This is the second case for Kentucky. The conditions appear similar to the first case.
Another day in the “land of the free”.
This report about the event includes information about the first.
Where we have the line:
“Phillips at this time is not facing charges for having the multiple child sex dolls.”
Perhaps this should read
“is not facing charges for having the multiple (alleged) child sex dolls.”
This would move the burden of proof to law enforcement, to define exactly what constitutes a child doll.
Since dolls aren’t illegal, if the doll was the only reason for the search, it seems reasonable to expect for the defense to request for a motion to suppress the evidence found. I suspect that there are either undisclosed details of all that has transpired or that legal problems will follow.
I wonder whether the images reported as illegal were just pictures of dolls. I hope he didn’t have truly exploitative images.
The video shows additional information.
It wouldn’t be particularly surprising if he did, the U.K. estimates that something like half a million people are looking at child pornography in their country, although the methods they use to estimate that seem dodgy like some of the other imaginary numbers.
The journalistic standards here on the other hand are absolutely atrocious.
i think is a pity,hope everything will be good