Saturday, September 29, 2012

Statement Analysis: Pete Townsend Full Statement

Pedophile?  Statement Analysis gets to the truth. 

Pete Townsend was one of many thousands who were caught in child pornography by using credit cards to purchase the illegal material.  When police said that a famous rock star was among the caught, he came out with this statement.  Statement Analysis is in bold type. 

Is Pete Townsend truthful?  Statement Analysis finds out. 

I am not a paedophile.

Note that this is strong and it is in the present tense with the verb "am."  This is not to say "I wasn't a pedophile" or "I did not engage in child porn."
His first statement is in the negative.  First statements are always important and when it is in the negative, it is doubly important.  Think: Jerry Sandusky.  He may not, currently, consider himself a pedophile, but he engaged in pedophilia activities. 

I have never entered chat rooms on the internet to converse with children.

1.  Please note that "never" is not to be interpreted as "did not".  Please see past articles on the word "never", as it is an unreliable denial. 
2.  Please note what he is denying:  he never entered a chat room with the intention ("to") converse with children.  This is not to say that it did not happen, only that he didn't go into the chat room "to" do this.  By entering this statement, it should cause police to search what chat rooms he did enter that were identified as chat rooms for those interested in sexual discussion to or about children.  
3.  He makes this sentence very important by not only having it in the beginning (after sentence one) but also in the negative.  By introducing chat rooms, he doesn't tell us which rooms, but only that he did not intend to converse "with" children, but not "about" children. 

This is a strong indication that he entered chat rooms and likely engaged in conversations with pedophiles.  To enter a chat room, he would not only need to know where it is located, but would know the title, or topic of the chat. 

I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the internet.

He has been "shocked" about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images.  This is likely where he found the chat room referenced above, and where he found the site to pay for downloads.  By "explosion" he may mean "volume".  

Ask yourself:  how many paedophilic images have you seen online that "advertises" for pedophiles?  The advertisements have "exploded" according to the subject, meaning that they are, according to his language:

"Advertisements" for pedophiles, and they are "images" 

This means that a pedophile website is advertising by using its images. 

Since there is an "explosion" of them, it is likely that the average internet user has been bombarded with them.  

I did not see one today. 
I did not see one yesterday. 

Each morning, like I used to read the newspaper, I read online news stories.  I am bombarded with ads about many things.  Car ads have "exploded" everywhere. 

I did not see a site advertising child pornography today, nor on any day that I have been online, since 1994.  

I have asked others who have all answered the same thing.  They have not seen a single pedophile advertisement.  

We have seen ads featuring children which were inappropriate, but these were for toothpaste, or yogurt, and so on.  This is not what he said.  I will not interpret his words.  I listen to what he said.  

I did not see a child pornographic website advertising on the internet from 1994 until today.  I have never seen a child pornographic website advertising, nor a chat room for pedophiles.  

I believe, therefore, that one would have to deliberately search for one to find one.  

Pete Townsend is lying. This is why the sensitivity indicators are present.  Please take special note of "blue" coloring as the highest level of sensitivity.  

I have been writing my childhood autobiography for the past seven years.
I believe I was sexually abused between the age of five and six-and-a-half when in the care of my maternal grandmother who was mentally ill at the time.

Note "believe" is a weak assertion.  Please see the previous article for what he says about being molested, including a young girl and an uncle, and a rape every week. 

Please note that being a victim of childhood sexual abuse does not give one a license to engage in child pornography. 

I cannot remember clearly what happened, but my creative work tends to throw up nasty shadows - particularly in Tommy.

A truthful person can only report what is remembered. 

Some of the things I have seen on the internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year, 

Note that the things he has seen on the internet informed his book, but he does not say informed "him" which means that he is separating himself from his "book."  He says "I am not a pedophile."  Is his book a "pedophile"?  This is how inappropriate such distancing language is, weakening his original assertion.  We don't inform books; we inform people, who write books. 

and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.

Here we have the highest level of sensitivity in our "blues"
Note the framing of his own words on having "compulsions" which he allows for.  
Please note that he has "anger" and even "vengeance", which should show itself in the language. 
Please note that instead of the anger towards the perverts, he calls them "mentally ill" and he calls them "people", which is plural for "persons."

Those of whom he has "anger" (emotion) and "vengeance" (to carry out the anger) are only "mentally ill people"

Please note that in today's news release, he reports what he did as "insane"; which is to say, "mentally ill."

