Status
Not open for further replies.

Former GBAtemp member and suspected pedophile gets 20 year sentence

A former member of the community, not extremely active on GBAtemp but known for contributions to several projects on the 3DS hacking scene, Thomas Edvalson aka 'Cruel', has recently received a 20 year jail sentence for supposedly hosting a child porn site (although he firmly denied it).
gwinnettdailypost.com said:
Thomas Scot Edvalson, 28, appeared to be providing a website where other users could download images of child porn, according to a press release form the District Attorney’s Office. The site came complete with an online guide detailing how to use the dark web to set up a website for trading pictures of child sexual abuse.
Source: Gwinnett Daily Post
A thread was started on GBAtemp to discuss the issue a couple of months ago, before the final judgement was rendered. At the time our decision was to lock the thread up as it began to heavily derail. Some members and visitors took this as a 'cover up' and wondered why we didn't ban this guy's user account on GBAtemp.

We had long discussions in the staff forum and decided to wait for the final verdict (the appeal that is) before doing anything, thereby letting justice do its work. We banned this person from our forums immediately after we heard the final judgement and by the looks of it he won't be around again for a while. Since then, there hasn't been any new threads about the story but if there had been one, we would have allowed it for sure.

At this point we are wondering why anyone would think we are 'covering' this up? Why would we even need to? It's not like people don't know what happened already. If you have any questions, feel free to ask in this thread.

Furthermore, there is an ongoing story concerning another person, it's been posted on a Reddit thread (edit: now removed, but you can see screenshots here) and, again, we certainly won't prevent you from discussing it wherever you want just as long as you stay civil.

We at GBAtemp value freedom of speech above all, but within the boundaries of the law. If you think someone is guilty of a crime it is your duty to report it to the relevant authorities (not the GBAtemp admins, I mean the police). But otherwise let justice do its job. We do not believe that witch hunts have their place on GBAtemp.

gbasmall.jpg
The staff
 
Last edited by Costello,

Gizametalman

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
974
Trophies
0
Age
30
Location
D.F. - Zona Cero.
XP
730
Country
Mexico
What the... :unsure:

So. I'm a bad guy, just because I pointed out that some people here thinks that he did nothing wrong, even with the "fact" that he was proven to posess pictures of CP?

How come?
I honestly, do not understand many of you. Although...I hadn't slept in more than 25 hours. so perhaps my lack of sleep is making me read everything wrong.

The fucking Z-Move is not very effective after all. :(
 
Last edited by Gizametalman,

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
even with the "fact" that he was proven to posess pictures of CP?

I haven't seen the evidence, the court papers that mention it that I have seen are vague on the issue. The number of images was small in comparison with more obvious cases, it's possible that someone else accessed the computer. There are facts and there is the truth. The prosecutions job is to make the facts fit a truth where the person they have decided to prosecute will be found guilty. It is only relatively recently that the prosecution were told they had to inform the defence of any facts that undermine their case, but they don't have to present them in court. That is the defences job to find them and present them.

The judge and jury then make decision on the evidence in front of them & everyone crosses their fingers and hopes that mistakes won't be made.

We aren't really in a position to condemn or exonerate him.

In the dark web cases the FBI are causing the cases to crumble when the defence has asked for details on the exploit used to hack into the computer as there is no evidence on the computer of how the hack was done & the FBI won't give them up. The suggestion is that if a computer can be hacked into without leaving a trace, then how does anyone know that what is on the computer was put there by the owner. In cases like this mistakes are bound to happen, both with innocent people being found guilty and guilty people being found innocent. It's mainly down to how good your lawyer is and how much money you have.
 
Last edited by smf,
  • Like
Reactions: DayVeeBoi

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
He is claiming that he is innocent, therefore I can believe that a family member would defend him. They are dealing with a very traumatic situation & they need to get through it however they can.
That user is not his brother, if anything I am actually pretty sure the user behind that account is actually another Temper hiding behind a VPN. Their claims don't actually hold up and I've able to poke holes through their statements with actual facts.
I haven't seen the evidence, the court papers that mention it that I have seen are vague on the issue. The number of images was small in comparison with more obvious cases, it's possible that someone else accessed the computer. There are facts and there is the truth. The prosecutions job is to make the facts fit a truth where the person they have decided to prosecute will be found guilty. It is only relatively recently that the prosecution were told they had to inform the defence of any facts that undermine their case, but they don't have to present them in court. That is the defences job to find them and present them.

