A good person does not collect child porn or get called out for what he did to children in his care. Unless you believe he is innocent of course.

Only song I care for from Oingo Boingo is Weird Science...

I was trying to stay open about the possibility this was all a mistake and/or we should try to suspend judgement until all the facts come out. But for me that all went out the window when that post from 4 years ago turned up implying an incident involving children under his care. The jurors and the courts can follow the "innocent until proven guilty", but his guilt seems pretty obvious to me.

////

Illinois is an "at will" state, so they could fire him for sneezing when he was last in work and that's cool, so long as they didn't show any bias when they did.

Having said that, if they fire him and the charges are dropped and it isn't a thing, it's not a good look for them, so they exactly what they should do for now.

And they gave you Strange Science. Which means almost anything is possible in pinball.

strange science is a good time when it's dialed in correctly.

no we don't. only the courts (and actual jurors) do. we're free to make up our own minds however we want.

And, coincidentally, that is the battle cry of 4th wave feminism which rejects the justice of law and replaces it in the judicial system with a pernicious bias masquerading as equality. But, I digressed.

oh look someone who thinks their first amendment rights are being trampled when they get criticized. sorry, the constitution can't protect you from the social consequences of your actions.

I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.

You didn't like that I said that. You could have distinguished yourself from it. I called it a coincidence, remember, which does not attach it to you. It's not you I'm interested in but rather the interesting parallel of concept that you brought. That should have pleased you intellectually, I had hoped. Now I will never know because you have made it personal, unless you decide to pull back.

please. you attack feminism out of nowhere on a thread about pedophilia? clearly you are just trying to pick a fight.

your comment was nonsense anyway. your argument was that it "replaces ['the justice of law'] in the judicial system with a pernicious bias". sorry, but when an *individual* judges someone else, that has nothing to do with law or the judicial system. you want the first amendment to protect you from criticism? you want due process to protect you from being judged by others? never going to happen. that's not the intent of the constitution, and it's an absurd, overprivileged expectation.

I will believe he's a good person if this was some mistake and he's proven innocent, but the 2013 post suggesting he physically did something to children puts any current hope or trust in his innocence in a very poor position for me (I'd still like to see eventual proof that all of this is a strange mix-up, but at this point it seems unlikely). My father once had an employee that got charged for this filth, and he (the employee) was caught by an investigator he thought was the mother of a 12 year old girl he was trying to have sex with, which is the sort of scenario some of the people that know more have suggested in here (as a possible way he was caught).

Fingersport pushing his religious beliefs on us seemed out of line for a forum that at times moderates such posts out. Ignore the sin and let God alone judge it? No. Tell us that we're all sinning every day? No. He doesn't get it in my eyes.

That said, I can still separate JT from his games...I look at Ghostbusters and literally see Zombie Yeti all over, I turn it on and hear familiar music, Ernie Hudson, etc. JT doesn't come to mind at all.

Can someone fill me in on the 2013 post JT made that everyone is referring to?

Agreed, if he's guilty then I wouldn't ignore it. But I'm still assuming JT is innocent. Call it denial or whatever, but I'd rather keep a little hope that this is some mistake. If he's convicted, I'll judge then. We shouldn't have to wait too long for a verdict.

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/just-came-across-this/page/15#post-3938052
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/just-came-across-this/page/15#post-3938109

ill wait till there is more news before make a opinion.

What has religion got to do with things? If there was a god he wouldn't make pedophiles unless he's a sick f*ck.

Good call buddy! Say it how it is. He was arrested for child porn. He's also done a whole lot worse in his sick existence I'll wager.

I had missed the posts showing that actual comment from '13, does anyone have any idea who that post was made by? Perhaps someone has a grudge against him for something and posted that and is setting him up for the current charges. May sound far-fetched but stranger things have happened. Then again maybe he is just a sick f@#$ that finally got caught, I guess we'll find out (or maybe not) sooner or later.

My question is, if that person knew something in 2013, why didn't they call the police then?

This is what I'm curious about too. It seems there's would be more prior gossip about this. Other than a single post, 4 years ago. Somebody (or maybe many more) knows a deeper level of detail regarding this earlier accusation.

Maybe they did. Maybe there was an investigation. Maybe there wasn't enough evidence to proceed. Maybe that person was upset by that.

What about "Dead Man's Party"? Same era.

Thank you. That is kind of creepy.

I have to say, watching this thread has been fascinating to me. A few weeks ago JT was a pinball celebrity. An article appeared indicating an arrest for child pornography, and without conviction or any evidence of any kind other than an obscure web posting from 4 years ago, he is guilty scum that should die a horrible death.