Will he continue with the soft language towards the perverts calling them "people"?

I predicted many years ago that what has become the internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people.

Here he believes that it is the internet, itself, that has subverted, perverted and destroyed:  "decent people."  Does he consider this the reason for his pedophilia, or was it that a 9 year old girl abused him, or was it every week he was raped by an "uncle"?

Please note that these people are "decent" but that they have been affected by the internet.  

The soft language continues. He doesn't even use "those" people, employing distancing language.    

This contradicts the use of the language of "anger" and especially of "vengeance."  He has called himself "insane" and is linking himself to the people who are victims of the internet.  

I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know,

We would want to ask him, since downloading images of children exploited in sex, what other duty parts exist.  We might fear the answer. 

 to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.


Note his quest to be seen as a "vigilante"; that is, one who takes the law into his own hands and administers justice, outside the law.  With his anger, we would expect action, therefore, against the bad guys, of whom he can only bring himself to call "mentally ill people."  I can think of a lot of bad words to call pedophiles and those who traffic in it and "mentally ill people" is a lot nicer than the words I can list. 

Next, in order to believe that he did this for the purpose of research, you must enter his language and believe that the professional organizations know nothing about child pornography and that he, rock star, knows more and can inform Scotland Yard on his findings. 

I can tell you this from experience:  investigators fight each other to avoid seeing child porn images:  No one wants to do it.  They are often sent to a specialist for forensic evaluation, with most investigators only being told of their existence and not being forced to see them.  

Note he lists three organizations.   Note that the organization with the power to arrest him is reported last.  

To believe him, you must presuppose that the professionals need his help.  

Note the change to only "pornographic" industry, not child porn.  

Note that his tool of proof would be to spend even more money on images.  

He "helped" organizations who seek to block access to child pornography by accessing child pornography. 
He "helped" stop the banks making money by spending money. 
He "helped" Scotland Yard, who investigates child porn, by engaging in child porngraphy.  


That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not.

Note distancing language associated with what is legal and what is illegal.  Note that legal comes frist.  

I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.

Note that this is something he does not "want", present tense.  

Have you ever said that you don't want child pornography available on the internet?  It is something that goes unsaid for most because they do not encounter it.  
Note the additional words "at any time" which shows his own need for emphasis.  


On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.

Here he addresses "one occasion" but does not say that there were others.  Please note that the additional words give him away:

The site he entered "advertised" child porn.  He paid to enter the site. 

If a site advertises guitars and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find inside the site?

If a site advertises sail boats and asks for a credit card to enter, what would you expect to find once you have paid and entered the site?

If a site advertises baseball news stories for the "insider" who wants to hear what the pros are saying, and you had to pay to enter.  Once you pay, what would you expect to encounter?

When you enter a bathroom, do you expect an orchestra to be waiting for you?
When you enter a doctor's office, do you expect to see a football team practicing?

He entered a site that advertised child pornography.  He had to find a site that advertises child pornography, which is illegal.  This is why we do not find child pornography advertisements splashed anywhere.  It is why I have not seen a site advertising child pornography from 1994's first day on line to today.  

I did this purely to see what was there.

Deception indicated.  Here we use the highest level of sensitivity (blue) as it shows "why" he entered the site via explanation.  

Note to Pete Townsend:  When you searched to find the site that advertised child pornography, we knew your intention. 

Note the word "purely" enters his vocabulary.  


I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

He called his lawyer.  This is what people do when they commit a crime and panic at the fear of being caught.  He likely gave his credit card knowing how "insane" it is, something impulsively done, and now is frightened that his name can be picked up.  

He describes it as "spoke informally"; that is, without payment as a client.  This may have proven a mistake if attorney-client privilege is not claimed later. 
He called his lawyer, but not Scotland Yard.  

Note that "a" friend is not "my friend" and is a low form of reference for friendships.  The lawyer likely classifies the relationship differently.  

I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse. 

He only "hopes" that we will be "able" (meaning it will be difficult) for us to "see" that he is "sincerely disturbed."  Of this, we have no doubt. 

He first said that his purpose was to help organizations, but here, after saying "I am sincerely disturbed" he says his purpose to help individuals.  
Please note that his helping organizations, like law enforcement, his help did not include calling them with his "research."

