That's not what I said.

In a perfect world you're right. Possession of said DVDs wouldn't show intent. In Realville, if a prosecutor can get the jury to buy that the defendant is a pedophile, then that establishes the intent of the defendant to use said DVD's is for the purpose of sexual stimulation and/or gratification. In today's climate its not hard for any prosecutor to state "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that since Mr. X has in his possession dozens of DVD's of naked young boys cavorting in cooking oil on a rubber mat that he is in fact a pedophile who intended to use these DVD's to satisfy his depraved urges.....and so on. Somewhere in there I'd throw in the phrase "moral turpitude" because it strikes an emotional chord. It helps if you're really good at showing and expressing sanctimonious outrage, too. Bear in mind that both Hitler and Lenin were right about one thing....people are swayed not by facts and logic, in fact they tend to tune that out. But they can and are swayed by emotion and hate. You'd be surprised how well this works with 99.8% of juries out there. Do I agree with it? Do I approve of it? No, I don't. But it works, I accept the fact that its just the way it is, and my job is to win and convict the poor schmoe. Once you establish that to the jury, then anything the defendant has with pictures of boys, including the old Sears catalogs, was intended" for the purpose of sexual arousal by the defendant. Unfortunately the Rehnquist court has ruled that any photograph of a child that can or is used for the purpose of sexual arousal is de facto KP. Its no longer just sexual activity with kids or lascivious display of genitals as the Burger court ruled a decade before. Peace....