At this point he is just arguing to argue. He knows he’s wrong but pride is a powerful thingBut that is not true here. He had child porn on his computer. Just because the DA couldn't "prove" the kids were under 18 doesn't make it any less disgusting. Or dangerous. Like Justice Stewart said when asked to define "obscene" -- I know it when I see it.
The fact that he had that stuff on his computer is enough for me. Just because someone couldn't identify and find birthdates for the young men in the pictures/videos doesn't absolve him. He HAD THE **** ON HIS COMPUTER.
I worked for a short while for an attorney who defended sex offenders. In the 18 months I worked for him not a single solitary man who came to him who had been charged with offenses against minors was innocent. Not A SINGLE ONE. And every one of them TO THE MAN said the children "asked" them to show them how to have sex!
I will never understand people who think that because someone got off on a technicality that means they are innocent. NOTHING could be further from the truth.