
The article in the OP does not mention a cache of child porn. Nice try though.

From the article.... "The cache of 400 photos being reviewed by authorities includes head shots or pictures of smiling children and other more disturbing images of children gagged or blindfolded or both, according to sources who have seen them."
In the article, the police have already stated that the pictures taken at the school never show any students in distress, and only students blindfolded. The fact is that outside of his classroom situation, he sought out those other pictures, of children. So, if you're busy thinking that he was using kids only opportunistically, then why are his other pics, of kids?

The article in the OP does not mention a cache of child porn. Nice try though.
The cache of 400 photos being reviewed by authorities includes head shots or pictures of smiling children and other more disturbing images of children gagged or blindfolded or both, according to sources who have seen them.

You are making assumptions. The article does not state that the photos were of different children than those that attended his class.
Is it really that difficult to wait for the facts of the case before you pass judgement on what this guy is or isn't?

While people have decided to attribute things to my assumption, like vigilanteism, a dislike for the mentally ill, a desire to bypass the court system and summarily sentence the guy, those are assumptions as well, and in no way applied by the fact that I've called someone who committed pretty clear pedophilic acts, a pedophile.

Back to your original claims though...
Evidence was insufficient to charge teacher in '94, D.A. says - latimes.com
Oh oh, fondled a girl.
Mark Berndt - L.A. NOW - latimes.com
Two others? You don't say!
For someone who claims to be so concerned with facts, you sure don't like them.
That's only because you don't understand what pedophilia is.

I read all that before I made my first post. All the links were in the article in the OP.
You mean you didn't do any research before you started to comment? That was a rhetorical question, since you already edited out the part where you admitted to not seeing the part about the cache of child porn.

First you admitted to Karrie, that you didn't see it (Before you dishonestly edited that out), then you claimed children in bondage, wasn't child porn.
I'm glad you now admit that children in bondage is child porn.
So we have a teacher, feeding semen to kids, with a cache of child porn, several allegations of sexual assault. It doesn't take the deductive reasoning of the fictitious Sherlock Holmes to come to the reasoned conclusion, he has a predilection for children (The cache of child porn) and acted on the opportunity provided by his position.
Oh, by the way. You just got PWND again.
I have no doubt he will now deny ever having admitted he missed that part of the article.

So we have a teacher, feeding semen to kids, with a cache of child porn, several allegations of sexual assault. It doesn't take the deductive reasoning of the fictitious Sherlock Holmes to come to the reasoned conclusion, he has a predilection for children (The cache of child porn) and acted on the opportunity provided by his position.


You've made the claim that pictures of gagged children is child porn.
You are wrong (as usual). Pictures of gagged kids may be pornographic and the may not be.

I have a wife that is mentally ill. Early onset dementia, thyroid issues, the list goes on. It's been a merry-go round for 2 years trying to get her the help she needs. Everybody passes the buck. Two nights ago she grabbed he mother by the throat. Is that her fault?
Why would a teacher be busted for teaching a pedophile? 
d'oh.
(your cell mate, fuknuts)