The perverts are "people" and "mentally ill people" and "decent people" in his language, even though he wants us to see him as "angry" and going to take "vigilante" "vengeance" against them.  

It does not fit.  

In his words, pedophiles are "people", "decent people" and are mentally ill.  He uses the word "insane" about himself downloading child pornography with his credit card.  

Pete Townsend is a pedophile; that is, one who is sexually aroused by the sexual abuse of children.  

He wil make even more money now, via selling his book, about lying about pedophilia because people love his music and don't care about the child victims in this.  It is why the doctor who overdosed Michael Jackson was vilified far more by television hosts than the child molester himself.  

Our generation will be remembered for such folly.  


27 comments:

MissUnderstood said...

"Some of the things I have seen on the internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year,"

When did he start writing his book?

Is he using his book as a scape goat? - He HAD to look at child porn for research for his book?

Or, did he start writing the book, after, in hopes of using the book as a scape goat? But really the book was an after though/an attempt to make up a reason for looking at the child porn.

If he was molested as a child, AND disgusted by it, AND disgusted by child porn, why would he want or need to pay to look at child porn? Wouldn't his book be "informed" by his own memories?

Anonymous said...

I BELEIVE he has friends masquerading as therapist that anaylize his works, whose opinions he values as his own;whose life experiences he takes as his own;whose tradgedies happended to him and not those that actually were the victims.

White Knight Sydrome?

Aretha said it best: Rescue me, take me in your arms, rescue me........."

Seamus O Riley said...

Anonymous 12:13: Your post reminds me of just how deep we all could go into the "White Knight Syndrome" psychologically. Imagine dissecting what he must think of himself, to hide his perversion behind this? Wow.

Anonymous, Thanks for the reminder. If you're going to make intelligent posts like this, choose a name!

Anonymous said...

Out of Wiki:Pete Townshend used Tommy's blindness to represent our "...blindness to reality." The Acid Queen symbolized mindless self-indulgence, and then heroically attempted to use drugs to cure Tommy's ailments: deafness, muteness and blindness.

The "real world" is only seen by a select few-those with certain knowledge; those with certain ideology; those with a propensity to offer guidance through the darkened journey of the "real world."

Anonymous said...

Agndas, as they may be called.

Found this link that reprsents his state of mind:http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/pete-townshends-child-porn-treatise?page=4

"Treatise".....WTH?!!!!

He explains fully how this indescretion was an acid dent. There's a subliminal message,too-don't be a vigilante!

My subconsious mind tells me his memoir will reap enough rewards for his experiences and his new mansion will lovingly be named 'Hogswaller Holler' as he and other cronies enlighnten us all.

Anonymous said...

Townshend's paper, which he once posted on his official web site, also notes that the "pathway to 'free' paedophilic imagery is--as it were--laid out like a free line of cocaine at a decadent cocktail party: only the strong willed or terminally uncurious can resist."

Anonymous said...

i sit and send hate messages to peter on the internet cuz i can your fvrte texas stripper and worse nighmere

Anonymous said...

In the 13+ years I have been an active internet user I haven't seen a single ad for child porn. Not a single time. I asked my husband and older 2 kids and they also have not seen one of these ads.

Anonymous said...

Anon2:53
He also goes on to proclaim that drug and alcohol abuse is here to stay, all the while alluding to his charity work of ridding the world of child pornography and child abuse.

In the marketing sense, isn't that companion buying?

Soda pop and peanuts; beer and cigarettes; shortribs and barbeque sause........

Hobnob said...

Some of the things I have seen on the internet have informed my book which I hope will be published later this year,

SOME not ALL
THINGS not IMAGES.
It is a weird statement, it doesn't flow.
Note the dropped pronoun, i would expect to see i have, if he can't take ownership neither can we.
It is the things that have informed his book not he informed his book which is distancing.
Why informed not included or described since he was 'researching'

and which will make clear to the public that if I have any compulsions in this area, they are to face what is happening to young children in the world today and to try to deal openly with my anger and vengeance towards the mentally ill people who find paedophilic pornography attractive.

YOUNGchildren as opposed to children in general?
Is there a difference in his mind in regard to his compulsions between children and young children?
Young children are not ok but children are, I wonder what the age range was of the images he viewed.
Compulsion makes it sound like he has no control over his behavior, he is compelled to view child porn.
This would fir in with hs claim of it being INSANE to do what he did and calling paedophiles mentally ill.

