Former WSU employee sentenced after facing minor pornography charges
Long pleads guilty to malicious mischief; gets 30 days in jail
OLIVER MCKENNA | THE DAILY EVERGREEN
The Evergreen works to provide the best information about recent crime and court updates in the Pullman area.
March 21, 2019
EDITOR’S NOTE: In the original post, this article contained an affidavit of probable cause that contained personal information about Robert Long, including his home address. In the interest of minimizing harm to those involved with the case, we have removed the document containing that information.
This headline has been updated to reflect the accuracy of the situation. To be clear, Robert Long was NOT convicted of child pornography possession. He was convicted of malicious mischief and only faced the child pornography charges when they were filed in April 2018.
Former WSU employee Robert Long plead guilty to malicious mischief in the second degree.
Long faced four charges for possession of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
He pleaded guilty to malicious mischief in lieu of the child pornography charges and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. He also was fined $800 on March 13.
Police began to investigate Long in August 2017 after receiving an online tip about Long’s possible possession of child pornography.
In October of 2017, the police issued a warrant to search Long’s home, where they seized electronic files.
Charges were filed against Long on April 3, 2018 after examining the content of the seized files. Long was then arrested on March 30, 2018.
[googlepdf url=”https://dailyevergreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Felony-Judgment-and-Sentence.tif” width=”400″ height=”600″]
Mel Findlay • Apr 3, 2019 at 4:32 pm
Reporting should never be a knee jerk reaction to an emotionally laden story. This should be an important lesson to journalism students, journalists, and their editors everywhere.
Sandi Black • Mar 21, 2019 at 6:21 pm
Cameron,
You may think you have adjusted the headline to better support the facts, however I have no doubt you understand how the mere mention of child pornography, without any other supporting information, will keep Bob a guilty man in the court of public opinion. Take a look back at an April 12th op piece written by Evergreen columnist, Ramona Koehler. She had him all but sentenced to life in prison. Why bother with the courts when we can simply assume a persons guilt based on how titilating the charge sounds. Where there’s smoke there must be fire, right? Bob, an innocent man, a victim of a massive software breach, deserves better from you.
Michael Woelke • Mar 21, 2019 at 3:43 pm
Sorry but you were wrong. The pornography charges were dropped after it was shown his computer was hacked and used by Chinese hackers over an extended period.
Managing Editor • Mar 21, 2019 at 4:35 pm
In the story, it reads: “He pleaded guilty to malicious mischief in lieu of the child pornography charges and was sentenced to 30 days in jail,” meaning Long plead to malicious mischief in exchange for the child pornography charges being dropped. We apologize if this was confusing.
Earl LaPanto • Mar 21, 2019 at 3:13 pm
You know what would be really cool and all journalistic n’ such? If you actually spoke to Mr. Long and got his side of this vile story. Mr Long is an innocent man who was hacked, prosecuted, strung up and had his life destroyed by frighteningly sophisticated hackers. Local police lack resources and training to identify, let alone handle a hacking at this level. The case should never have been prosecuted. There is solid, verified evidence of a sophisticated and long term hack uncovered by an IT expert hired by the defense.
You should act like journalists and check the real facts with Mr. Long. I promise you what happened to him will terrify you. It is an absolute nightmare, the stuff of movies, but it is real. After you interview him, you can have a good cry over how he was treated, and how it could easily happen to you, then the Evergreen can apologize and retract any untrue statements regarding this case.
I won’t hold my breath that this will happen, I know truth and facts don’t titillate and sell ads, but it would be the right thing to do.
while you’re at it check with Mr. Long as to why he had to plead to malicious mischief. The horrible, frightening truth behind this story will blow your mind. It is an award winning story for the right reporter.
Brad Pearce • Mar 21, 2019 at 2:32 pm
“That being said, the headline is meant to say that the employee was convicted of the crime in court, but the sentencing is separate and this is how Long plead guilty to malicious mischief even though his conviction was on possession of child pornography. ”
That isn’t even remotely how the legal system works. You don’t get convicted of something and then plead to something else afterwards. Sentencing does not change what the crime is, it only determines the punishment.
He was indicted on child pornography charges, he was not convicted of child pornography. This headline constitutes libel. Being as this involves legal records, it is not a matter of opinion what he was convicted of.
Also, when you say “minor pornography conviction” it’s not obvious that you mean underage as opposed to “a minor crime”.
This Cameron individual is lucky to be spared the blame for this horrible headline.
Managing Editor • Mar 21, 2019 at 4:33 pm
We’ve reviewed the headline with the reporter, who was not present when it was written and did speak directly with the prosecutor. The editors who wrote the headline were confused by the definitions of conviction versus sentencing in these situations. This was a mistake on our part and we have now fixed the headline to represent the facts of the situation much better. We apologize for the miscommunication and for the mistake on our part.
Matt Templeman • Mar 21, 2019 at 8:10 am
Cameron,
I’m curious about your headline…”Former WSU employee sentenced after minor pornography conviction” yet Long pleaded guilty to malicious mischief. Go Cougs!
Managing Editor • Mar 21, 2019 at 1:39 pm
Hello Matt,
Cameron actually didn’t have control over the headline; this is a decision made by both the news editor and the layout editor. That being said, the headline is meant to say that the employee was convicted of the crime in court, but the sentencing is separate and this is how Long plead guilty to malicious mischief even though his conviction was on possession of child pornography. Hope this cleared up the confusion. Thank you for you comment.