A federal grand jury indicted Altman on a child pornography charge June 16.
Altman, 31, former general manager at Sam's Cellar, is free on a personal recognizance bond, despite opposition from the U. S. Attorney's office, which noted that not only was Altman downloading child pornography, but he told investigators that "his preference was for girls between 10 and 14 years old."
Altman is being represented by Springfield attorney Dee Wampler.
The government made the following argument for keeping Altman behind bars while he awaits trial:
The defendant was utilizing peer-to-peer file sharing software to receive and distribute images and videos depicting child pornography. The imagery in question depicted children, some as young as infants, engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The defendant, at the time of the search warrant, possessed a rifle loaded with armor piercing bullets, two sets of body armor, and a Kevlar helmet.
The defendant was accused by a family member of inappropriately touching her when he was 16 years old. The accusation was never reported to the police. The defendant told the investigators that his preference was for girls between 10 and 14 years old. This case involves a minor victim..The evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.
5 comments:
For all the whining you keep on doing because the accused is out on recognizance bond, then why even bother to even hold a trial in the first place?
The Bill of Rights says that the accused has a right to a fair and speedy trial. And bail, except for flight risks on capital crimes. Bond and trial due process go together. Otherwise there is despotism.
If the Feds went after you on the basis of allegedly what CJ Huff said about you, then you would want bail or bond. And you wonder why a majority of people in the area think that there is something wrong with you and you feel you have to hide out in your apartment.
So, you hypocrite, quit whining and let the federal district court judge do his job without you trying to take the part of the prosecution. Nobody needs or wants you involved in this case. If you have first-hand knowledge of this case, go tell the prosecutor or the defense what you know. Otherwise stop whining about the accused having his Constitutional rights while undergoing due process of law respected and showing us yet again that you have no respect for rule of law.
There are a lot of us who think you had ought to be in prison for something, Turner. You got your due process. You sure didn't want any more of that, now did you? So let the accused have his day in court without any more crap from you.
Not one place in that post did I say that I thought Altman should not have been out on bond while awaiting trial. I used the information from the government's court documents to provide more information about the case. As for nobody needing or wanting me on this case, I have heard quite the opposite from several people in the Neosho area.
I think it says a lot about our state as a society when the media is used as a tool to only further infringe upon our rights. I don't know nor does anyone else know if this man is innocent; however, I do know if I was ever innocently charged of a crime, I would hope that I was afforded the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. I think the government and the media has forgotten that the burden is to prove guilt as opposed to the burden being to prove innocence. It is press releases such as this from the federal prosecutors that showcase what is wrong with the system. Even if this man is found to ultimately be innocent, his name has already been tarnished to the point he could never resume a normal life. The litmus test should be something as simple as this: if you are charged with a crime, is the publicity and lynching you receive from the media (and gov press releases) too much to ensure you could ever return to a normal life? If the answer is yes, folks, we have a real problem.
Mr. Turner, you are only adding fuel to the fire. You matter of factly said you are covering this story because of support from several people in the Neosho area. You don't see an issue with that--covering stories because they are "popular"? Shame on you for allowing those who clearly have an agenda to influence yours.
"his preference was for girls 10-14"
HIS WORDS!!
What Mr.Turner posted was PUBLIC RECORD. I NEVER once read where he pointed any fingers at this person. I find it sad that you can't find facts to attack Mr. Turner on so you "try" to spin his alleged crimes & make it a media attack issue. Weak, very weak, agrument in my opinion. Why would any male or female admit what he said? In my opinion the facts presented by the state back up his "own words!" Don't see how you could remotely attack somebody for simply reprinting court documents?
The previous posters merely pointed out that according to the US Constitution that the accused has a right to affordable bail and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a jury of his peers.
Both Turner and Turner's mindless protector made the assumption that saying as much created an accusation of bias and slant on Turner's part. Turner and his supporter both got all defensive, claiming that Turner's legendary bias and slant was well-meaning. Turner never lets go of a grudge, and it doesn't matter whether they live on the other side of the state or have left the area, or whether it occurred years ago and regardless of whether Turner's target even knows or cares if Turner exists, Turner will stalk and defame them forever.
The Clintonesque howls and squeals of outrage amidst weasel-words as to what exactly Turner said as opposed to what Turner supposedly meant should convince everyone that the two hostile commmenters above struck a nerve. The proper way of dealing with Turner is to call Turner on his bias and make him all defensive so as to disrupt Turner's offensiveness.
Turner has a long and sordid history of whining that "his words" on his blogs were used against himself in his hearing which lead to his termination. That is now "permissible," according to Turner's anonymous defender @ 2:57 pm. But the point of contention is Turner's harping that the accused is out free on bond because he wasn't judged to be a flight risk, a menace to society, or facing a capital crime of murder.
Turner loves accusing. Turner hates explaining. That's why Turner no longer has a job for which anyone wants to pay him.
Post a Comment