I predicted many years ago that what has become the internet would be used to subvert, pervert and destroy the lives of decent people.

Decent people not the child victims?
Does he see himself as a decent person and it was the internet that subverted, perverted and destroyed him?
It isn''t paedophiles that harm rather it is the internet.
Does this mean the internet is a paedophile, the internet rapes children?

I have felt for a long time that it is part of my duty, knowing what I know,

What does he know, he doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

to act as a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation, the NSPCC and Scotland Yard to build up a powerful and well-informed voice to speak loudly about the millions of dollars being made by American banks and credit card companies for the pornography industry.
American banks not banks in general?
Pornography not child pornography, what brings about the change in language?
Acting as a vigilante, being not only a voice but a well-informed voice.
Order is important, vigilante first (taking the law into his own hands) then being a well informed voice.
Why not report any site that he found immediately to LE?

That industry deliberately blurs what is legal and what is illegal, and different countries have different laws and moral values about this. I do not.
Which industry, the pornography industy or the child porn industry?
How do they deliberately blur?
There is no mistaking the difference between a consenting adult and a non consentng toddler.
Most countries if not all have laws regarding child pornography, there may be differences in the age of consent of a coupl of years (anything between 14 and 18)
What is the THIS that countries have different morals about?
He doesn't tell us so we can't assume.

I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.
Present tense, her does not want it now did he want it before he was caught?
He weakens the statement of not wanting child pornography of the internet with the qualifiers of anywhere and anytime.

Hobnob said...

On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.
What were the other occasions?
Did he access sites without using a credit card on other occasions? (i would be looking at things like paypal etc)
How did he find sites advertising child porn?
I have been online for many years and never come across any sites advertising child porn.
Child porn is illegal and thus underground.
Sites are passed around by word of mouth such as in chat rooms etc and even then they would have to make it known they were interested as paedophiles are incredibly suspicious.
(i know years ago yahoo had chat rooms with such names and older men for younger girls and so on. these rooms would be hosted on private domains and were thus not monitored by yahoo hosts, i know as i contacted a yahoo host in regard to some of the rooms names and was told they only moderated rooms hosted on the yahoo servers. I got a tad tetchy with the moderator)
It is very hard to accidentally come across a site advertising child porn whilst generally surfing, Such sites could be accessed accidentally by clicking on innocuous links from legal sites that redirected.
Innocent people if they came across a site advertising child porn would not click on the link, they would run from it/contact a moderator/ contact LE. They would also b doing scans etc in case they had caught a nasty as well as from fear of being thought a paedophile if their pc were to be examined even if they didn't download anything, the history/cookies could show where they had been.

I did this purely to see what was there.
He has told us the sites were advertisng child porn so why would he need to see what was there if the advert told him its contents?

I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.
Was a lawyer? are they not a lawyer anymore?
Why speak informally to a lawyer first rather than LE if he was researching for a book to be a voice against the industry?
How did he introduce the topic to his lawyer friend?
When did he talk to his lawyer friend, how soon after he had accessed the site?
What did he tell him?
What did his lawyer friend advise him to do?

I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse.
Is this an embedded confession he is a paedophile?
Not only is he disturbed he in sincerely disturbed, the qualifier weakens the claim.
He doesn't tell us how he is disturbed so we can't assume.
Does he refer to the children being disturbed and scarred mentally for life by being abused or does he refer to his own feelings watching children being abused and finds it a turn on?
Who are the individuals who have suffered (past tense, are they not suffering any more?)
Individuals not children?
Individuals implies a specific small group he knows rather than the generic people, strangers he doesn't know.
If he wanted to be a knowledgeable voice why is he helping individuals and not children.
Prevent further abuse of whom? he doesn't tell us so we can't assume.
Paedophiles once identified by the public are vilified and subject to abuse, are these the ones who are suffering ( think johnathon king, gary glitter, michael jackson or linked by the common theme of music)
He weakens the 'i am disturbed by the sexual abuse of children' with the words HOPE,SEE, ABLE and SINCERELY, leaving it open that he knows there are those who won't or aren't able to see he is disturbed, that he isn't sincere.

Hobnob said...

