Distribution in group chats
Notifications OFF
So another thread made me think....
My husband has been accused by the police on the day of his arrest of distributing 2 indecent videos in a group chat on kik.
He admitted viewing indecent images during the interview, but has categorically denied ever distributing indecent material.
I've asked him over and over again during the last 2 years and he remained steadfast that he never distributed anything.
The police investigation is still ongoing, so I don't really know the facts.
I know there's the possibility that my husband is a lying shitbag and I'm definitely keeping an open mind.
I know some of you might think I'm naive, but I have a strong feeling that my husband is telling the truth. I usually can tell when he's lying and he's been very honest about the viewing part.
So my question is: Is there any way indecent images can be distributed "accidently"?
Not that it would be in any way an excuse in front of a court, I know it wouldn't.
I'm just wondering if there's any way that indecent images can be shared without someone realising they did so xx
My husband has been accused by the police on the day of his arrest of distributing 2 indecent videos in a group chat on kik.
He admitted viewing indecent images during the interview, but has categorically denied ever distributing indecent material.
I've asked him over and over again during the last 2 years and he remained steadfast that he never distributed anything.
The police investigation is still ongoing, so I don't really know the facts.
I know there's the possibility that my husband is a lying shitbag and I'm definitely keeping an open mind.
I know some of you might think I'm naive, but I have a strong feeling that my husband is telling the truth. I usually can tell when he's lying and he's been very honest about the viewing part.
So my question is: Is there any way indecent images can be distributed "accidently"?
Not that it would be in any way an excuse in front of a court, I know it wouldn't.
I'm just wondering if there's any way that indecent images can be shared without someone realising they did so xx
There were posts on here a few years ago highlighting different methods of storing images in folders that go into a cloud type storage that others could potentially have access to. I can't actually remember what places they were but I can remember thinking that it's something that I wouldn't have even considered. It was similar to the fact that WhatsApp stores picture messages that are sent to you on your phone as the default xxx
Hi
If the videos were stored on any kind of online based storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc) they can put it down as distribution as technically someone else could have had access to it. Kinda dumb on my view because usually all those password protected and user specific.
If the videos were stored on any kind of online based storage (iCloud, Dropbox etc) they can put it down as distribution as technically someone else could have had access to it. Kinda dumb on my view because usually all those password protected and user specific.
They are looking to charge my OH with distribution because he was on something called a peer to peer network. This means that anyone in the group can access the storage of anyone else in the group. So technically, he was allowing distribution of the images he had downloaded as other people could access them.
Does anyone know if you'd be charged for possession AND distribution or if distribution alone counts for both?
My persons charges are only distribution and none for possession. Even the helpline couldn't make sense of it
My persons charges are only distribution and none for possession. Even the helpline couldn't make sense of it
EA, not sure but I'd have thought that you couldn't distribute something if you didn't possess it in the first place? My ex was charged with both. X
Thinking about it logically, I suppose you can only charge for possession if you can find the original image on the senders device.
But what if the sender deletes the image after sending it, so it no longer exists on their device? If the police have the receivers device and the image is on there, together with the ip address of the sender, then they can charge the receiver of the image with possession only and the sender with distribution only.
But what if the sender deletes the image after sending it, so it no longer exists on their device? If the police have the receivers device and the image is on there, together with the ip address of the sender, then they can charge the receiver of the image with possession only and the sender with distribution only.
Yeah its all confusing because they've not really explained it in the sense of will he be conviceted of possession if they can't charge that. I doubt it'll make much different to the outcome but I still want to know.
Everyone I've asked have been confused as to why it's not been both charges and I just want to know if I should be expecting more of a hit rather than preparing for this. I don't know how many more surprises I can take
Everyone I've asked have been confused as to why it's not been both charges and I just want to know if I should be expecting more of a hit rather than preparing for this. I don't know how many more surprises I can take