It is amazing to me how much stock people put into what they read on the internet, and the conclusions they draw from just bits of supposedly accurate information. As a cop I could arrest anyone for anything I wanted...making the charges stick was another story. Yes, you can be sued for false arrest, but if I really wanted to destroy someone in this pinball court of justice, all I would need to do is file charges on someone and make that public.

Someone in a post above said they didn't have to presume anyone innocent...that is only what a jury has to do. Do you realize the true ramifications of that statement? Why do we even have courts? We put our faith in a system of justice that presumes everyone to be innocent until they are proven to be guilty to a defined standard by a group of peers. We as a society entrust those "peers" to make the right decision based on the evidence as presented. There are millions of dead people who died at the hands of someone that made up their own mind without knowing any facts, which is why we have the system we do. Just an amazing social commentary here.

If anyone should be saying he is guilty as hell it should be me.....but I have also seen first hand what being falsely accused can do to a person. Even if the department announced it was all a mistake, he would never shake that stigma and he will forever be a child pornographer.

He is probably guilty of something, and I am guessing we will never know to what extent, as he will likely plead guilty to get this over with and out of the public eye. But until he does make that plea, or fights the charges and is found guilty, he should be presumed innocent, as disgusting as all of it might seem. It goes to the base of what this great country was founded on. If he is guilty, he will get his punishment, which is also thankfully not up to us.

John Trudeau gets arrested for 2 counts of child porn. Pinsiders lose their minds because others are not angry in the right way.

While I totally agree that everyone should be presumed innocent when going to trial I do think it is entirely reasonable for someone to draw some conclusions from the facts. We do have an old post alleging some past indiscretion. The police did not randomly knock on his door. There had to be evidence to secure a warrant which most likely included monitoring by authorities. To the extent of what was on the computers will most likely be known if this comes to trial. I'm going to assume a level of "not quite innocence" here.

Wait...so he's innocent until proven guilty?!?!?!?!

I'm shocked. Nobody has mentioned that in this thread before.

Thanks for the reminder, things were getting out of hand in here.

You're welcome, Levi. Here goes again:

It doesn't matter what anyone in this thread believes. He is, in fact, presumed innocent. Facts > beliefs, every time, everywhere, even in shitbag 2017.

You can keep saying this but it doesn't make it true. Nobody in this thread is required to presume anything, and in fact is constitutionally guaranteed the right to presume anything they want.

America: TASTE THE FREEDOM!!!

(sorry rest of the world who may be posting here, can't speak for you guys)

It's actually literally, legally true, but feel free to say whatever the heck you want. It's a free country.

I would agree if what you are saying are known facts. This is what I was referring to in my comment....we have no idea of where the prior post came from or if it is legit in any way. It could have been some idiot on a weekend bender that had never met the guy. Internet comments....especially ones under anonymity should never be assumed to be a fact.

And yes, one would think it takes a lot of "evidence" to get a warrant....but the truth is if I would have been a dishonest person, I could have gotten a warrant any time I wanted, for about anything I wanted. All a warrant does is give you the chance to invade their privacy and look for something illegal you think might be there. It in and of itself is not evidence. For instance, I could see a guy pick up his grandkids in his mini van and if I go to court and testify we have a missing child and I have personally seen this guy hang around the school when the kids are getting out and try to lure them into his van and maybe I have a picture or two of this happening....maybe I get a warrant. The proof needed to get a warrant is a whole lot less than needed for a conviction.

So my point is if I were a bad cop out to get this guy, then I could make about anything happen. This is why the courts and our panel of "peers" is so important. So if we were to take everything you say as a fact, I agree with you 100%.....I just can't do that because I have been involved in too many cases where assumptions of fact would have convicted the wrong person.

actually only the justice system must presume him innocent. human beings are free to judge the hell out of him.

This is correct. It's the exact same reason that some people are free to speculate, that maybe, just maybe, JT was on a quest for barely legal gone wrong, or he got a computer virus, or heck 2 counts of child porn really isn't THAT much, or maybe JT is a 15-year old boy who sexted his 14-year old girlfriend, or maybe he's just like Pete Towshend who was completely cleared of all charges except that he wasn't, or maybe it's like that NBA player, and he's getting a bad rap.

All of this stuff is allowed but for some reason they only thing we are supposed to take seriously is "Innocent until proven guilty!"

The only folks who need to take that seriously are those in the legal system and especially those directly involved in this case. I'd guess if this ever went to trial (it won't) then none of us would be given the opportunity to participate give our association with pinball - and thank goodness for that!

