Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

War College colonel charged with 120 counts of child pornography

A U.S. Army Colonel has been arrested on 120 counts of possessing child pornography, according to Cumberland County District Attorney Dave Freed.

Colonel Robert J. Rice was in Cumberland County Prison on $100,000 secured bail Thursday evening. Freed said his office found 10,000 pornographic images on Rice's personal computer depicting children engaging in prohibited sexual acts.

Rice, 55, of Carlisle, serves as Director of the DA Support Branch at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership and Development.

Freed said his office was tipped off a couple of months ago that there were images of suspected child pornography on a laptop computer that belonged to Rice.

In a statement on the War College's Facebook page, U.S. Army War College Commandant Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, said that Rice was arrested on post Thursday by the Army's Criminal Investigation Division and transferred to the Cumberland County detective's office.

"The allegations, if true, are very serious," Cucolo wrote. "The command is cooperating with the Cumberland County district attorney's office. He is innocent until proven guilty, and he and his family will receive appropriate support."

Rice's clearance has been suspended and, once the case is over, his duties will not include access to classified information.

Freed said they took several months to complete the investigation because they knew Rice did not have contact with children.

"It became a little less of a time crunch and I wanted to make sure that, understanding the position this person had, that [the case] was very solid," he said.

Freed said the investigation included a forensic review of the images to ensure that they were children. He said they stopped examining the images after they were sure they had 120 counts against Rice.

Freed said there is no evidence that Rice was involved in the creation of child pornography.

In addition to 120 counts of child pornography, Rice was charged with a single count of criminal use of a communications facility. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for April 9.

by Anonymousreply 4005/06/2013

Why did the other thread get disappeared?

by Anonymousreply 104/04/2013


by Anonymousreply 204/05/2013

"Every time you kissed me, I had to wipe my mouth! Wipe my mouth!"

by Anonymousreply 304/05/2013

So his wife shared his computer?

Not saying that this is the case, but it seems like a woman only has to put porn on her computer and blame the husband and she's rid of him if she so wants. And no one will question it.

by Anonymousreply 404/05/2013

Interesting thought, she could have framed him.

by Anonymousreply 504/05/2013

I couldn't even open the other thread yesterday.

by Anonymousreply 604/05/2013

Interesting thought r4.

So, the lesson is never share your computer with anyone - EVER.

Though all it would take is one time stamped .db file when he couldn't possibly have done it and it would introduce some doubt, especially if another alternate theory of the case were raised.

Then again, seems awfully complicated - Occam's razor and all.

by Anonymousreply 704/05/2013

I doubt very much is was a shared laptop. Where did you ever get this idea?

by Anonymousreply 804/05/2013

"Interesting thought, she could have framed him"

With as many as 10,000 images it seems unlikely that she was framing him but who knows? This is why we have trials - to present the facts

by Anonymousreply 904/05/2013


[quote]Authorities said Rice’s wife was interviewed Feb. 7 and said she saw child pornography on her husband’s laptop, which she turned over to investigators.

by Anonymousreply 1004/05/2013

I don't think she could benefit by turning those over (beyond getting rid of him). If he's convicted and given an dishonorable discharge, there goes the salary and the pension and financial security.

by Anonymousreply 1104/05/2013

[quote]depicting children engaging in prohibited sexual acts.

What would the permitted sexual acts be, pray tell?

by Anonymousreply 1204/05/2013

Just had a seminar and one session was an attorney specializing in these cases and the forensics expert.

It is real easy to end up with this type of pron on your hardrive even if you don't go looking for it. Anyone who visits porn sites could click some link that seems non-child related - bouncing bottoms, eg - and end up with literally tons of unwanted images. Easy to come up with 120 images on a scrolling page. Doesn't even matter if the minute you saw what it was you clicked away.

Most people are too terrified or humiliated to fight it in court so they take some smaller guilty plea. This guy needs an attorney who knows how to fight these cases and how to work this ridiculous number of counts down if the case is too strong to win completely.

Judges are beginning to see how unfair these cases are and how overcharged they are.

The government is used to people rolling over in these cases but more lawyers and forensics experts are getting better at defending. Judges, too, are getting smarter at handling these and ferreting out the BS that can accompany them.

