I think there is some truths in it, but ultimately that yes, this person more than likely committed the crime they were accused of.
There is the quote from RC to the authorities that they could find the items on the computer, which flies in the face of the "I didn't know it was there" defense. That and to have someone hack your computer to put such files on yours:
1) Requires the hacker has said incriminating photos on their own computer putting themselves in danger.
2) Would be more likely if said target was more controversial. Before this incident R.C. was not an infamous figure in the fandom.
In the end though, as far as crimes against children go, the one they were charged with should certainly not be a life-ender or most heinous of these segments of crimes. They didn't directly harm kids, but through consumption did promote material created by someone that did. Getting psychological help and moving himself away from consumption of such materials could have still been possible. Reflecting about fixing the wrongness within himself, and killing only that part of himself, and not the whole of who he was, was still feasible.
My guess is that the prosecutor/DA did get Carl to take the plea, and the court date was where it would have been publicly placed on record. But it sounds like Carl's defense attorney decided to take them for a ride. Not standing in the way of letting them take the plea, but then saying "Oh wait we can try this defense, just need $25,000."
That is assuming that Carl was present with their lawyer when they took the plea. Perhaps he wasn't, but that would be quite unusual if he already had a defense attorney to converse with the prosecution without them.
Plea bargains for use in bringing down organized crime cogs, I'm fine with. Plea bargains to save money and expedite the courtroom process are a bit less than ethical, in my opinion.
In their death, the plea bargain certainly set out what it was intended to do, but perhaps more effectively than intended. Certainly saved the courts money, didn't even have to go through the booking process.
As far as my feelings on this.
I think there is some truths in it, but ultimately that yes, this person more than likely committed the crime they were accused of.
There is the quote from RC to the authorities that they could find the items on the computer, which flies in the face of the "I didn't know it was there" defense. That and to have someone hack your computer to put such files on yours:
1) Requires the hacker has said incriminating photos on their own computer putting themselves in danger.
2) Would be more likely if said target was more controversial. Before this incident R.C. was not an infamous figure in the fandom.
In the end though, as far as crimes against children go, the one they were charged with should certainly not be a life-ender or most heinous of these segments of crimes. They didn't directly harm kids, but through consumption did promote material created by someone that did. Getting psychological help and moving himself away from consumption of such materials could have still been possible. Reflecting about fixing the wrongness within himself, and killing only that part of himself, and not the whole of who he was, was still feasible.
My guess is that the prosecutor/DA did get Carl to take the plea, and the court date was where it would have been publicly placed on record. But it sounds like Carl's defense attorney decided to take them for a ride. Not standing in the way of letting them take the plea, but then saying "Oh wait we can try this defense, just need $25,000."
That is assuming that Carl was present with their lawyer when they took the plea. Perhaps he wasn't, but that would be quite unusual if he already had a defense attorney to converse with the prosecution without them.
Plea bargains for use in bringing down organized crime cogs, I'm fine with. Plea bargains to save money and expedite the courtroom process are a bit less than ethical, in my opinion.
In their death, the plea bargain certainly set out what it was intended to do, but perhaps more effectively than intended. Certainly saved the courts money, didn't even have to go through the booking process.
In the end though, I think it's also wrong to project the death of the furry onto the court system, or other furries who didn't want to be associated, the person took their own life. Another furry from Pennsylvania was accused of much worse, kept a stiff upper-lip in the face of adversity, and was found innocent in the court of law. I don't think it's ethical to have people change what they feel about the case for purely the action taken by the charged.
If you believe you are innocent, don't give up on yourself or take any plea. Justice shouldn't be put up for bargain.