BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Late Time Stamp on Roberts Story

For those of you wondering about the missing story on the online version of the News-Press -- I've been sent the following from a faithful reader:

News-Press seeks exam of computer used by ex-editor Roberts containing child porn
NEWS-PRESS STAFF REPORT
April 22, 2007 1:12 PM

This is the latest posting of a story in recent memory....

Labels: , ,

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't there a big difference between the newsprint story and the on-line version?

In print, there's a subheadline indicating that Roberts disputes the charge.

Not so on-line, eh? At least in the part that people can see for free.

Sick.

4/22/2007 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The News-Press' radio station is reading the Sunday morning news story over the air this morning, without any mention of Roberts' press conference yesterday afternoon.

4/23/2007 8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone please reprint the address to send money to support Jerry Robert's defense fund? It's time to donate.

4/23/2007 9:22 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Donations may be sent to the Lawyers Alliance for Free Speech Rights, P.O. Box 5159, Santa Barbara, CA 93150

4/23/2007 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Protect the children.

4/23/2007 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:01pm... How to protect children? Alberto Gonzales,current Attorney General of the United States, along with U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton are implicated in the cover-up of a pedophilia scandal involving the Texas Youth Commission. Have you read much about that in the N-P? It's grusome. False and premature accusations deflect from the criminals.

4/23/2007 3:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For anyone that really cares about American journalism a bad day just turned worse, David Halberstam was killed today in a car accident in the Bay area. He had given a lecture at Berkeley last night. If you don't know who he was, use your favorite search engine. That was a reporter.

4/23/2007 5:26 PM  
Anonymous sola lola said...

Dear 2:01pm,
Your vague, yet insinuating comment does nothing for this thread.

I wouldn't even have acknowledged it for the fact that I can't bear to see anyone getting on the hysterical bandwagon without knowing the facts. That is what makes McFlaw's accusation all the more horrific, because she knows that no one WOULDN'T take up the cause of children. And yet the truth is, this accusation in her filthy rag is just a terribly misguided character assassination on the most extreme level.

Save your breath, and research the real crimes against children. This terrible situation is a crime against an innocent person as well as our community.

4/23/2007 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The children are the victims. When you realize that, you will FINALLY get it. Stop defending the criminals. Start helping the victims.

4/23/2007 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: Sola Lola (5:57)

15,000 images of child porn do in fact a "real crime against children" make--- regardless of which adult is ultimately connected to the crime. Child porn is an industry that ravages children worldwide---so please don't gloss over that fact. Just the knowledge that such an abundance of child porn was at some point and by some one downloaded onto a computer, here in Santa Barbara, begs for someone to "save the children".

4/23/2007 6:29 PM  
Blogger Neil said...

6:26, 6:29

That Child Pornography is a crime against children has never been in doubt. What is at issue here is the use of these images in a petty personal vendetta between McCaw and Roberts. Child porn is no doubt disgusting, but that does not make the actions of McCaw and the News-Press any less beyond reproach.

4/23/2007 7:49 PM  
Anonymous sola lola said...

Dear 6:29,
I find that highly offensive that you insinuate that I "glossed over" the fact that there were purportedly 15,000 images of child porn on this particular computer.

I DO NOT take the situation lightly, and neither should you by throwing around emotionally charged, misguided statements about it.

What I am saying here is that the accusations SHOULD NOT be directed towards -- what I'm sure McFlaw's legal gang considers -- a very convenient target.

And also, 6:29, how do you KNOW that these images weren't planted?
Alas, if you can't answer that question, then you know nothing, and thus shouldn't continue to offend everyone's intelligence by thinking that ANYONE who defends Roberts is thus defending a horrific crime such as child porn.
The insinuation is disgusting.

I will say again, save your breath. Rail against known sexual offenders that have been found guilty of crimes against children. You are not "saving the children". You are "wasting your time, and "our time" that could be better spent finding out how these images got on the computer in the first place. Please stop insulting Roberts and our community.

4/23/2007 7:51 PM  
Anonymous sola lola said...

Furthermore, 6:29 and 6:26, isn't it a no-brainer that child pornography is a horrible thing and that all of us as a community would do everything in our power to "save the children"?

