Here’s something that just drives me crazy. Liberals (rightly) criticize misogynists and other miscreants on the right when there’s a reason, like when they say really stupid things. But when liberals do really stupid things and then, with full knowledge that the stupid thing they did could actually do harm to someone else’s business model there are responses like the one below, like we’re all stupid or something.

via OsborneInk:

Just in case you didn’t figure this out, Bill Talley is trying to tell us that some form of malware is responsible for the child porn images — printed and electronic — that police found during a search of his home. Or failing that, the other excuse is that somehow crooked policemen planted the printed images in his house and on his hard drive.

I think we call that defending the indefensible.

Here are some things I know from the Julie Amero case and similar cases where pornography landed on a hard drive as a consequence of malware: Child porn does not print itself because malware is installed on a machine, and it doesn’t make its way to DVDs because malware is installed on a machine.

Here’s something else I know: If there was any possible defense for having such images in his possession, he and his attorneys would have hired some good forensic examiners to show how that malware loaded, printed, and looked at those images.

The fact that the printed and stored child porn belonged to a self-proclaimed liberal matters not at all. Not in the least. In fact, liberal values are not libertine values, so most liberals think of the exploited children before their own sexual gratification.

Mr Talley fought the search that yielded the images and drugs on the basis that the entry to his condo complex was a poisoned search because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas by virtue of the entry code required to get in. The courts disagreed. Mr. Talley did not ever fight the characterization of it as child pornography nor did he suggest that he thought the subjects in the images were over the age of 18.

It doesn’t matter what one’s personal views are on exploitation of children this way. What matters is that such exploitation is against the law and in fact, Mr. Talley has entered a guilty plea to three counts against him and is awaiting sentencing.

Don’t defend that. Don’t ever defend that. Whether liberal or conservative. Exploiting children and contributing to an already-toxic human trafficking problem is not something anyone should defend. Ever. Nor should anyone assume Talley is some kind of a victim because the truth about these charges was brought into the open.

If you’re not intellectually honest enough to deal with the ugly truth about someone on your side of the wall, then do me a favor and step back out of the political discourse, because you just do harm to those who are willing to step up and stand for what’s right, regardless of political affiliation.

Update #1: Since I have been attacked by Mr. Talley for my “ignorance” of the law and whether a fact is a fact until it’s gone to trial, I will simply post the particulars here.

This is the current case status:

This is the decision rendered by the Tennessee Supreme Court which also contains details about what was recovered during the search. In the footnotes, you find this:

. In the course of their investigation at the condominium, the police seized the following items: a folding knife with white residue; a white cup with residue; a glass vial with copper mesh; a glass vial with residue; a glass pipe with dark residue; three straws with white residue; four plastic bags with white residue; a mirror with white residue; another marijuana pipe; two sets of digital scales; a bag containing plastic baggies; a plastic cocaine sniffer; a black and silver pipe; a set of glass pipes with residue; a metal grinder for marijuana; two plastic bags of marijuana; two bags of Xanax; a pill bottle of Hydrocodone; various pill bottles containing 1,928 Xanax pills, 115 Mersyndol pills, 1,198 Lomotil pills, and nine Klonopin pills; a Dell notebook computer containing images of child pornography; three pornographic compact discs; and several other compact discs. Child pornography was also found in the Defendant’s briefcase.

Let’s talk for a moment about the pornography, since that is the issue I am mostly concerned with. Drugs are drugs, and he was alleged to have been dealing but there isn’t any evidence beyond the amounts stated that there was any dealing going on. So that is neutral as far as I’m concerned. The other items are those that concern me, and this decision didn’t deal with the search of his office, where they found more images.

Here is the original Motion to Suppress Evidence, as filed by Mr. Talley’s lawyer.

Here is the brief arguing Talley’s side on appeal.

Brief Re: Appeal of Talley Evidence Suppression

Read these documents carefully. I do not dispute Mr. Talley’s right to challenge whether the entry was proper. He did challenge it via a suppression hearing and subsequent appeals to higher courts. Had those appeals been granted, a jury would not have seen the items and at trial, it’s likely Talley would have been found not guilty. However, the appeals were denied, and so had a trial been held, they would have been introduced into evidence. It appears there has been some sort of plea, whether of the sort known as an “Alford plea” — a hybrid concession plea that doesn’t admit guilt — or just a regular old plea bargain.

The fact that a trial didn’t actually take place does not mean the items don’t exist. It doesn’t mean they magically evaporate into something that isn’t real. They remain real, they remain actual items, and no one, not even Talley, has disputed what they are or why they’re there.

Consider something, for a moment. If you were a cop who heard this, what would you think? Would you think this person was being honest with himself and others? If he wasn’t honest about this, why assume there’s veracity with regard to the pornographic images?

He also told the detective that he exchanged the drugs with his friends for money but that he did not consider this to be “selling” drugs.

Once more, with feeling: Mr. Talley can claim there’s been no trial and therefore there is no crime, but I wonder what exactly the sentencing hearing is for, then? The word “Guilty” next to those three counts carries weight, far more weight than his claims that I’m somehow “smearing” him.

I would strongly recommend that those who are telling me I’m writing up smears read these documents first and pay attention to the status of the case. If there were no verdicts, I would have remained silent. However, as we all can plainly see, there ARE three counts with guilty verdicts, and those are what I am addressing in this post.

Update #2: See this comment. Schnitzerella says she wasn’t defending, just looking for a bigger picture. Fair enough. Her tweets were pulled out as one example, but they weren’t the only ones.