Stevie Nicks' guitarist Waddy Wachtel allowed into NZ despite child porn conviction
 

Does anybody know about this???
Is it true??
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-ze...onviction.html
Questions are being raised after Fleetwood Mac frontwoman Stevie Nicks' guitarist was allowed entry into New Zealand and Australia despite historic child pornography offences.

Robert 'Waddy' Wachtel was arrested in 1998 on suspicion of possession of child pornography. He pleaded no contest to the charges and he was placed on probation for three years.

He is currently touring Australia as the lead guitarist for Ms Nicks' band. As a result, Australia's immigration minister has come under fire to explain why he was granted a visa.

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has defended its decision to allow Wachtel into New Zealand, where he will perform next week.

"Immigration New Zealand (INZ) can confirm that Waddy Wachtel has applied and been approved for a visitor visa to travel to New Zealand," says INZ area manager Marcelle Foley.

"In making this decision, INZ took into the account the short duration of his stay in New Zealand and that he had been forthright in his convictions.

"Taking into account all the circumstances and with a full understanding of the purpose of his visit, a visitor visa was approved."

Newshub.

?????? Wow!!!

yes, this happened a while back. I believe they searched if not outright seized his computer.

Jondalar, I just Found this. Los Angeles Times!
http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/16/local/me-33017

Guitarist Gets Probation in Child Pornography
October 16, 1998
Community News File / A summary of developments across
Los Angeles County | Courts and Government
Guitarist Robert "Waddy" Wachtel, who has worked with Linda Ronstadt and Fleetwood Mac, was placed on three years' probation Thursday after pleading no contest to possession of child pornography.

Wachtel was ordered to make a $2,500 donation to Children of the Night, an agency that helps runaways. In addition, he must undergo six months' counseling with a psychologist.

A similar charge against Wachtel's wife, Annie, was dismissed at the request of prosecutors.

The district attorney's office said the illicit material was discovered after Wachtel took his computer to a shop for repairs.

I recall it coming up in a Ledge Q&A, here is that link where someone asked Brett

http://www.fleetwoodmac.net/penguin/...tuggle_qa1.htm

That's really gross.
Disappointing.:distress:

I wonder why it's an issue now. Hasn't he been there with Stevie a few times since 1998?

I wonder what actually was found on his computer

I wonder why that is all the punishment he received.

Hate to say but he has always looked like a creeper.

I remember also hearing about this. For awhile he wasn't in Stevie's band and Carlos was lead guitar. I thought it was earlier than 1998 though. I do remember in an interview with Stevie during the other side of the mirror tour, she was asked why Waddy wasn't on the tour and Stevie said because he had just gotten married and needed time for himself. I always thought it was because of the allegations, but according to the timeline, maybe not.

There's the possibility that this may be all smoke and mirrors; currently in the western world there still isn't a universal agreement on what constitutes child pornography and what doesn't, and law (USA included) employs a very vague and general definition of "child pornography" that leaves too much room to interpretation and leaves many unsolved questions.
I don't want to turn this into a paper but the point is that Law states that any depiction of a minor's nudity or a minor in sexual situations can be considered child pornography and, while at first this seems perfectly agreeable, in reality the matter is more complicated and nuanced and problems arise in borderline cases like:
1) medical material that include images of undressed minors
2) artistic depictions of underage figures
3) fetishist pornographic material with young actors posing as minors e.g. "schoolgirl" or "milf with teenager" videos; (particularly debated because in the pornographic world often are illicitly employed real underage actors)
4) animated pornography depicting young-looking people aka the famous "lolita" trope (one of the most disputed because it doesn't involve real minors)
5) receiving sexual messages or videos by someone who is under the age of 18

Not fully knowing the circumastances it's hard to say, but since Waddy came out of it pretty easily it's likely that he may fall into one of the limit cases.

Even in 1998 child pornography was severely punished in both state and federal court. To receive probation says something about the image. Probation is not in a sentence guideline for a possession of child pornography conviction. So the image really must have been something the state felt they would have trouble getting a conviction and offered a deal of probation. This is speculation on my part because today if you would have one image of child pornography on your computer would put you away for 10 years easily. I have never heard of a charge or conviction of "suspicion of child pornography" Its like being pregnant, either you are or aren't. Are you in possession of child pornography or aren't you? What's with "suspicion"? This obviously was an extremely weak case. However this probably explains why Waddy was not on the Enchanted tour.

