I totally agree. Similarly, if he had asked and got a real answer then that's the first thing the prosecution would have used, instead of focussing on nonsense about him being a furry. That, to me, says that either Alan did know but the chat logs were not a complete record of all communication or that Alan truly didn't know. Since they no doubt had access to both Alan and the teen's PC I find it hard to believe that they didn't have all the messages and am incline to believe that Alan was ignorant of the boy's true age and that the evidence was not overwhelming, hence why the jury was deadlocked in the first trial. Never specifying an age would not be a perfect defence as it could perhaps be inferred.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I totally agree. Similarly, if he had asked and got a real answer then that's the first thing the prosecution would have used, instead of focussing on nonsense about him being a furry. That, to me, says that either Alan did know but the chat logs were not a complete record of all communication or that Alan truly didn't know. Since they no doubt had access to both Alan and the teen's PC I find it hard to believe that they didn't have all the messages and am incline to believe that Alan was ignorant of the boy's true age and that the evidence was not overwhelming, hence why the jury was deadlocked in the first trial. Never specifying an age would not be a perfect defence as it could perhaps be inferred.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~