The judge and jury then make decision on the evidence in front of them & everyone crosses their fingers and hopes that mistakes won't be made.

We aren't really in a position to condemn or exonerate him.

In the dark web cases the FBI are causing the cases to crumble when the defence has asked for details on the exploit used to hack into the computer as there is no evidence on the computer of how the hack was done & the FBI won't give them up. The suggestion is that if a computer can be hacked into without leaving a trace, then how does anyone know that what is on the computer was put there by the owner. In cases like this mistakes are bound to happen, both with innocent people being found guilty and guilty people being found innocent. It's mainly down to how good your lawyer is and how much money you have.
The only court papers released to the public are actually a year old as well do not include any details from this case. Also they really aren't that vague, they are actually pretty detailed from the court papers I've seen before.
Where are you getting the part where the FBI hacked into his computer? Because I am not finding any account of that happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dimmidice

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
The only court papers released to the public are actually a year old as well do not include any details from this case.

They are all the same case, it's been going on for years.

Also they really aren't that vague, they are actually pretty detailed from the court papers I've seen before.

They are vague as to what computer the images were found on. It may have been a computer in his house, or they may be referring to the computer that his web site was stored on.

Where are you getting the part where the FBI hacked into his computer? Because I am not finding any account of that happening.

I didn't say that they did it to him. I'm talking about similar cases where they did. Their tor exploit allows them to download code on to your computer, which lets them identify your real ip address (unless you're really good at security, which most people aren't). https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-rather-drop-child-porn-case-give-exploit/

Most cases go through because if you have multiple hard drives or dvds with carefully catalogued images then your argument that you didn't know they were there is limited. 5mb of files in a directory on one computer, that you claim you have never seen and is tucked away opens more doubt. If you've ever let anyone access your PC and haven't kept a details record then you may end up being found guilty for their crime, if you didn't even know someone was accessing it then mounting a defence is impossible.
 
Last edited by smf,

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
They are all the same case, it's been going on for years.



They are vague as to what computer the images were found on. It may have been a computer in his house, or they may be referring to the computer that his web site was stored on.



I didn't say that they did it to him. I'm talking about similar cases where they did. Their tor exploit allows them to download code on to your computer, which lets them identify your real ip address (unless you're really good at security, which most people aren't). https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-rather-drop-child-porn-case-give-exploit/
Let me rephrase that, the papers don't include this current trial and thus details aren't up to date yet.
According to the papers there were images found on his personal computer, to be correct 161 pictures found in 2014. The current paperwork does not include any evidence from this trail though, so obviously the only details we are going to get is from the news around the cases until more up to date details are dropped.
I would also like to mention that I already covered the servers in great detail in my previous post.
No matter which way you try to swing this, he's guilty of knowingly possessing CP. It doesn't matter if it was personal computer or his server. In both cases if he were innocent, then it would have actually been really easy to prove.

Unfortunately, the FBI thing is interesting and I will look deeper into it because it perks my interest, but it's also off topic.
 

Gizametalman

Banned!
Banned
Joined
Dec 18, 2015
Messages
974
Trophies
0
Age
30
Location
D.F. - Zona Cero.
XP
730
Country
Mexico
I do not understand something.
I am NOT criminalizing him, but, you're telling us that a guy, who happens to be a gifted coder, with experience in security, suddenly had CP planted on his personal computer?
Or am I starting to misread again?

By the way: This question isn't aimed to Glaceon. But to SMF
 
Last edited by Gizametalman,

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
According to the papers there were images found on his personal computer, to be correct 161 pictures found in 2014.

Where does it say that it was a "personal computer".

"During the hearing in the matter on November 7, 2014, at which both Edvalson and his counsel were present, a police detective, who was a certified forensic computer examiner, testified that 161 images of confirmed child pornography were found on Edvalson’s computer"

If that was a computer in a rack that belonged to him then it would still be "Edvalson's computer". For a rented server I would hope they would make it clearer, if it was a computer found at his home then I'd have thought they'd make a big deal of that as well.

It's too vague to draw a conclusion from in any case. Especially as the news reports only talk about files being hosted on his web site (as this is supposedly how he was caught) and they don't mention that at all in those court files, which leads me to think that could be the computer they refer to.
 
Last edited by smf,

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
Where does it say that it was a "personal computer".

