Comments for: Appeals court reverses some convictions in former Maine prosecutor’s child porn case

Posted Nov. 14, 2012, at 9:37 p.m.
Last modified Nov. 05, 2015, at 2:56 p.m.

BOSTON — A federal appeals court has reversed some of the convictions against Maine’s former top drug prosecutor, who was sentenced to 16 years for child pornography. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld convictions against James Cameron on seven counts but vacated convictions on six counts. …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    sick to my stomach that because he knows the law inside and out he probably will get away with some of this!

    • Anonymous

      Blame the prosecutor for introducing evidence without a supporting witness. The defendant’s experience as a prosecutor himself had nothing to do with it.

      • Anonymous

        Well him being a lawyer he probably instantly knew there was a problem where a person that wasn’t a lawyer wouldnt realize that.

        • Anonymous

          You do realize, I hope, that he had a lawyer, and that it’s basic due process that one has the right to confront his accuser to challenge the evidence.

          • Anonymous

            all good points concerning lawyers, like what respectful lawyers call ambulance chasers. But to me taking his side is like saying it’s the child fault he had naked porn pics of them on his computer…in my mind its sick!

  • Anonymous

    How does everyone like the new message format? Just curious?

    • Anonymous

      Hate it. What was wrong with the other one I wonder? In contrast to this story, how is this guy only getting 60 days?http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/14/news/bangor/levant-man-to-serve-60-days-for-unlawful-sexual-contact-with-girl/?ref=polbeat

      • Anonymous

        This story deals with a federal case. The story you provide a link for deals with a state case. Additionally, child pornography deals with an entire industry that is based on abusing children sexually.

        • Henderson bobby

          watching child porn is wrong . I would bet a lot of the people who have watched child porn would never hurt a child knowingly . Yes supporting an industry is wrong . But would you be more mad at a person who looked at your naked child of one that abused them?

          • Anonymous

            Child pornography isn’t just about naked kids, it’s about forcing kids to do sexual acts and selling the photos and videos to unscrupulous people who don’t care that they are supporting the abuse of children.

          • Henderson bobby

            I agree but that is not the point go after the people who make the child porn .

    • Anonymous

      I Don’t.

    • Anonymous

      The IT person at the Bangor Daily News is William Davis. Send him a love note!

  • Anonymous

    Doesn’t matter. He is just as guilty as if he had only down loaded one image in my book. The punishment never fits the crime in this country. Child Pornography is not a victimless crime. He should have gotten 16 years for each count,

    • Henderson bobby

      !6 years for one image ? Ok then death penalty for one abuse . The system dose not work that way. So if you check you kids computer and see a naked pic or thier boyfriend or girl friend you should get 16 years? Where do you draw the line?

  • Anonymous

    Wonder how many pot smokers this guy prosecuted.

    • Anonymous

      Not enough

      • Tedlick Badkey

        Yeah, cuz, you know, pot is EVIL!

        • Anonymous

          agreed

          • Tedlick Badkey

            But booze is just fine?

            Or are you a true abolitionist?

            Remember… we tried it before. It didn’t work then, no reason to think it will now.

Similar Articles