It's a big production to defend as well. You have to go to a government location where the defense gets a secure room to use for the duration with clean computers and other equipment, etc. Everything is spelled out in a long court order eg to see the material requires a protective court order and the evidence can't leave the premises. So your expert has to travel to the location and do his forensics investigation there. Blah blah blah.

by Anonymousreply 1304/05/2013

How did they come up with the threshold of 120? There were, reportedly, 10K images.

by Anonymousreply 1404/05/2013

He's a satanist.

by Anonymousreply 1504/05/2013

I kind of roll my eyes when people take about how brave and noble our men and women in uniform are. I say this as someone who is literally in uniform at this very moment: It's a bunch of bullshit that's championed because nobody wants the draft reinstated

A nation's armed forces is made up of a cross section of its general population. Stories like this no longer shock me.

by Anonymousreply 1604/05/2013

I'm not sure what your point is, R16? That it there were a draft, there would be better quality career officers?

by Anonymousreply 1704/05/2013

*if there were a draft

by Anonymousreply 1804/05/2013

Probably so, r17.

by Anonymousreply 1904/05/2013

I mean that if there were a draft, people would be expected to serve in the military if shit hit the fan. Most people who thank others for their service are either veterans themselves or politicians/relatives of young men who would never ever join the military.

by Anonymousreply 2004/06/2013

Any updates on this case?

by Anonymousreply 2104/06/2013

Maybe it was for research purposes

by Anonymousreply 2204/06/2013

Preliminary hearing is coming up

by Anonymousreply 2304/09/2013

Claims he was the victim of "identity theft"

by Anonymousreply 2404/10/2013

Just as an aside, the military and intelligence services love charging people who disagree with them with pedophilia. Julian Assange and the guy who came out declaring their were no WMDs and Iraq, Scott Ritter, were charged with pedophilia.

by Anonymousreply 2504/10/2013

Either a real sicko. Or he really pissed off the wrong Elite. Hard to say which.

by Anonymousreply 2604/10/2013

"Just as an aside, the military and intelligence services love charging people who disagree with them with pedophilia"

But it was his own wife who turned him in

by Anonymousreply 2704/10/2013

Idiots! He was just doing RESEARCH!

by Anonymousreply 2804/10/2013

This story doesn't sit right with me. A 56-year-old Colonel, War College, that stupid!?

If he is a pervert of the highest order, I don't imagine he just caught the bug recently and was naive.

All we will know for sure is that there will be questionable justice and, since every single person who touches the case will have an agenda, we will never know what really happened.

by Anonymousreply 2904/10/2013

R14 a lot times, if they are sure it wasn't an accident like the poster at R13 explained happens, they will only charge them with whatever number of images, and usually the worst of them, that will put the crime at the highest degree, saving the others so in case the guy does manage to get off they can re- charge him. They will tell the guy they have enough for X number of trials to try to get him to plead guilty and avoid the trial, and any subsequent trials. If it does go to trial again and again, somewhere down the line the guy will run out of money for the good attorney have to settle for a lesser one and probably lose or the guy will plead guilty, or take a plea bargain just not to have to go thru a trial again and again.

by Anonymousreply 3004/11/2013

"But his wife turned him in"

If the evidence was planted and she found it she may not have believed her husband. OR maybe she was threatened to turn him in.

I've lost faith in our government. I'm skeptical about everything now.

by Anonymousreply 3104/11/2013

"I've lost faith in our government. I'm skeptical about everything now."

Why would the government want to go after him? You aren't making any sense.

by Anonymousreply 3204/11/2013

This would make a great movie. Someone in high office being framed for as a pedo, but unable to prove it.

by Anonymousreply 3304/11/2013

Trust the DL boys to make this crime the woman's fault.

by Anonymousreply 3404/11/2013

"Someone in high office being framed for as a pedo, but unable to prove it."

So far very little is known about this case and you're CONVINCED that he was framed? Maybe he's just a guy who likes looking at child porn...

by Anonymousreply 3504/12/2013

"Why would the government want to go after him? You aren't making any sense."

There's a million possibilities. Maybe he slept with someone's wife. Maybe he's threatened to turn someone in for something unethical. Maybe he's not a team player. Who knows. But it wouldn't be the first time an organization or individual of an organization has tried to bring someone down/frame them.

by Anonymousreply 3604/12/2013

"Maybe he slept with someone's wife. Maybe he's threatened to turn someone in for something unethical. Maybe he's not a team player."

There's no evidence to prove any of those things.

I guess the tinhats want to believe everyone is being framed by the government. Maybe someone will claim that Jerry Sandusky was framed by the government, too...

by Anonymousreply 3704/12/2013

...and OJ Simpson.

by Anonymousreply 3804/12/2013

His official defense is that his wife is trying to frame him, to use this against him in the divorce.

by Anonymousreply 3905/06/2013

I wonder how much of this stuff is sabotage, a smear job? Who would be that dumb?

by Anonymousreply 4005/06/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!