With that said, accusing or charging someone with any aspect of child porn has to be one of the deadliest media weapons in the arsenal to destroy someone. It’s one charge that can decimate on the first shot. Any subsequent proceedings, including finding one innocent, seem to be irrelevant.
It is because of this fact that we should be very weary of who this weapon is fired upon, and why. Fakeologists need to evaluate each case for psyOp or hoax clues.
I’ve stated many times that psyOps are multi-purpose. Creating fear is #1. So, if this case is not true, what could its purpose be?
- to scare any potential consumers of manufacturers of child porn from engaging in this activity by using a high profile person (anyone can be charged)
- problem/reaction/solution: generate support for more laws to outlaw or further control internet use to engage in this activity
- payback or vendetta against this individual for not complying with some demand
DJ Dave Herman, 77, allegedly sent shocking online chat messages over the course of a year to a woman named “Kris,” who he believed was the mother of a 7-year-old girl named “Lexi” that he was hoping to share sexual experiences with. Dave was arrested on Oct. 24 after he attempted to arrange to meet the little girl at his St. Croix vacation home — and learned that the “mom” was really working undercover with police.
Of course it’s possible that the accused here could be as stupid as he is portrayed in his conversations with the authorities. It’s doubtful that anyone the least bit media or computer savvy would say or type the things he’s accused of. The text seems too contrived to be illustrative of the typical 220;abuser”. IMHO most abusers are abusers of opportunity, and would never go out of their way to create an international (media) situation.