The accused was charged with possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available through a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
The court found the accused's trial denial of knowledge not credible in light of his videotaped police statement, the organization and descriptive file names of the images, recent access data, and expert forensic evidence showing the files were accessible through Bearshare.
The defence theory that the images came from scavenged hard drives or malware was rejected because both experts found no evidence of external unauthorized downloading and the files were logically organized by the user.
Applying the governing criminal burden and credibility framework, the court found knowledge, access, and making available proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
