+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/19/2018 10:13 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  4.456 Visits   1 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/02/2007 01:21 AM ID: 60633 Permalink   

Flood Reveals Homemade Child Porn Near Septic Tank; Man, 81, Charged


81-year-old Walter Stevens turned himself in after a bag full of videotapes showing him having sex with minors was discovered after a flood, formerly hidden near a septic tank.

When the person who found the tapes discovered the nature of the footage, he handed them over to authorities. FBI agent Deborah McCarley said that the videos were shot between 1965 and 1986.

Stevens, who no longer lives in the house next to the area in which the tapes were discovered, faces charges of possession of child pornography and up to 10 years imprisonment.

    WebReporter: caution2 Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
They were shot in Japan, Thailand and Korea

  by: caution2     03/02/2007 01:25 AM     
  Can he be charged with anything?  
in those countries back then it may not have been illegal to have sex with minors (japan only enacted the law in 1990 i believe). Also he would have to be tried in those countries. Also the law prohibiting travel for the purpose of sex with a minor was only brought into the US recently (last 10 odd years i think). So issnt this a case of creating a new law to prosecute an old crime? something I thought was not allowed.
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/02/2007 01:54 AM     
  sorry also  
if he did not live near the site, how did he posses the child porn? it sounds like it was posses by whoever lived on that property now.
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/02/2007 01:56 AM     
  Disgusting...and @ssxxsss  
"81-year-old Walter Stevens turned himself"

The first 6 words explains it all.

Send him to the slammer.
  by: Chainzsaw   03/02/2007 02:57 AM     
  No you missed my point :)  
I agree he deserves punishment. But I am curious on what they can actually charge him with. Considering the new laws should not normally apply to him, and the possesion law is strange as they were not actually in his possesion. Also was there not a case in the USA that the people were able to keep child porn that could be proven to be created before the possession law can into power, as long as it was not traded etc after the laws came in? The US legal system can be a quagmire, i was more curious as to how this will all stand up in court rather than his actual guilt (a lot of guilty people go free).
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/02/2007 03:58 AM     
It's more than mere possession though, the tapes actually feature him in them.
  by: StarShadow     03/02/2007 04:03 AM     
  just because he didn't live there anymore...  
doesn't mean he can claim its no longer in his possession.

Just like if you bury a dead body in a backyard and then move away - it's still your dead body that you buried there.

or if you had a meth lab in the basement and left beakers in a box that was just discovered - still your meth lab material. You're still in possession of it.

Still his tapes - he still possesses them.

....just like if he accidently left a family heirloom behind. The new owners of the house cant claim it's theirs - they must alert him and tell him to pick it up ASAP or let go of it
  by: hotrock11     03/02/2007 04:07 AM     
  That year  
"1965" must be a missprint. Video tape was not available to the public in 1965. It was just starting in TV studios.
  by: Lurker     03/02/2007 04:09 AM     
Now i understand :) thanks for that.
@starshadow, I understand he was in them, and might have to answer charges in those countries the tapes were made in, but possesing and leaving hte country to make child porn, and leaving the country to engage in child sex are more recent crimes, and arnt I correct in assuming you cant be tried under a law that has come in after you commited the acts? But I understand the possession thing now :)
  by: ssxxxssssss   03/02/2007 04:10 AM     
I'm not sure how old films were shot, but presuming it was on some kind of reel, perhaps he filmed them using the old method then in the 80's trasnfered them into tape form?
  by: dook   03/02/2007 04:12 AM     
Oh, I see what you're saying now. I have no idea how that would work out.
  by: StarShadow     03/02/2007 04:14 AM     
The USA is good at passing laws retrospectively,Look at David Hick's case,The miltary kept him locked up in
Gitmo for 5 years trying to invent something to charge him with.
After 5 years they drop the attempted murder charge,and invent some other crap to charge him with.
In my opinion if they couldn't pin anything on him after 2 years
then they should have let him go.
If it wasn't for John Howard speaking up,then they would have him there forever.
This is one thing I hate about America,
They fight wars based on a lie,and jail people based on lies.
They are a nation of liars.
Im glad to be an Aussie!
  by: cavador   03/02/2007 11:04 AM     
  Is there nothing  
That doesnt end up in an anti US / Bush rant on here anymore?
  by: Gogevandire   03/02/2007 11:21 AM     
  Hard one  
The laws are so goofy in the US, so much red tape and so many filters and faults that can be applied.

I think all they can get him on is possession of Child Pornography, I don't think they can get him on anything past that.

We do not even know how old the minors were. For all we know they were 15 and he was 39. Gross yes but was it illegal in the countries in which he was doing those things?

In some countries and cultures especially 42 years ago, those things were considered non-taboo, so he broke no law at the time.

Honestly this would be a real interesting case.

Honestly at the end of the day there is no justice.
  by: shawn1flog   03/02/2007 05:40 PM     
  I think...  
For the person that found the tapes and for him to turn himself in the children in the videos must have been obviously underage.

That is a really good question though on what exactly he would be charged with if it wasn't illegal in those countries at the time. It also doesn't seem to me that they were in his possession if he no longer lived there. Now if they were going to charge him for molestation somehow then they could be used for evidence but the logistics just don't make sense to me regarding the respective country laws.
  by: kuhl   03/03/2007 06:49 AM     
This is disgusting. This man has gotten away with this since 1965? I find it hard to believe that no children would come clean with what was going on.
  by: bnpcollege   03/07/2007 05:10 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: