 2011. His attorney had no response to questions asked of him. Bravo still has his biography on their website. In the biography Bravo features a 2 minute video of him interacting with other competitors and talking about sex and of sodomizing a woman. Bravo has NOT removed this trash from its website as of 9pm MST. CNN I-REPORTER Peter Cannice of Phoenix, Arizona

nikkita64, anonymous:

Teresa Gubbins,

Meanwhile, when child porn is found on someone's personal computer, they are sick individuals who, found guilty or not, should not be allowed unsupervised freedom in our society.

roball, anonymous:

Teresa Gubbins,

Wilson admitted he had viewed these images, and signed and dated the images to indicate the agreement with police.

Perhaps you should read the articles... kind of hard to be considered innocent when one confesses...

roball, anonymous:

Teresa Gubbins,

I fully understand your mantra, of course he isn't found guilty by the "system" based on the article. Of course he is not considered to be guilty by the "system" until he goes through the "system".

Unless you have been keeping your involvement with the court a secret, your judgement is just as irrelevant as mine is and you are just as entitled to it as I am.

Since you keep saying the same thing over and over, so shall I... Lets not be a bunch of blind and mindless Lemmings. The man said he had the images and he signed and dated the hard copies to indicate such. He confessed. Had he not confessed, I'd see the point of your mantra in this instance. But he did confess - and to blindly have no opinion and to refrain from drawing any sort of conclusion, and to condecend upon those who do is just silly. He will go through the "system" and there will be some sort of outcome, guilty, not guilty, plea agreement with a lesser charge, and we will all formally acknowledge that outcome no matter what it is. But the fact remains, he said he viewed the images.

jamescorrao15, anonymous:

Scumbag, anyone who condones this type of thing, is the same. He is guilty , police who are officers of the court system as well as a judge found this crap in his possession. End of story.

damn yankee, anonymous:

Nikkita, roball: what if the girls in question were three days away from turning 18? What if he downloaded a large batch of photographs and had no way of knowing whether they were 17 plus 363 days, or 18 plus one?

The article doesn't say how old the people actually were, and the law makes no differentiation between a naked four year old and a naked 17 year old. Hell, people have gone to jail for taking photos of their kids in a bubble bath.

If this guy was getting off to photos of four-year-olds taken by Uncle Touchy, then he's a scumbag. If he went to Barely18.com and downloaded a photo set signed by an actress who lied about her age, that's a different story.

roball, anonymous:

damn yankee,

I agree - innocent family photos, no problem. Barely18.com, to each his own. Truth be told, my responses in this forum really have nothing to do with the crimes detailed by the artcle, but with someone declaring all others wrong for forming an opinion and implying that no opinion should be formed when the man confessed.

Regarding your comment that the article doesn't say how old the people actually were, it didn't actually state exact ages, but it did say the following which I believe would place him into your scumbag category:

"Morgan was arrested December 7, 2010 after undercover investigators received several file transfers from Wilson’s computer via Limewire in September 2010. The files allegedly contained images and videos of children as young as toddlers engaged in sexual acts."

pjtonkers, anonymous:

Jesus Christ.

First, please understand that there is a HUGE difference between looking at images on a computer and ACTUAL child abuse. Its not as if he actually went out and made the images himself, hurt any children or SOLD any of the images that happened to be on his computer.

Second, "Intent to distribute," meaning the sharing feature on Limewire had not been disabled and he was inadvertently sharing them. The music and film industries try (successfully) to pull the same s*%t with unsuspecting parents of teens who download music or movies without consent or knowledge of their parents. Intent to distribute, my ass. If you have ever used Limewire, you know what I am talking about.

Third, if you have used something like Limewire as much as I have, you also know that you can search for ANYTHING and seem to get the results that you are looking for and inadvertently download something that you do not intend because of intentionally mislabeled files. You also might think that you deleted whatever you didn't intend to download and inadvertently share it with other Limewire users. Limewire sucks.

Fourth, just because someone might have a severely distasteful fetish regarding ANYTHING, does not make them a terrible person. As I stated before, LOOKING at images (albeit illegal in nature) and ACTUALLY making them, selling them, or engaging in the abuse of a child through DIRECT CONTACT are vastly different. You might as well make the possession of photographs of individuals making meth illegal because the actual manufacture, sale, and distribution of that product is illegal.