Pete townsend is a paedophile and is using one of the commonest excuses used by paedophiles who get caught.
He thought his fame would protect him and was shocked when it didn't.
He will be a lot more careful now in regard to his viewing of child porn as he knows he is now known to LE.
If he uses a credit card to access sites he will likely now us a prepaid one to cover his tracks.
He will also be using other forms of mdeia to satisfy his compulsions.
I wonder how much info he gave LE concerning his research when he was arrested.
It is interesting he tells us what he did not do (entering chatrooms to converse with children) making it sensitive when he then tells us he is "shocked, angry and vocal" about the explosion of advertised paedophiliac images.
He talks about being a vigilante in regard to images yet not about being in a chatroom discussing child rape. (i would be interested to know which chatrooms he visited since i know in my work if we come across anyone showing images, discussing child sex or on a page with indecent images it is to make notes of what is seen, saving any text, the room url, the ip number and the persons name and contacting my boss who in turn alerts LE, most moderated chats will do the same)
Is this how he found out which sites to go to to see images?
Converse not talk?
Converse implies intelligent discussion between adults,
You converse with an adult you talk to a child.
What is his defintion of converse with a child, adult topics such as sex perhaps?

ecossie possie said...

The problem with the free child porn adds / exposure / readilly available excue is that its not true..This happened ouite a few years ago an was a huge story in the UK..His stash of child porn an his veiwing habbits were uncovered dureing a huge world wide investigation into the sale an distribution of child porn on the internet.Peter Townsend was one of hundreds of men whos credit card an details were spotted useing these sites on a regular basis..At first he deneid veiwing or even knowing about the child porn activity bought with his credit cards an veiwed on his computers.Tried to lay the blame of on his Son .An then started makeing lots of WE comments as his guilt became aparent..We were involved in a project ..We being him an his son.Writting a book involveing the horrors an dangers of child porn.He an his son had to repeatadly visit thease vile sites.To be informened an write knowlagebly on the subject.Im not a hundred percent of the outcome of the incident I I R C P Townsend ended up paying a fine after pleading guilty to the child porn charges......Although he insisted it was simply a plea of conveinace as he didnt actauly watch it for pleasure/entertainment. a bit similar to the President Clintons way of lieing,,I did not have sexuall relations with that woman..An I smoked weed in collage but did it to fit in an never inhalled.

Anonymous said...

'Explosion' may be an indirect reference to his "Treaties" in which "Bomb" was dedicated to Cloud.

Was he referring to a "mushroom" cloud, or merely a cloud on a sunny day?

Perhaps his friend who committed suicide changed her name in order to become One with the Universe; another earthy creature floating close to the sun.

Was this an adaptation of an Indian name that was so popular in the late '60s and early '70s? Did they have that in London?

He must have been abused he beleives, after all the redirection of a rock opera says so.

As if the Ten Drum and One Ten Soldier never existed.

On 10/11 his book will be available for those who wish to share in his particular greif.

BostonLady said...

If Townsend cared about the horrors of child porn, he would have dialed up the police to report the explosion of advertisements on his website. He would have called his Internet provider to demand that they report this to police and to immediately take them off of his website. Instead he used his credit card to access the site? This doesn't make sense. Townsend lied about his reason for accessing the sites. Now he will make more money off a book of lies. Evil

brosnanfan said...

When I first got a computer in the fall of 1999, I was an internet noob. I clicked on a forwarded link that I thought was innocent, but which led me to a porn site. It was one of those that won't let you get out of it; the more you click "back" or the red X at the top of the window or whatever, the more windows open. Plus, ads jump out of nowhere, in pop-ups and pop-unders and new windows, and the more you close the more open. I learned my lesson; don't click links that you aren't sure of, and get a GOOD antivirus program (which, fortunately, I had).

He said, "I have, to the contrary, been shocked, angry and vocal (especially on my website) about the explosion of advertised paedophilic images on the internet." That is what these ads did; they "exploded" across my screen. I think it is interesting that he should use that particular term.

Yukari said...

There was a very similar case in Germany not too long ago. A politician, Jörg Tauss, was caught in possession of child porn and he, too, claimed to have only gathered material for research purposes, to inform himself about the child porn scene in order to fight it.

