The headline is clickbait. Based on the article he possesed videos of one child (his cousin?) undressing and taking a shower (his production, by secretely recor

The headline is clickbait. Based on the article he possesed videos of one child (his cousin?) undressing and taking a shower (his production, by secretely recording), and videos of sexual content involving children. The deepfake side of the story is mentioned and I'm sure it had impact to at least some level in the trial. But acting on that fact alone would be legal abuse itself, because who was abused when creating those deepfakes? 40 years is beyond ridiculous for the possesion of child sexual material, and a video of a child taking a shower. But that's 'murica I guess.