"During the hearing in the matter on November 7, 2014, at which both Edvalson and his counsel were present, a police detective, who was a certified forensic computer examiner, testified that 161 images of confirmed child pornography were found on Edvalson’s computer"

If that was a computer in a rack that belonged to him then it would still be "Edvalson's computer". For a rented server I would hope they would make it clearer, if it was a computer found at his home then I'd have thought they'd make a big deal of that as well.
Now you are just splitting hairs here. Regardless if it's the personal computer on his desk or his server, they are all still computers that belong to him in some form or another. If it was some rental server or his own personal, then there still would have been logs to indicate where the pictures came from. You need to consider that nothing external happens to a server without it being logged and even most of the internal actions are logged. The entire log argument I am getting at would have turned this from a 4 year case to a 3 second case.
I am pretty sure 20 years behind bars, 40 more years on probation, and spending the rest of his life as a registered sex offender is a pretty big deal.
It's too vague to draw a conclusion from in any case. Especially as the news reports only talk about files being hosted on his web site (as this is supposedly how he was caught) and they don't mention that at all in those court files, which leads me to think that could be the computer they refer to.
There are still details that haven't been released from the current trail. There's been over a year between those court records and this trail. Not to mention his account on this site proves that he was indeed online during that year.
The last edit to that report was March 7, 2016. Since then TheCruel has been on the Temp, made freeShop and made an entire website for freeShop. Which means a lot could have happened behind the scenes that hasn't been released to public just yet.
 
Last edited by The Catboy,

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
The entire log argument I am getting at would have turned this from a 4 year case to a 3 second case.
I am pretty sure 20 years behind bars, 40 more years on probation, and spending the rest of his life as a registered sex offender is a pretty big deal.

If it was that easy then the prosecution would have the log that proved it was him and saved 4 years. If they can't do that then there either is no log, which if the site was hacked then they certainly could do that or he could have made sure there wasn't a log. Or the log just shows that someone uploaded them but the connection isn't traceable.

There are still details that haven't been released from the current trail. There's been over a year between those court records and this trail.

Sure, I made that point. It's possible that those details may make the 20 year sentence look like he was let off easy. Guessing doesn't help us there.

Not to mention his account on this site proves that he was indeed online during that year.

And yet they don't seem that interested in obtaining evidence that it was him using the accounts that they say were his.
 

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
If it was that easy then the prosecution would have the log that proved it was him and saved 4 years. If they can't do that then there either is no log, which if the site was hacked then they certainly could do that or he could have made sure there wasn't a log. Or the log just shows that someone uploaded them but the connection isn't traceable.
You see, you prove my point right there. No matter how much you want to stretch it. If the logs proved an external personal added them, he would have been found innocent. Considering the amount of images found, it would have taken up a good chunk of the logs. And I highly doubt he would have run a server without logs, that's just stupid and he was clearly not a stupid person.


And yet they don't seem that interested in obtaining evidence that it was him using the accounts that they say were his.
That's purely speculation on your end. There's still details to the trail not released and even then proving he was online was easy enough for them and there's no need to dig into every single account to prove it was him, they really only need one account to hold him accountable.
 
Last edited by The Catboy,

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
You see, you prove my point right there. No matter how much you want to stretch it. If the logs proved an external personal added them, he would have been found innocent. Considering the amount of images found, it would have taken up a good chunk of the logs. And I highly doubt he would have run a server without logs, that's just stupid and he was clearly not a stupid person.

No, you missed my point. He only had external access to that computer himself, he is also an external person. So there were either no logs, or the external person couldn't be proved one way or the other to be him. As otherwise the prosecution or defence would have made sure the case lasted less than 4 years. You're making an incorrect assumption.

That's purely speculation on your end

No, they had suspicions that he was violating his parole and yet they failed to obtain evidence.

"and that Edvalson altered his online username and began to post comments about child pornography, including sarcastic comments about certain child pornography laws posted 29 days before the revocation hearing. However, on crossexamination, the detective acknowledged that he had not been insideEdvalson’s house or applied for a search warrant for it; that he had no evidence that Edvalson had a computer, smartphone, or internet-enabled appliance in his house; and that he was not alleging that Edvalson had unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 16 since he posted bond."

Up until November 2014 he was only banned from having computers in his house. So maybe they assumed he wasn't accessing it from his house. It's still pretty lax, I'd like to know their reason for not doing so.

After that they increased it to him not being allowed to access the internet or any online services. Which if he actually was him that accessed his account here, then it would mean that he did violate his parole. However that doesn't prove that he was guilty of the original crime. Only that their surveillance of him was pretty poor, or he would have been arrested.

I'm not sure why they bother banning people from the internet though. Determined people will find undetectable ways of accessing it, instead confiscate their computers and encourage them to buy a new one and they can use the internet as much as they want. Then watch what they do.
 
Last edited by smf,

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
No, you missed my point. He only had external access to that computer himself, he is also an external person. So there were either no logs, or the external person couldn't be proved one way or the other to be him. As otherwise the prosecution or defence would have made sure the case lasted less than 4 years. You're making an incorrect assumption.



No, they had suspicions that he was violating his parole and yet they failed to obtain evidence.

"and that Edvalson altered his online username and began to post comments about child pornography, including sarcastic comments about certain child pornography laws posted 29 days before the revocation hearing. However, on crossexamination, the detective acknowledged that he had not been insideEdvalson’s house or applied for a search warrant for it; that he had no evidence that Edvalson had a computer, smartphone, or internet-enabled appliance in his house; and that he was not alleging that Edvalson had unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 16 since he posted bond."

Up until November 2014 he was only banned from having computers in his house. So maybe they assumed he wasn't accessing it from his house. It's still pretty lax, I'd like to know their reason for not doing so.

After that they increased it to him not being allowed to access the internet or any online services. Which if he actually was him that accessed his account here, then it would mean that he did violate his parole. However that doesn't prove that he was guilty of the original crime. Only that their surveillance of him was pretty poor.
First of all, the logs would have picked up any connection to his servers, not just from himself, but from anyone. Any files being added/removed from the server would also be logged, not just errors. Logs don't just monitor for errors, they monitor all actives being done on the server(s.)

Him having an account doesn't prove that he was guilty. Them finding CP, holding a trail, showing evidence, and a jury found him guilty. Like I said before, if he wasn't the one one who personally owned the pictures and they were a product of spam. Then logs would have easily proven that someone spammed his account and at most he could have been charged with negligence.
Despite what you want to believe, the courts had enough evidence to convict him. You may not want to believe they did, but apparently they had enough to even give him a 20 years for his crimes. Not every detail is going to be released to the public and as we stand now, the current details are a year old. Like I said before, we have proof on our own site that he was active during that year. In that year he started several projects and even started another website. We don't know what else he was doing in his free time, but he had an entire year to do it.
 

smf

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
6,638
Trophies
2
XP
5,835
Country
United Kingdom
Them finding CP, holding a trail, showing evidence, and a jury found him guilty.

Juries find innocent people guilty all the time. It's why civilised countries have abolished the death sentence. Being found guilty is not evidence in itself that he is guilty.

Like I said before, if he wasn't the one one who personally owned the pictures and they were a product of spam. Then logs would have easily proven that someone spammed his account and at most he could have been charged with negligence.

Like I've said before. He was accessing the computer remotely. How would the logs look any different if he or someone else uploaded them? If the logs identified that he uploaded them then I don't see why the prosecution would have sat on that for four years. Therefore there either were no logs, no matter how much you assume there were. Or the logs weren't helpful in identifying the person who uploaded them. Which would mean you can't assume anything about who it was, no matter how much you want to assume that there is.

Despite what you want to believe, the courts had enough evidence to convict him. You may not want to believe they did, but apparently they had enough to even give him a 20 years for his crimes.

I don't want to believe anything, otherwise you let prejudice rule your thought process. I think you're naive if you think that courts in america only hand out tough sentences when there is robust evidence and the person is in fact guilty. Assuming that they had enough evidence to do something, just because they did it, is itself circumstantial evidence & doesn't get you any further to the truth.

We don't know what else he was doing in his free time, but he had an entire year to do it.

We also don't know what you do in your free time. Are you telling me that is evidence of something?
 
Last edited by smf,

dimmidice

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
2,359
Trophies
2
XP
3,004
Country
Belgium
Once more please point me at them. I expect as such as the modern world has it as a seriously emotionally loaded topic but again I am not seeing "defenders" as you term them.
The posts get removed by mods, that's why you don't see them. i've seen 8+ posts by 8 different people so far that'd fall in the defending category. Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
 

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
Juries find innocent people guilty all the time. It's why civilised countries have abolished the death sentence. Being found guilty is not evidence in itself that he is guilty.