There is a lot more left to learn about the situation so I will withhold and judgement on my part of Morgan's guilt or innocence, but as of right now, it seems like the equivalent of someone being busted for having a gram of coke in their car and being charged with "intent to distribute.'

roball, anonymous:

pjtonkers,

Much as I didn't really want to get into the specifics of the charges, I feel that the closing paragraph of your comment regarding "withholding any judgement" was in response to my comments. So I will reply.

Much of your comment seems to me to mean that the law regarding possession of child pornography needs to be changed. Pending that change, and notwithstanding any distribution charges, he confessed to what is currently considered a crime: posession of child pornography. Whether or not one agrees that possession of child pornography should be considered a crime, it is nonetheless currently a crime to which he confessed. Again, I find it hard to find fault with anyone for drawing a conclusion as to his guilt or innocence on that basis.

Now, if he were charged with ANY crime - lets say jaywalking in this case, if he proclaimed his innocence then I would be right out there at the forefront with "Innocent until Proven Guilty" . But if he says "Yep, Ya got me" then "Innocent until Proven Guilty" becomes just a little bit less effective and meaningful for those who really are innocent and rely on that philosophy sometimes for their lives.

pjtonkers, anonymous:

Oh crap, I forgot: There is also a HUGE difference between outright confession of a crime, and acknowledging that you had, at one point (deliberately or not) seen the evidence in question. All he signed was an affidavit confirming the latter. He didn't say that he deliberately downloaded them for his viewing pleasure and then deliberately placed them in his shared folder with the intent that he "distribute" them (without monetary gain). Now THAT'S a confession. C'mon, why would anyone intentionally try to distribute this kind of thing for free unless you were in a non-extradition country?

pjtonkers, anonymous:

He merely acknowledged that "yes, officer, there is a dead body in my house. Yes there seems to be blood all over the floor." That's not a confession of the actual murder or having anything to do with the murder.

roball, anonymous:

pjtonkers,

Crime: "POSSESSION of child pornography".

Confession: "Wilson admitted he had viewed these images"

Circumstances: The images were in his Limewire shared folder.

Questions:

1. How do images get into the Limewire shared folder? answer: Either by downloading them from another peer or by placing them there.

2. How do you view something without being in possession of it? answer: You don't.

Now, he may very well escape conviction based on the technicalities you have put forth. The fact still remains that he confessed to viewing the images - I personally do doubt he intended to distribute them, and I see no indication that he ever said that he did, but he did possess them and he acknowledged such. You are right, having a dead person show up in your house with blood on the floor and acknowledging those facts to the police is not the same as confessing to murder. But acknowledging that you did possess and view multiple child pornography images is a confession to a crime.

pjtonkers, anonymous:

No, its not.

Imagine, if you would the following (and all too probable and common) scenario. Kiddy porn edition:

Joe decides he wants to download the new hit single, song X by the new up and coming band Who Killed Gaddafi. He decides to use Limewire to aid him in his quest. When he goes to use the search feature in Limewire, a HUGE amount of results come back that look legit, as far as he is concerned. I mean, hey they have the EXACT SAME text in the title that he entered into the search bar "Song X." Joe, not being super savvy when it comes to downloading things for free, clicks on the first file that he sees, thinking that if its title matched what he entered, it MUST be what he is looking for. Then one of two things likely happens:

1. It downloads very quickly because it is an image and not a song, as limewire indicated. He goes to his downloads folder, finds the file, opens the file and discovers that its a gross image, an indecipherable amount of code, or something else that is also undesirable and then deletes it. Or at least he thought he did. Copies of things can be made on a computer without one's knowledge. Images, text and other things get cached, copied, and moved around especially if you are not an individual with a lot of knowledge regarding this subject.
   

or

1. It downloads very quickly because it is an image and not a song, as limewire indicated. He goes to his downloads folder and discovers that Song X doesnt appear anywhere in it or on his entire HD, for that matter. That is because upon completion of the download, or even before, the name of the downloaded file changed BY ITSELF because that is what it is programmed to do. It then sits in his shared folder, being further shared with other unsuspecting users.