4/23/2007 8:08 PM  
Anonymous Worker Bee said...

Anon 6:26 and 6:29,

No normal human "glosses over" child porn. Give me a break. To insinuate that some of us here think as much means you're either:

A) Easily distracted

-or-

B) On McCaw's payroll

The issue here is not child porn. The issue here is leveraging something we all despise to discredit someone. To take advantage of victimized children to further your cause is just as disturbing as being a child pornographer. Children are the last refuge of scoundrels. Your classic misdirection does not take us thinking peoples' eyes off the prize: McCaw is a scoundrel.

4/23/2007 8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody is debating or minimizing the horror of child pornography. That goes without saying. The issue here is that Jerry Roberts is the victim of a viscious smear campaign. Look at the facts. Nobody should have that stigma put on them UNLESS they have been found guilty of the crime. Isn't that the way the legal system of this country supposed to work?

4/23/2007 8:48 PM  
Anonymous anna pamu said...

The point here, anonymice 6:26 and 6:29, is not that anyone is minimizing the enormity of child pornography. Rather, it's that McCaw's malicious and groundless accusations against Roberts ultimately undermine future cases. The more people spew charges of "child pornographer" when the facts do not support them, the more it undermines genuine cases.

Yes, somebody put those images on that computer, but it's impossible to say exactly who.

4/23/2007 9:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO: 6:29 PM

Child porn is d*mn low, don't use it to flame another topic. Be real.

4/23/2007 10:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please...is it just me or does anyone else find it preciously coincidental that out of all the dozens of people who quit or were fired in the last year, the computer Jerry Roberts just happened to be the one that was uncovered to hold child porn images? No one else. Just the one person Wendy is embroiled in a nasty legal fight.

As a side note...as a former employee who left the paper just before the shit hit the fan, I can tell you that the IT crew at the News-Press routinely fix the (VERY) out of date and duct-taped computers by stealing parts from one computer and putting them into another just to add a few more months of life to the machine and keep the work flow moving. My own computer, shortly before I quit, was crashing on me a minimum of three to four times a day resulting in hours of lost work, not to mention high blood pressure. It was "decided" the best way to handle it would be to put a new hard drive into my computer. A new one, you assume? Nope. A used one that was retrieved from some unknown computer somewhere in the building. I didn't think about it until this disusting story broke and my first thought was, "%$^#, I wonder what could be lurking on that harddrive that was put into my old computer." But then I realized, I'm not involved in a lawsuit with Wendy so I have nothing to fear.
Fact of the matter is there is no security on any of the computers there. It was a matter of common sense to anyone working there that you didn't store anything personal on your computer because unknown people in the building would regularly use your computer on your days off or while you were away. The copy desk alone, at one point, had more bodies than work stations (i.e. computers) so it was always a game of musical chairs during the week for several people. Anything and everything from company e-mail to the Internet to your own personal files were up for anyone to look at and through if they were ever inclined. NOTHING was protected.

4/23/2007 10:17 PM  
Anonymous snarky said...

Humm, save the children.
Yes, let's save the chidren from seing a person unjustly accused, tried in the press, whom is biased against said person.

Let's do something radical, and teach our children about right and wrong... oops, right and wrong are relative to your perspective on an issue.

How about more radical, teach them how to determine facts, issues, and question appropriately.

Some people would rather tar and feather the accused, because of the heinous crimes the accused is accused of committing.

Anyone heard of Duke Lacrosse?

The issues have been stated. The NEWSPRESS had p0rn on it's computer systems. The NEWSPRESS botched the handling though a lack of property and custody. Honestly, from what I read, the computer purchased used, so it may not have even been the NEWSPRESS staff.

The NEWSPRESS lacked enterprise-level systems backup from desktop machines, so they could have answered the question.