"According to the prosecution, there were 102 instances over the course of two years of him obtaining child porn. The material was found in his Berlin residence, hidden behind books, in his jacket and under the bed. Most material was saved on his mobile phone. He claims to have researched in the child porn scene in his function as media expert of his political faction (he was a member of the German Bundestag)." (my translation)
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/prozessauftakt-wegen-kinderpornos-tauss-vor-gericht-1.946646

His official statement is here: http://daten.tauss.de/StellungnahmeTauss110309.pdf
It is in German language, so statement analysis will be difficult.
The gist of it, though, to compare to Townsend´s arguments:

- first he admits that considerable confiscations have been made in his office and residence, about which he could not make any statement previously, since he only received the case file and was informed about the specific accusations the night before. As investigations are still ongoing, he cannot yet made a final statement.

- as news of this have leaked to the public, and the "communication style" of the state attorney fires the imagination of the public and damages his reputation, he feels the need to make a statement now.

- he was confronted with the accusations on Thursday, just before a meeting on the subject of child porn [portraying himself as the white knight against cp], by members of the police and state attorney´s office. "In front of more than a dozen people that were mostly unknown to me, I was confronted with the accusation of owning child porn." At the same time, journalists were waiting outside and were apparently already informed. He then jokes about a statement by the state attorney that they had been trying to confront him as discreetly as possible. [portraying himself as the victim, confronted without preparation by a large group of strangers, conspired against by state attorney and press, and the fact that he is joking in particular rings alarm bells.]

- He then asks how it could happen that the spokesman for the state attorney talked to the press before the completion of the investigations, which caused a pre-judgment that should not be without consequences, of course, regardless of his person. [counter-attack]


- part 2 coming up -


Yukari said...

- From the time of his first election, he was studying new media for his Bundestag faction. From the beginning, the matter of pornography in connection with protection of minors and crime was central. [the way he phrases it here, he refers to minors getting access to pornography, not cp] His first essay was on the subject "The internet is not a lawless area". This argument of the "lawless area", though, has been used in recent years to increasingly reduce civil rights, frequently using the fight against child abuse as a pretext. When recently, it was debated to reduce the freedom of journalists by broadening online surveillance, the police president introduced the subject to my colleagues present at the Bundestag by showing them full length nasty video sequences of a little girl being raped. [So, first he portrays himself as a fighter against crime, for the protection of minors and civil rights, then tries to emphasize that he is actually fighting for the journalists who are the target audience of this statement. At the same time he says the video has only been shown to his colleagues that were present, not including himself.]

The same "introduction" was used by the family minister [his political opponent] to convince public and parliament of a highly doubtful contract between internet industry and police that has no base in law, and which he [Tauss] is not the only one to criticize. The coalition partner [implied to be the family minister´s party] requested to study child porn material before the next meeting on the subject to acknowledge the necessity of the limitation of elementary rights that it causes. Many conspiracy theories abound about this in the net, which he does not want to adhere to [of course *cough*]. He leaves it up to the audience´s research whether there are any connections between his political position on the subject and the accusations against him. [insinuating he is being conspired against.]

Hackers have offered to prove for him that his mobile phone numbers are being traded as hot currency in the net and that he may have been the victim of technical manipulation up to the possibility of material having been foisted on him. [He only says they offered to prove this, not that they proved anything!] He is grateful for the support but it was him, himself. [He literally said: "Ich war es selbst."] The state attorney has found child porn in his possession. [He literally said: "bei mir" - at my person or at my place]



Yukari said...

Tauss´ statement, part 3:

- He now asks to explain why he does not consider himself guilty as charged. He has described his political motivation in studying this serious subject. He has often been interviewed, been asked to report on this subject, and is considered, not without reason, an expert on this field.Unlike the state attorney claims, he has often reported publically in circles of experts about my research. He has continuously talked about this to investigators, politicians and scientists and have made statements about approaches and structures to this problem field. He can prove this. [If he has reported publically on his research, there should be no need to prove this.]

- Over time, this led inevitably to an increasingly deeper engagement in this scene. [He says "zwangsläufig", which contains "zwang", force or urge.] If he can claim today to be one of the few experts on this subject, probably not only in Bundestag, this is connected to the fact that he has managed to access this scene without any off-duty interest whatsoever.
[He only refers to "this scene", "these areas", very vaguely. He also only says "without any off-duty interest whatsoever" - which is very vague and reminds me of Clinton´s denial. He does admit, on the other hand, that he has an interest in child porn - strictly on-duty...]