The entire basis of our legal system is based on the "innocent until proven guilty" premise.

If you're familiar with any other legal systems in the world, some of them are the complete opposite and people accused of crimes (whether or not they're true) basically go directly to jail unless they can pay someone to fight on their behalf or bribe their way out. Many can't, and many innocent people end up sitting in jail or worse.

By assuming accused persons are always guilty of whatever they are accused of says more about you than it does them.

But, the way the media covers these things today are designed to get knee-jerk reactions and spark outrage to drive up ratings and viewership. So basically, you have been trained to give a knee-jerk reaction and express outrage.

However when you went to that persons house to serve the warrant you wouldn't find anything of importance. Sure the Anonymous Post is one thing but evidence when serving the warrant is another. I am not saying he is guilty but what you are saying and what has happened is slightly different.

Hey freedom-to-hate bros, I'm not saying people in this thread aren't free to judge him on next to no evidence. Go crazy. I'm saying that what people here believe doesn't actually matter. Only facts in a court of law matter. And he is presumed innocent in the only place where 12 or so people's informed opinions matter.

I mean we could always go back to burning witches in the town square because someone posted on a blog four years ago "yo, that's a witch." Could be fun I guess.

Levi...I like your passion and I even enjoy some of your posts in a wonky kind of way. I feel responsible for steering the conversation to "presumed innocent", but that wasn't the real reason I posted. My comment was more about how fascinating this all is to me as an observer. I was't trying to discuss guilt or innocence

What about if you just assume this ONE person is guilty? Are we always supposed to - in our minds - assume everybody is guilty or we are fascists? What does it say about me that when that dude plowed his car through times square and was then tackled, all of it filmed on video in real time, that I assume he's guilty?

It doesn't mean I'm hellbent on undermining human rights and in fact the American way of life, it just means I came to a subjective conclusion on that matter, outside of our legal system. For some folks, the fact that he has been arrested and his warrant says there are child porn files on his computer - which is public record - is going to be enough to come to that conclusion. For some it won't be.

That's all completely fair. But people who keep trying to "innocent until proven guilty" folks into submission are off the mark. In my opinion. Which I hope is still allowed around here.

That's cool. Frankly I'm not either. But I don't like people trying to shut down discussion with one sentence which is why I'm pointing this out. Perhaps if I had used cars to illustrate my point...

It's allowed, it's just worthless until we know more.

And if I were a bad cop, planting the evidence would be a breeze, or so the TV says..........

Pinside 'there are no consequences' attitude in a nutshell. Go wild, go extreme, go off the deep end... no worries, tomorrow you can just start over.

Yup and then people will that as a blanket justification to claim he was guilty of everything they can dream up...
Alas without a trial we won't every really know the scope and details. I can't imagine the guy fighting it to the end.

more witches (resized).jpg

All true. But also undisputed in this thread.

You ran into opposition when you said "innocent until proven guilty" in response to people assuming that he actually did whatever it is he's accused of. You're applying a legal standard to a factual judgment being made outside of the legal system. That's a very fair way for you to view things, but there's no social norm in the US compelling everyone to think about criminal cases that way, and most people don't. Just think back to the OJ Simpson trial (the first one, not the one for stealing his own shirts).

If you were a bad cop you wouldn't have the slightest idea of how to alter the digital files in order to make them look as though they didn't come from the thumb drive you carried into the person home when serving the warrant, because if you did know how to do that you wouldn't be a cop.

Slightly different situation. On one hand, there is live coverage, dozens of witnesses, and plenty of evidence of the event in the aftermath. However, we don't know if the guy had all his marbles. Either way, he is still entitled to a defense, despite the horrible events that took place.

On the other hand, we have someone accused of something morally objectionable with no witnesses and no published evidence. All we have to go on is the statistics of how these cases usually go.

You keep saying this .... as if it somehow makes you look any better by empowering the judgmental stuff

Imagine if someone said the same thing about feminism or racism... they, the laws dont apply to you if you aren't an employer, business, etc. discriminate away as long as you aren't bound by the law!! (Never mind that pesky convention the laws are actually trying to establish... let's focus on who they bind!!)

Wanna bet. My 1st degree was in Computer Science. I worked banking, computer, and all kinds of system fraud for years...which is why I now run a systems data center. Trust me, I could put down enough convincing evidence to get the pope arrested. Maybe it would stand a forensic exam, and maybe not, but we haven't even come to that part of the case yet and he is already a gonner.