Like I've said before. He was accessing the computer remotely. How would the logs look any different if he or someone else uploaded them? If the logs identified that he uploaded them then I don't see why the prosecution would have sat on that for four years. Therefore there either were no logs, no matter how much you assume there were. Or the logs weren't helpful in identifying the person who uploaded them. Which would mean you can't assume anything about who it was, no matter how much you want to assume that there is.



I don't want to believe anything, otherwise you let prejudice rule your thought process. I think you're naive if you think that courts in america only hand out tough sentences when there is robust evidence and the person is in fact guilty. Assuming that they had enough evidence to do something, just because they did it, is itself circumstantial evidence & doesn't get you any further to the truth.



We also don't know what you do in your free time. Are you telling me that is evidence of something?
Innocent people do get convicted all the time, but it's unlikely that this is the case. Here's the issue with your argument, it would be very easy for them to prove he was the one who accessed his servers through his logs. It would also be very easy to notice unusual actives happening on his logs. If a completely different IP showed up or even random IPs showed up and suddenly started spamming his site with CP, that would be noticeable. And obviously they wouldn't have just sat on that information, that would be an extremely glaring flaw in his case. If they couldn't identify who did upload them, then they would worked on proving it wasn't him who did it.
And again, if it was found to be completely unknown, he would have most likely been charged with negligence for not properly reporting the incident and handing over the pictures to the police. So if it wasn't one crime he was guilty of, he would have still be been guilty another lesser crime.

They spent over 4 years on this case, which is far more than enough time. If they had nothing on him, it would have been a complete waste of money to convict him over this. In those 4 years, they had time to search logs, emails, servers, etc.

My personal life is not on topic and my statement still holds true regardless. He was active online within the year after his trail, what he was doing during that time isn't something we can completely prove.
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
36,798
Trophies
3
XP
28,284
Country
United Kingdom
The posts get removed by mods, that's why you don't see them. i've seen 8+ posts by 8 different people so far that'd fall in the defending category. Just cause you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
I can see most things that get removed, can see post histories and anything that gets completely nuked tends only to be a spambot (nuking individual posts does not make you the database's best friend so it is discouraged).

So far I have seen a few people say "maybe you know wait for someone to do something or make active plans before you break out the torches and pitchforks" and get chased with "rar boo hiss, burn them all and throw away the key".

Every time I ask the question though it is a genuine one as I am curious to either see what people might be overreacting to or what rationales might be posed. Thus far nobody has given me a list of links to the posts in question, screenshots, or at least numbers or pages/names/choice phrases.
 

TheZander

1337
Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
2,135
Trophies
2
Location
Level 7
XP
3,851
Country
United States
My question is, if he wasn't active here then why hell fuss about him? You're only associating with him this way then. WHy does GBATemp have anything to do with this at all? If a member was caught trying to high-jack missiles would you say something about that too?


Basically there is nothing for GABTEMP to do. No one endorsed him, or knew him so what difference does it make?
 
Last edited by TheZander,

Kioku

猫。子猫です!
Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
11,987
Trophies
2
Location
In the Murderbox!
Website
www.twitch.tv
XP
16,078
Country
United States
My question is, if he wasn't active here then why hell fuss about him? You're only associating with him this way then. WHy does GBATemp have anything to do with this at all? If a member was caught trying to high-jack missiles would you say something about that too?


Basically there is nothing for GABTEMP to do. No one endorsed him, or knew him so what difference does it make?

Nobody knew or endorsed the cruel? Your ignorance is astounding...
 
K

KingpinSlim

Guest
My question is, if he wasn't active here then why hell fuss about him? You're only associating with him this way then. WHy does GBATemp have anything to do with this at all? If a member was caught trying to high-jack missiles would you say something about that too?


Basically there is nothing for GABTEMP to do. No one endorsed him, or knew him so what difference does it make?

He was a major developer and at some point people were under the impression people were trying to "Cover something up", which they weren't.
So a choice was made to comment on the matter.
At least that is my understanding of the situation.
 

The Catboy

GBAtemp Official Catboy™: Boywife
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
27,801
Trophies
4
Location
Making a non-binary fuss
XP
38,778
Country
Antarctica
My question is, if he wasn't active here then why hell fuss about him? You're only associating with him this way then. WHy does GBATemp have anything to do with this at all? If a member was caught trying to high-jack missiles would you say something about that too?


Basically there is nothing for GABTEMP to do. No one endorsed him, or knew him so what difference does it make?
Are you high or something?
 
Last edited by The Catboy,
  • Like
Reactions: Kioku
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
    S @ salazarcosplay: Good morning everyone