- His reasons for doing so was to gather own knowledge for the political and law-making work on this subject, particularly to find proof for his theory that the distribution of child porn via internet is increasingly being replaced by other distribution forms. And of course he had hoped to discover and "bust" a child porn ring.

- Talking about "the scene", one has to know about its conspirative nature and the fact that it has increasingly sealed itself off due to the pressure from persecution we have built up in recent years. He emphasizes "we" because he has contributed to some of the measures taken and it is not withour irony that those have to be applied to him now.

Yukari said...

Tauss´ statement, part 4:

- Contrary to all the nonsense that is also spread from official side, you will not come across child porn sites or even child porn rings on the internet by chance. Research yourself at your own risk.

- To his experience, there are only closed user groups today which act with great care. You can only come even remotely close when you act in a characteristic way and offer material yourself as kind of an "entrance ticket": I send to you and you send to me, so we are both safe. This is the reason why he has saved the little amount of material that he received himself. [As seen in the article above, the amount of material found in his possession was not that "little" and it does not explain where he got his "entrance ticket" material in the first place...]

- He then says to have used tips from informants and have tried to approach this scene via telephone porn lines, as he was told this is where the scene had shifted to, and it was not merely about exchange of material but about getting offers of actual children to abuse. His research got him in touch with some pedophiles who sent him a few MMS and once, a disk with material. The only contact he considers important was that to one fellow accused who is incriminating him now. (Sascha).

- After building some trust by exchanging "rather harmless" pictures via MMS, Sascha had sent him commercially available porn such as VHS tapes and data disks which were partly unreadably due to the technical equipment in his residence. [playing down his own role, not mentioning if he was able to read the data elsewhere.]

- As he had little material that was interesting for Sascha [not: no!], he asked for payment of 100 Euros for relevant material. Tauss paid and received several data disks which again "were partly unreadable but obviously relevant". [yeah right]. Sascha promised to deliver more and show him to a production site. At this point, Tauss already felt his theory was proved that due to prosecution, the exchange of child porn had shifted away from the internet to other forms of distribution.

Yukari said...

Part 5

- He again claims that this is partly due to his own efforts.

- "Surely we all agree [weakening: apparently he does not think so] that the distribution of child porn and its consumption is considerably contributing to the existence of this inhuman market. [considerably? what else does he think is contributing to the existence of this, if not distribution and consumption?] But in the beginning there is always the dreadful deed in front of a camera.
Due to Sascha´s promise to show him to production sites, he saw the chance to prevent new acts, come closer to the unintermediate culprit [so there are intermediate ones, too] and be able to bust one of those ominous child porn rings and charge those resposnible. So he paid more, but got no information and Sascha claimed to have received no money and he dropped the contact [trying to discredit the guy incriminating him].

- The contact to a child porn ring that he was looking for could not be made. He can´t exclude it but does now believe that the systematic abuse of children is not being organized by the new media used to distribute the material. The rings, if they exist at all, are even more secluded and not accessible to normal users of those media, or the internet, and definitely not by chance.

- As his research brought him some knowledge but was eventually fruitless, he packed away the material that he had received [note the passive form: from what he describes, he must have actively bought or traded for it.]and stopped the research.

He claims to have reported on his findings both publically and politically, having gathered his material only in his function as a politician and media experts. The state attorney does not agree.

Of course, politicians are not policemen. But he needed unbiased knowledge about the actual distribution forms and did not want to rely on the police because he felt that they were using the subject of child porn as a pretext to increase their authority. Many of the measures discussed to fight child porn are the wrong approach. He feels not only misinformed but also tricked as a politician by the police. [shifting the blame by appealing to the fear of police/authority/authoritarian state].




Yukari said...

- He acknowledges it is necessary to clear things up. Looking back, he knows, though, that he should not have done his research without legal advice and better legal protection.

- But he did not want to bother his environment with it and besides, any official address would have been detrimental to his efforts.

- He still believes that he was not committing a crime, acting only as a politician gathering knowledge on his field of expertise.

- He realizes that politically, he did more damage than good both to himself and to his cause, an effective fight against child porn.

- He askes for a fair trial, and fair coverage of his trial by the media.

- "Yes: I have botched up. I have - maybe against the law - entered a stinking pigsty, to clean it out. I am aware that if I get out of this, more will stick to me than just smell. I apologize expressly to my wife for her having to suffer along with the consequences of this nasty suspicion. The same goes for my entire private and political environment."

