As a father, I fully understand
the concerns that have been raised over the past week, and feel it is important
to address the matter head-on. First and
foremost, I want to make it absolutely clear that after a thorough and
exhaustive investigation, I was 100% exonerated of all charges and
accusations listed in the charging papers that were posted by an anonymous
internet blogger last week.
Despite the favorable outcome and
despite the passing of nearly five years, it is still painful to revisit what
was an incredibly difficult time in the lives of both myself and my family. But
I am not naïve. After Helena passed away, I knew that if I made the decision to
step up and become a more vocal member of the Maura Murray community that it
was likely a matter of time before I was subjected to the vicious character
attacks that so many others have in this case.
The document that was released
online was the government’s “Proposed Findings of Facts,” which is a list of
items the prosecution anticipates it will be able to prove in court. It is not
the final word. It is certainly not evidence. And as the verdict clearly demonstrates, the prosecution
was unable to back up the claims listed in those papers. While I doubt I can
effectively answer every question in a single statement, below is a summary
explanation of the circumstances surrounding my case. Beyond that, the case
file is public and any person is free to inspect it. Going forward, I am happy
to address any additional concerns or provide clarifying information to any
person that approaches me in a respectful manner.
Around 5:30 am on September 6th
2012, I was awakened by the loud sound of someone banging on the front door of
my home. I yelled for my wife to get the kids as I rushed downstairs to open
the door. All I could think was that the banging must have been from neighbors
or rescue workers attempting to alert us to some danger. Instead, I was met by 19
federal law enforcement agents (SWAT and FBI) – a number of them with firearms
pointed squarely at me. I then sat on my living room couch under the
supervision of armed guards without any idea of what was happening. After what felt like forever, I was eventually
made aware that the agents were in my home to seize child pornography. I was
stunned and entirely overwhelmed with shock and confusion of the situation. And
it was only just the beginning.
The investigators claimed to have
observed the IP address and GUID attached to my residence having shared large
amounts of child pornography, and they were particularly interested in three
devices (my phone, iPad, and server). After spending hours forensically
analyzing these devices on site, they did not find any trace of child porn. They
returned my devices that same day. That is where the nightmare should have
ended. But it was not.
When the investigators failed to
find what they were looking for, they asked to search the rest of the devices
in the home, including a handful of internal and external hard drives. One of
the services my business (in the audio visual industry) provides is smart home
installation. As a normal part of that service, it is common for us to upgrade
home networks with new hard drives. And as a result, over the years I have
ended up with a collection of miscellaneous home computing equipment including
internal and external hard drives (which would get wiped and stored for later
use if needed). I complied with this
request and answered all of their questions without hesitation and without
requesting the presence of an attorney (the same is true for my wife).
The charging papers clearly try
to create an impression that I was attempting to conceal the equipment in my
safe for sinister reasons. The truth is that the reason that equipment was in
the safe was because my wife and I had caught our 13-year-old son illegally downloading
music and viewing pornography in his room. After that, I put the external hard
drive he had been using in the safe and moved the computer out of his room and
into the kitchen to make it easier for us to monitor his internet activity.
While no parent wants their teenager
to be viewing pornography on the internet, the fact of the matter is that at
the time, I was more troubled by the fact that he was sharing music with his
friends, and that my IP address could be flagged for copyright infringement. It is the sort of thing that could cripple a
business like mine in the audio/visual industry. And that is the reason those drives were in
the safe. Investigators had no prior knowledge
of these drives. I am the one that made
them aware of the drives and voluntarily provided them with the combination to
the safe.
If investigators had found what
they came looking for the day they raided my home, I would have been arrested
on the spot. That did not happen.
Nevertheless, when the agents left my home, I immediately contacted an attorney
for advice. He said that in situations like the one I described, arrests are
usually made within several weeks (if not on the spot). While we were rattled by the experience, and
mildly distressed by the uncertainty during the weeks that followed, we were
comforted by the fact that investigators did not uncover what they were looking
for, and were reasonably certain it was all just an unfortunate mistake.
Nine months later, I was charged.
The overwhelming majority of child pornography cases (98%) end with a
conviction for the government. This is because there tends to be an
overwhelming amount of evidence in the vast majority of cases (electronic
files, printed images, communications with like-minded individuals,
participation in forums, message boards, etc.).
During the course of the trial it
became clear why there was an unusual delay between when my home was raided and
when charges were ultimately filed. The first analysis failed to find any child
pornography. The government then enlisted the services of a second forensic
analyst, who also failed to find any evidence of child pornography. It was not
until the third analyst reviewed the devices that any so-called evidence of
child pornography was uncovered. So after
investing 19 agents, 9 months, and multiple forensic analysts, they finally found
the one that allowed them to justify the entire charade.