WHO FAILED THE CHILDREN?
THE NEWS-PRESS

4/23/2007 10:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any law-abiding and respectful company's management would be horrified and regretful of its failings to secure its property and keep it from involvement with contraband.
But the SBNP management has proven, with its petty, meanspirited and heavily biased publishing tactics, and in publically available legal documentation, that they are mud-slinging parasites to this community, bullying all who can't be bought, and ever eager to point the finger at anyone else rather than face the consequences of their own making.
Management bought used computers that may have well contained pornographic images long before the computers came onto the property - what would that say about their dubious executive decisions.
Their editorial editor published in the newspaper that he had access to and content of former employees' computers - what does that say about their objective ability to conduct their own investigation. Seems to me that nearly anyone had access to the computer, and that another employee, who's eager to show all and sundry that he can - and has - gone into the private information of another's, would be equally suspect.
The former IT specialist, who resigned over the matter, is documented as indicating Ampersand was incapable of protecting its computer equipment *and* that the security director instructed Gil to alter parts of his statement - what does that also say about their objective ability to conduct their own investigation.
NewsPress management is also on legal record for misrepresenting facts and gross exaggeration, as determined by an impartial judge - what reason does anyone have to believe a word of what they print as credible.

I really don't understand how the newspaper's management and ownership can look at themselves in the mirror and go to sleep at night. It's disgusting.

4/23/2007 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Sola:

Here are your words in your post that was referenced by many people:
"research the real crimes against children. This terrible situation is a crime against an innocent person as well as our community."


Perhaps it was not your intent, but those words seem clearly to imply that the undisputed child porn found on the computer is not a "real crime against children"

that's all.

4/24/2007 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone else think that these people who are saying "protect the children" in this thread are the same people who are salivating over trying 14 year old Ricardo Juárez as an adult?

4/24/2007 8:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

15,000+ images? Doesn't sound like the product of an individual employee. And as cynically distrustful as I am of McCaw, that is still a lot of images for even her trolls to place on the machine for purposes of smearing Roberts.

I have to suspect the computer was hacked from the outside and used as a slave conduit of images to others outside the News-Press.

Regardless, I join others in concluding that McCaw certainly does indeed appear ready to use the presence of the images to smear Roberts, earning herself the usual disgust. As if she cares living in her insular world detached from concern for the community in which she lives.

4/24/2007 9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's more likely in the drive before McCaw bought it.Because if hackers was to stash the contraband,they would more likely hide them in large server type with terrabytes of space as to avoid attention.Or were they planted after Mr. Roberts left???

4/24/2007 10:41 AM  
Anonymous sola lola said...

Dear 7:53am,
What do you mean that my words were "referenced by many people"?

Obviously you are a bit distracted. Here, let's make a few equations, shall we?

15,000 images of child porn = crime against children

Jerry Roberts being accused of having 15,000 images of child porn on his former computer with nothing to back up the allegation = crime against children, crime against Jerry Roberts, crime against community.

McFlaw using allegation for her own benefit = crime against EVERYONE.

Do I make myself clear? And please answer my initial question.

4/24/2007 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting to google words such as porn found on hard drive---- what immediately surfaces is the fact that for true porn afficianadoes, they DO in fact have tens if not hundreds of thousands of images on their computers.....and what is also of note is that most of these people in the news stories about such crimes were--- teachers, priests, firemen, etc--- no one wants to believe such behavior exists among us. I for one hope the FBI DOES find out who the true offender is.......and gets that person off the street.

4/24/2007 6:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let be honest... no backups, used computer, open network.

the odds are the computer was hacked and hosted content.

4/25/2007 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who hacked? What's our D.A. saying about the criminal investigations? Hacks and damaged children. Are these isolated to one business? Who are the prime suspects from the law perspective? They need to inform the business community and individuals, like when scammers scam the people. Law enforcement needs to let us know more.

4/26/2007 10:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm purely speculating hacked.
- not easily found. aka, not visible examined. Why would you send a drive out to recovery service, if the images were obvious, and easily recovered by commercial tools (aka norton).
- somewhere it was mentioned, that they were not sure of the location of the files... Either placed in a location that is not easily discovered. aka using illegal filenames to the finder, but filenames that are legal in the underlying unix underpinnings, AND/OR disk erased, and os reinstalled.

- people have pointed out an open network exists at the NP. Easily hacked.

- dealt with hacked computers, so having a lot of images on a computer in a place that is not easily discovered, or removed is not unusual.

4/26/2007 6:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home