Re: Can we see the innocence of Jimi Hendrix? (no Jimi)

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:21:08 -0500
> From: "O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Had Pete's initial statement been that he researched only a list of 
> sites to heighten awareness of all these sites, would anyone here 
> still have wanted Pete to apologize?
>
> I can say I wouldn't have.
>
> So, then, the remaining question is why it's all so different now?

My remaining question is, why didn't Pete make this statement in 
January 2003 instead of October, as it seems to clear up the whole 
thing and exonerate him completely?  At least, a lot of commentators 
have said as much.


> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:22:35 -0500
> From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I would have still wanted an apology.  As I've stated, no kind of 
> research
> is an excuse to give $5.00 to people who arrange for babies to get 
> fucked.

According to his "Detail" diary entry he gave $5 to people who 
maintained listings of sites where such images could be found.  Not 
necessarily the same as giving $5 to those who directly produce the 
images.  Again, how could this "detail" be missed for 9 months??

Also, Pete claims that what he did was not illegal at the time.  Ex 
post facto laws are unconstitutional in the U.S....are they allowed in 
the U.K.?

Cheers,
Alan
"the average Texan...carries not just a gun but a SHOTGUN."  --Pete 
Townshend, 1967