“A man who was allegedly found with child pornography, and detailed lists of South Australian children including their home addresses, phone numbers and schools, appeared in court yesterday… Robert John Walker was formally charged with one count of possessing child pornography. Walker, 42, of Athelstone, had previously been refused bail because he told police ‘he had previous desires of eating the internal body parts of young girls‘, a bail refusal report says. ‘(He) also maintained a detailed diary outlining lists of names, addresses and phone numbers of young girls under the age of 10 years,’ a police apprehension report says. The report, contained in the court file, says Walker’s ex-wife allegedly found several ‘computer disks, pornographic images, child pornographic images and documents’ in his wardrobe. ‘Included (in the documents were) bondage and food supply contracts detailing the removal of young girls’ bodily parts for food,’ it is alleged in the apprehension report. ‘(They) were labelled, ‘Rape and Bondage’, ‘Bondage and Food Supply’ and (had) authorisation letters to remove children from school to carry out these acts.’ The ‘contracts’ were unsigned documents, for principals to release their students to him, and included a promise they would not go to the police. Documents filed with the court and obtained by The Advertiser that allegedly belong to Walker had ‘contracts’ to remove the body parts of young girls, aged between three and 14, including their eyes, sexual organs, heart, lungs and brains. Papers allege Walker said ‘he wrote and typed’ out his fantasies ‘to avoid carrying out these acts’.” —News.com.au (Australia)

(Thanks to alanr for the link.)

How often have you heard a parent or grandparent pick up a child and say, “Oooh, you’re so cute I could eat you up” or something to that effect? Maybe they even nibble the neck of the cute little one or pretend to take a bite. Evidently that’s the healthy side of an urge that Mr. Walker possessed in its pathological state. He really did want to “eat up” little children. Probably he would have appreciated a bon mot of W.C. Fields. “I love little children,” Fields quipped, “but only when they’re properly cooked.”

What makes Mr. Walker’s case particularly fascinating is the fact that, aside from possessing child pornography, he hasn’t committed any other crime (or at least he hasn’t been accused of any). He wrote down his fantasies about children and cannibalism but, so far as is known, he kept them to himself. It’s only when his ex-wife — whose own motives you’d have to question — discovered his fantasies that authorities were alerted to Mr. Walker’s rather extreme proclivity.

But since when are fantasies criminal? On one hand, a man should be free to write down his weirdest or even his most awful fantasies. Perhaps he wasn’t lying when he said that writing these things down exorcised the urge to actually do them. On the other hand, though, when are fantasies just that — fantasies — and when are they warning signs of a dangerous outbreak of pathological behavior? After all, the guy had lists with names of actual kids. Why wait until somebody gets hurt or killed in order to reign this guy in? It’s a tough call. How do you balance between the civil rights of a person and the potential horrors that he could commit?

In a way, it’s fortunate that authorities have a crime with which they can charge Mr. Walker. They can stick it to him on the kiddie porn charge and thereby oblige him to get some psychiatric help. Imagine what a dilemma this would be if the guy had no child pornography in his possession. Could you convict someone just for writing down — without even disseminating — some fantasies?

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.