Yet the prosecution languished,
and my defense was able to demonstrate the testimony provided by the government’s
third forensic analyst, John Marsh, was wildly inaccurate. The vast majority of Marsh’s testimony – the
same testimony they used to charge me in the first place and that comprised a substantial
portion of the information in the 19 page charging papers posted online – was stricken from the record in a motion that the prosecution did not even bother to object to or oppose. Moreover, several of the dates
the government claimed to have observed my IP/GUID sharing child pornography at
my residence, I was easily able to demonstrate with cell phone
records and credit card statements that I was not within 500 miles of where the
government claimed I was. As a result, one CP charge was dismissed outright and
I was found innocent of the second.
Finally, the charging papers create
the impression that not only did I hide my work laptop from investigators, but
that there was some urgency to destroy it before investigators could get their
hands on it. This also could not be further from the truth. Transcribed audio recordings easily prove that investigators were explicitly made aware of the
existence of this laptop as well as its location the day they searched my home.
Despite having explicit knowledge
of this laptop, there was never any attempt by investigators to retrieve it
from my home, nor any instructions for how I should handle or care for the
laptop after it was returned to me. The only contact I had with law
enforcement after the initial search was to provide documents pertaining to a
number of firearms in my home (all of which were legally obtained, stored, and
licensed). Besides that, there was no request or contact of any kind from law
enforcement.
If they wanted this machine, they
could have easily intercepted the package en route from Florida to my residence.
They did not. They could have asked a judge for a warrant to seize it from my
home. They did not. Frankly, they could
have asked me to voluntarily surrender it and I would have happily handed it
over like every other device I handed over. But they did not. They made no
attempt whatsoever during the nine months between the raid and when I was
charged to retrieve this laptop.
Since they never asked for the laptop,
I continued using it until it became necessary to upgrade a faulty drive that began blue-screening prior to the
Florida job and became more frequent upon its return after being shipped from
Florida to my residence. This became the basis upon which the prosecution attempted
to argue I engaged in “destruction of evidence.” However, their attempts were
not successful and the evidence clearly demonstrated that I was innocent, which
is how the judge ruled. When that laptop
was returned to me after the trial, I kept it. As much as I would prefer not to possess a physical
manifestation of the emotional hardship that was endured during that time in my
life, there is a certain an anxiety triggered every time I think about getting
rid of it. I probably never will.
For a long time, I believed prosecutors
felt like they had to charge me after conducting the raid on my home. It
was not until several years later that a more sinister and disturbing
possibility emerged. The search warrant
of my property relied upon testimony from a detective and member of the
NOVA-Washington D.C. Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, named
David Abbott. In 2015, Abbott shot and killed himself after being charged with two counts of molestation of two separate 13-year old boys. Investigators also discovered that for at
least two years, Abbott had used electronic communications to solicit sex from
minors.
The criminal behavior that Abbott
was alleged to have engaged in was occurring at the same time he was drafting
the search warrant of my property. I feel physically ill when I consider the
possibility that this entire ordeal may have been the result of my son, who was
13 at the time, having been the target of an alleged child predator. At present, efforts are on-going to determine
the full extent of Abbott’s involvement in my case and whether there is any evidence
of an ulterior motive for his testimony.
I want to thank those individuals
that withheld judgement and offered their support over the past week. But the
truth is, I have already been through one of the worst things anyone can go
through. I was falsely accused of a terrible crime (the type of crime that one
can be fully exonerated from, and yet still receive a life sentence and the
presumption of guilt due to the mere accusation). My wife suffered a
miscarriage just before my trial began. And for five months, I went to bed
every night worrying about how my family would survive if I was sent to federal
prison. It is the kind of experience
that puts things in perspective and makes even the worst internet trolls seem utterly
insignificant by comparison.
It is also the kind of event that
provokes people to show their true colors.
I have tried my best to be responsive, direct, and fair to everyone in
this community. To my earlier point, given
the nature of certain elements and individuals in this community, I fully
expected at some point my case would be used by certain people to advance their
own agendas. Even those proclaiming to
be legitimate journalists did not answer the phone when I called or attempt to
learn the circumstances surrounding my charges and subsequent exoneration.
Instead, they immediately went to various public spaces to spread misleading and
blatantly false information. While I anticipated such attacks, I admit that I
did not expect the vitriol to extend to individuals whose only crime was either
to withhold their judgment or show their support. To those individuals, I am
sorry. Such attacks are truly reprehensible and clearly demonstrate the motivations of certain members of this community.
Given what I have witnessed from
certain elements of this community, I have no expectation that the viciousness
and character attacks against myself (and others) will cease as a result of
this statement. However, I do not intend to allow myself and my family to be dragged
down the way others have. That ends now.
I have spent the past week making preparations to take legal action
against those asserting themselves as bona fide journalists, but that have not
only displayed a malicious and clear negligent disregard for the truth, but have
also undermined progress in their purported cause, which is to help find Maura.
-Scott
No comments:
Post a Comment