WTF? WTF?

[Junkenstein]

No.

My problem is that others can read out your conversations and interpret them as they please. This is the exact justification that people are using regarding Prism/Snowden right now. Nothing to hide = Nothing to fear.

There's also many cases recently of Law enforcement encouraging individuals and assisting their acts. I would say it's not unreasonable to speculate that at least one person in that chat room was involved in the investigation. Neither is it unreasonable to think that they lead the conversation in this way and helped give him enough rope to hang himself.

Private fantasies, no matter how disgusting, are private. As long as there is no actual criminal act, I find it hard to condemn someone based on what you think they are thinking. I'm not privy to all the evidence. If he had a diary with "Kill X on Tuesday" then, yeah, fuck him. I just need a little more than creepy chat logs and vague hints about surveillance. If you don't, then I'd advise trying to arrest 4chan and many more ASAP.

Nice to take the Party line though. Maybe when your conversations are deemed inappropriate by the government you might think about this more.

[AFK]

You are making an assumption that this one article is giving you a comprehensive and thorough overview of the entire case. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No.

My problem is that others can read out your conversations and interpret them as they please. This is the exact justification that people are using regarding Prism/Snowden right now. Nothing to hide = Nothing to fear.

There's also many cases recently of Law enforcement encouraging individuals and assisting their acts. I would say it's not unreasonable to speculate that at least one person in that chat room was involved in the investigation. Neither is it unreasonable to think that they lead the conversation in this way and helped give him enough rope to hang himself.

Private fantasies, no matter how disgusting, are private. As long as there is no actual criminal act, I find it hard to condemn someone based on what you think they are thinking. I'm not privy to all the evidence. If he had a diary with "Kill X on Tuesday" then, yeah, fuck him. I just need a little more than creepy chat logs and vague hints about surveillance. If you don't, then I'd advise trying to arrest 4chan and many more ASAP.

Nice to take the Party line though. Maybe when your conversations are deemed inappropriate by the government you might think about this more.

I would hope that there was more to the evidence that led to conviction than was reported in the article.

That hope may be foundless, but still. I would hope.

[Doktor Howl]

Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.

But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case.  Whom was he conspiring with?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.

But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case.  Whom was he conspiring with?

I think the question is very interesting as well. Even keeping in mind that we may just be dealing with a case of poor reporting and the case may make a lot more sense than it appears to based on the article, if he was conspiring, as opposed to merely plotting, who were his conspirators and when will their trial be? And what made him stand out as a conspirator rather than merely a role-player, as the other men in the chatroom seem to have been dismissed as? It's a revolting role-play, to be sure, but the question is really what tipped it from role-play to conspiracy in his case, but not in theirs?

[Junkenstein]

You are making an assumption that this one article is giving you a comprehensive and thorough overview of the entire case.

No. I tried, I give up.

I would hope that there was more to the evidence that led to conviction than was reported in the article.

That hope may be foundless, but still. I would hope.

I would also hope this. I would not be surprised to find out if the vast majority of the evidence was internet based. If he was actually out stalking and equipped I'm fairly sure that would have come up a lot more.

[Junkenstein]

Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.

But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case.  Whom was he conspiring with?

I think the question is very interesting as well. Even keeping in mind that we may just be dealing with a case of poor reporting and the case may make a lot more sense than it appears to based on the article, if he was conspiring, as opposed to merely plotting, who were his conspirators and when will their trial be? And what made him stand out as a conspirator rather than merely a role-player, as the other men in the chatroom seem to have been dismissed as? It's a revolting role-play, to be sure, but the question is really what tipped it from role-play to conspiracy in his case, but not in theirs?

This. This is what I was trying to get at.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Some excerpts from the article that provide clues to the answers to the questions:

he was also convicted of illegally gaining access to a law enforcement database that prosecutors said he had used to conduct research on potential victims.

That's pretty concrete. That is definitely taking it beyond role-playing and into IRL.

His communications with one man, who used the screen identity Moody Blues, were pivotal, a juror recalled. Without those chats, the juror said, there might have been a not-guilty verdict.

I wonder if Moody Blues will also be prosecuted?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Google to the rescue:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679

[AFK]

Yes, clearly the dude was a dangerous asswipe who was going beyond just getting his jollies off onthe internet.  Good riddance to bad rubbish. 

[Junkenstein]

Google to the rescue:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679

Well this is a little more reassuring. There were a couple of procedural things that bothered me about the story, but they kind of pale next to that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Google to the rescue:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cannibal-buddy-moody-blues-booked-u-child-porn-charges-article-1.1276679

Well this is a little more reassuring. There were a couple of procedural things that bothered me about the story, but they kind of pale next to that.

You can pretty much always safely assume that there is never enough information in a newspaper article for readers to come to an accurate conclusion. About anything. Ever.

[Junkenstein]

How very true. I've been pretty lax lately and shit like this helps to remind me to sharpen up.

[Cain]

Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.

But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case.  Whom was he conspiring with?

Unnecessary for the charge.  Larry Layton got done on a conspiracy charge...a conspiracy of one, to listen to the court proceedings.

[Doktor Howl]

Frankly, I was just laughing at the notion of cannibal cops.

But conspiracy charges are interesting, in this case.  Whom was he conspiring with?

Unnecessary for the charge.  Larry Layton got done on a conspiracy charge...a conspiracy of one, to listen to the court proceedings.

I am also a conspiracy of one.  For all kinds of shit.