That’s very shortsighted.

the fact that whatever images there were got discovered when he took his computer in for repairs may have been enough of a loophole where he could say, it wasn't mine, it wasn't on there when I took it in, and how do you prove he's right or he's making it up? The possibility that someone else used the computer since it was out of his possession could be enough to cast 'reasonable doubt'.

It's possible to trace the date an image has been first downloaded or uploaded on a PC, so it's not possible to unload the blame on the technician that discovered the material, and while Waddy could have said that someone else at another time could have uploaded the images on his computer without him knowing, the excuse wouldn't stand since then it would pose the question of why he didn't delete after finding them out (unless that is what truly has happened).

IIRC, the issue at the time was that printed images were also found. I'm sure there are other articles from the time.

Here's one link:

http://www.mtv.com/news/400485/guita...d-pornography/

I wouldn't feel comfortable associating with anyone that fell into any of these categories. They might be borderlines but thy surely reflect an individual's mindset.
Not saying any of these were the case in point.

I understand but it's a stretch suggesting a link between sexual fantasies about having sex with late adolescents and pedophilia or child abuse.
You might be surprised then that I feel entirely uncomfortable with only two of those instances and the others are all things I entered in contact with somehow at some point in my life, even if in tame examples.
The point is that these are all cases that seem macabre written on paper, and many times when translated in real life examples they indeed are, but there are also many times in which the facts must be interpreted.
I remember the case of one of my favourite comics author that risked banning due to the aforementioned laws because some scenes in their work depicted minors having a bath.

Here is what I gather. They raided his home for drugs and seized his computer. The computer crap doesn’t worry me because he could of clicked on a bad link or something. However, they also found printed materials. That worries me. If he has printed materials doesn’t seem like that is a mistake.

The answers to our questions are in the MTV link someone posted. Waddy was arrested for kiddie porn materials/images printed out. He was charged with a misdemeanor which carries a maximum of one year in jail. I have never heard of a misdemeanor charge of child pornography. It could be something to do with the images themselves which is something we will never know. I do know child porn charges get enhanced if any images portray children under 12 years old and I think may get enhanced again for images portraying children under 6. The first few articles posted were very murky with stating he was charged with "suspicion of child pornography." You cant get convicted of suspicion. There must be evidence of a crime. For example, suspicion of bank robbery? Either you robbed the bank and there is evidence of that or not. No one gets arrested or charged with suspicion.
Things have changed some since 1998. Today the federal government is more involved charging people with child porn than the states did back then. In addition the sentences are more harsh. I did look up California statute and it said a felony conviction of child pornography can get 8 years maximum. A misdemeanor charge carries a maximum of 1 year in jail. In Miami last year there was a fireman in the city who was discovered to have child porn on his laptop. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He was prosecuted in federal court. I believe the CA statute requires any sex offender conviction to register as a sex offender for life. This means anywhere Waddy would move, he must check in and register with that state or local law enforcement office. In addition each country would have similar regulations and that is how this Australia thing made the news. Either Waddy and his wife dodged a bullet or the images were borderline child porn and thus the misdemeanor charge.

Prosecutors/law enforcement take crimes against children, and in particular sex crimes (including child pornography) VERY seriously. I find it highly, highly doubtful they would have dismissed charges or even let him plead to a misdemeanor if there was any indication he was doing something, or in possession of items, that would warrant a more severe sanction.

That's the case now. I think the world was a slightly different place regarding this sort of thing even as recently as 20 or so years ago. Cant speak for the rest of the world but certainly here in the UK there was a lot that was brushed off and ignored back in the 70's, 80's and even 90's that would never be ignored or disregarded now.

Didn't Pete Townshend get off in England when child porn was found on his computer by alleging he was "researching" child porn vicitms?

Yes he was either doing some kind of research as he had been abused as a boy or trying to prove Credit card companies made money from this....

So his story goes

[QUOTE]Yes he was either doing some kind of research as he had been abused as a boy or trying to prove Credit card companies made money from this/QUOTE]
Prove credit card companies make money from this?? Huh

[QUOTE=TheWildHeart67;1218743]I think its a joke meaning he was purchasing child porn on his credit card.


I don't think anyone bought his story. If you are researching child porn victim stories you are not looking at actual images of child porn. That was total rubbish. Its like being caught with cocaine and saying you were researching about cocaine addiction.