- He assures that none of his assistants was involved and that he immediately agreed to work with the state attorney. He repeats the initial complaint of the press having been notified before him.

- "Ich versichere Ihnen, kein „Pädophiler“ zu sein." "I assure you not to be a Pedophile."
[The phrase that he uses is a bit tricky to translate into English, but he definitely does not say "I am not a pedophile!" - the wording actually leaves enough leeway he might as well say "I assure you you are not a pedophile".]

- He asks for people to remember that he has always contribute to the legal fight against child abuse which is more important to him than his political mandate. His mandate is a matter between his electorate and him, and will be determined in time.

- This is all that he can say for now (returning to the initial statement that investigation has not complerely finished).

Tauss was given 1 year and 3 months in prison, on probation. The court did not believe his explanation. Leaving out the question if he had a sexual motive, they stated that he had an "exclusive personal" interest in the material.

Tauss tried to appeal and the Bundesgerichtshof discarded his appeal as "obviously unfounded."


Anonymous said...

When recently, it was debated to reduce the freedom of journalists by broadening online surveillance, the police president introduced the subject to my colleagues present at the Bundestag by showing them full length nasty video sequences of a little girl being raped. [So, first he portrays himself as a fighter against crime, for the protection of minors and civil rights, then tries to emphasize that he is actually fighting for the journalists who are the target audience of this statement. At the same time he says the video has only been shown to his colleagues that were present, not including himself.]

He now asks to explain why he does not consider himself guilty as charged. He has described his political motivation in studying this serious subject. He has often been interviewed, been asked to report on this subject, and is considered, not without reason, an expert on this field.Unlike the state attorney claims, he has often reported publically in circles of experts about my research.

MY RESEARCH????

Anonymous said...

@Yukari
Say, wasn't Sascha found strung up in an attempt to pull out a sniper?

Yukari said...

Anon at 9:26 - should be "his research", made a mistake in relating his German first person statements into English indirect speech.

Anon at 3:39 - I had not heard about that. I tried to find information but could not find any. Witnesses have been found strung up in the Dutroux affair, though, so it´s not out of the question.

Anonymous said...

What a load of witch hunting shit

azcarf44 said...

I am a huge fan of Pete Townshend's music, both with The Who and his solo material. As such, I gave him the benefit of the doubt like a lot fans do regarding the whole pedophile saga. If I was pushed, I made some sort of rationalizations in his defense. For the most part, I ignored the whole sordid affair as much as possible and just enjoyed his music. Then I joined The Who website and found the chat rooms were almost completely bare of dissent regarding Townshend and the pedophile story. Chillingly, I found that the site owners stop dissenting thought on this topic. This I found completely unacceptable because one of the chat rooms deals exclusively on his autobiography, Who I Am.

I purchased Who I Am wanting to believe Townshend's claim once and for all that he was not a pedophile, that he did nothing wrong, and that the whole thing was a witch hunt of massive proportions. After reading the book, I came away disillusioned with the man over several things, including his explanations on the whole pedophile arrest affair. I just found his story, to put it diplomatically, incredible.

I have now stumbled onto this blog and read the analysis on Townshend's statement. I've read all the comments as well. I am impressed with the arguments set forth here and have read the words of some very sharp people. I could not articulate much of what I read here, so I am glad others of you are out there to make clear what should be plain to see. Yes Townshend is a liar. Yes Townshend is a pedophile. It feels intellectual good to be intellectually honest with myself about a man I've admired for decades.

In 2006 Pete Townshend put out what was called a Who album with his old bandmate Roger Daltrey. It really was not a Who album, but much more of a solo adventure with most of the recordings done by Townshend himself alone in his studio. One of the songs on the album is called Man In A Purple Dress. The song is about how men in Great Britain feel the need to dress up essentially like drag queens when passing judgement on their fellow man. Townshend explained the song's genesis had nothing to do with his arrest a few years earlier. I did not buy that then, and I really do not buy it now. This song was written by a man who has contempt for men who sat in judgement of him. I thought he wanted to help expose the wrongs of society regarding child pornography, but he sounds too tied up in his own personal anger toward those who dare challenge him.

I remember when everything broke on Michael Jackson years ago and I could not believe how people believed Jackson's story. I now remind myself that I once believed Townshend's story. No more, thank you for the insight on Statement Analysis. I look forward to reading many more of the posts here.