Morgan admitted to seeing the images. No other info is given. The author of this article is far to vague regarding the details surrounding the situation, so it leaves a lot of important questions unanswered.

Could he completely guilty? You bet your ass. Could he also be the victim of his own carelessness and ignorance regarding the internet? Yes. The answer will come when the details are known.

roball, anonymous:

OK, we could argue this ad nauseam, pulling out highly improbable possibilities like yours and stuborn unwaivering opinions like mine. I'd just as soon let it go on the civil note that it is at right now.

pjtonkers, anonymous:

Nope.

Saying that something is highly improbable doesn't make it so. It not only isn't improbable, It is HIGHLY PROBABLE. This kind of thing (minus the kiddie porn part) has happened to myself, friends and family. People simply are not as aware of every single thing on their computer, where their downloads are coming from or who they are getting them from. The populace at large doesn't have a clue as to what their computer is doing when they are not around (look up "botnet" on google).

All I am getting at is that there is a minimal amount of information in this article to conclude one way or another. I think that in all likelihood you are probably correct. However the scenarios that I have laid out are completely possible and ought to be given consideration before everyone decides to crucify this guy.

That is seriously for the courts to decide. Not just what a short, sensationalist 284 word article says about someone.

changingseasons2007, anonymous:

It only takes common sense to know that for investigators to get a warrant, he didn't "unknowingly" download a mistaken file or possible file named "sweet child of mine" by guns and roses....and it turnes out to be a toddler. That stuff happens ALL the time on Limewire and other P2P file sharing networks. A warrant? They had a tip, or information, then followed it, traced it, monitored it, then acted upon it by a judge SIGNING the warrant stating they have enough evidence to search his home and home pc.

You can go to a judge with evidence that he typed in "sweet child of mine" and downloaded a batch of images and then the judge signs it. lol...geez. They traced him, followed HIS lead in to where he was guiding THEM. They just copied all the information that he did himself and then were able to get the warrant. ISP's/Cable companies keep records of everything you do...even on limewire....whatever you type in and search for, is recorded. People are idiots and gross for downloading this stuff and again, there is no "mistake download" when enough evidence is provided to a judge to have a warrant signed and placed in to action to stop him from continuing this gross intentions of viewing these images. Also, the point of "there's a difference between viewing these images and child abuse." ?? Actually the person viewing the images is contributing in an indirect manner to that childs abuse. It is just as harmful to the child...especially when that poor child grows up and finds out his/her images are posted on the internet and people have downloaded it....like this guy. In addition, many connections are made from people who View child pornography, to actual real life child abuse in some way or form. No I'm not saying he did anything to physically harm a child in real life, but he did contribute to that childs abuse, by continuing the process of viewing the images and sharing them.

The sharing process? Thats so simple and doesn't even merit an argument here. In Limewire, you can set it to turn off sharing or keep it on. It also shows who is UPLOADING the files. It is right in front of your face in the Limewire window. It shows the user and upload speed, which file he/she is uploading, etc. How do you think Limewire works? Everyone shares files. Of course he knew. If he even knows about limewire, he knows that its a file sharing network and it shares files.

In conclusion, for a judge to sign a search warrant, there has to be sufficient evidence showing that a person is trying to possess, in progress of possessing, or in possession of child pornography. They would know if it was downloaded by barelylegal.com or barely18.com or any other site. No warrant justifies that. The investigators do this for a living, they know what they need to have and know what they are looking for. For them to investigate this guy and spend time and money on him, he was definitely on top of their list as someone doing something extremely illegal.

Zorbitor, anonymous:

He should've got a job as an investigator. Then he could look at dirty photos all the time.

kb9236, anonymous:

changingseasons2007 is absolutely correct. I work in the court system and a judge is not going to act on information that cannot be prosecuted so there has to be credible evidence. There is investigative computer technology available to trace IP addresses directly to the perp. The specialists spend a lot of time watching computer activity before they request a warrant otherwise their evidence will not stand up in court and will be thrown out. There is nothing more upsetting than spending weeks and months on a case and have it thrown out because of one little mistake. I just finished working on three of these cases. There is a lot more to these sex offenders than computer crimes.