Former Priest and Talk Show Host Indicted

December 7th, 2007 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Popular liberal talk radio show host and former Catholic Priest Bernie Ward has been indicted on federal child pornography charges.

The 56-year old Ward surrendered to federal authorities yesterday.

It seems, however, that the story may not be as simple as some may think: according to his lawyer – Weinberg – he downloaded “a few” images back in 2004 when he was doing research for a book (about America’s hypocrisy). This violated the letter of the law, the lawyers said authorities told him, but – again according to this lawyer – no one believes that Ward is a “child predator.”

“They investigated and they never found any involvement in child pornography other than this period that he accessed these images,” Weinberg said. “The government knows that Bernie was doing this for an investigation he was doing for a book. But the government believes he violated the letter of the law and they have gone ahead and prosecuted him.”

The government seized his computer in 2005 but found no evidence of child pornography or any other impropriety.

We’ll see where this goes. Authorities have to be aggressive with regards to child pornography / pedophiles, but a too aggressive approach will result in wrongful convictions. Child pornography is bad, but being wrongfully accused of being a child predator isn’t a joyful experience either I’d say.

Only time will tell whether he’s making up excuses or whether he just made a stupid mistake.

More at Macsmind and JammieWearingFool. The latter, by the way, links to this article: As part of the research for the book, Weinberg says Ward acquired several images of child porn from websites, and ‘he exchanged them with adults who do the same thing’.”

Um. Frankly, that’s a bit a curious explanation.

O, and: “By the way, Weinberg says Ward never finished the book, that the FBI raid killed the project.”

Good. Is there any proof that he was actually working on the book or what?

Innocent until proven guilty, but it surely is suspicious.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Xel
    December 7th, 2007 at 12:42
    Reply | Quote | #1

    I can’t say whether it makes sense that the raid killed the project considering the investigation (alleged) should have been finished by then. I also think he should have been very careful about sending the images further – even though it could check out that the adressees seem "legit" it points in the wrong direction for him. In short, there is no reason to deplore him or feel sorry for him yet, but I guess no one was going anywhere with this at this stage.

  2. Tully
    December 7th, 2007 at 14:41
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Ah, yes. The “Pete Townshend” defense.

  3. Rudi666
    December 7th, 2007 at 15:44
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Tully – I thought that Pete’s defense worked for him. He could also claim deafness as an excuse

    BJ has a post – Big Brother watches your Router!! – about a new law making wireless routers owners responsible for any "porn" downloaded over their connection. If your neighbor hijacks your router to look at "kiddee porn" they’ll kick in your door while arresting him.

  4. Xel
    December 7th, 2007 at 16:01
    Reply | Quote | #4

    "If your neighbor hijacks your router to look at "kiddee porn" they’ll kick in your door while arresting him."

    EMPTY MORALISM – "Because caring for kids means that adults need to be subject to legal bumf that can ruin their lives"

  5. Tully
    December 7th, 2007 at 16:23
    Reply | Quote | #5

    He could go with the Elton John defense instead, and say he only looked at kiddie porn that was art.

    Saw that router bill. Goes to show the level of techno-moronity in Congress.

  6. Tully
    December 7th, 2007 at 16:26
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Oh, and Townshend was placed on the Sex Offender registry for five years, and has to get government waivers to travel overseas. Even though they concluded he was innocent after a lengthy investigation that included confiscating all of his computers for six months.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.