43 since 8 pm in 102 minutes!
CITY HALL NEVER PROSECUTED ALLEGED PORNOGRAPHER SAYING THAT THEY COULDN'T DETERMINE IF THE KID WAS UNDERAGE OR OF THE AGE OF CONSENT
HERE'S THE RUMLEY QUANDARY
1)THEY KNEW THE KID'S NAME, ALLEGEDLY
2)THEY KNEW WHERE HE WORKED
3)THEY KNEW THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED EVICTION FROM HARVARD STREET
TAKING THE KID'S IDENTIFICATION, HIS WORK RECORDS, THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED HARVARD ST. EVICTION, THEY HAVE MORE THAN BREADCRUMBS TO FIGURE OUT THE KID'S AGE
THAT THEY WON'T RELEASE THE FLOPPY DISC IS BECAUSE THEY ALLEGEDLY KNOW IT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
SO? WE ALL KNOW WHO THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR IS IF WE'VE READ THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER
IF YOU KNEW THE BACKGROUND OF THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR...LET'S JUST SAY IF YOU RUN A CORI ON HIM YOU JUST MIGHT FIND SOMETHING ABOUT A TEENAGER...AND AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LAW REGARDING AN ACTIVITY WITH THAT TEENAGER, ALLEGEDLY...
AND THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ....
ADDY IT ALL UP, AND G.L. c 272 Section 29B and dissemination of visual material of child in a state of nudity or sexual conduct ...well...
there would be EGG on the FACE of the mayor, the former mayor, the city solicitor, the police department, and Jenna Tarabelsi should give this information to her lawyer for a very good appeal.
Do as they say, not as they do.
If it walks like a duck, and talk likes a duck, most likely it's a good old Tricky Dicky Nixon Cover-UP...
_________________________
