Georgia inmate pleads guilty to child pornography possession on altered prison tablet
Timothy Jock Knight, 45, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on an altered prison tablet and faces a $250,000 fine, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 9, 2026, 8:38 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 9, 2026, 8:42 p.m. ET
Georgia inmate pleads guilty to child pornography possession on altered prison tablet, faces $250,000 fine
An inmate has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on an altered prison tablet while incarcerated, and a $250,000 fine has been ordered or agreed, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office, as reported by FOX 5 Atlanta.
The office identified the defendant as Timothy Jock Knight, 45. The case is a criminal matter in district court, and the resolution was a guilty plea, the office said.
The $250,000 is a fine, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The office did not state in the reported facts whether the fine is a penalty, disgorgement or redress to consumers.
The date of the plea and the court where it was entered have not been established in the reported facts.
Sep 9, 2026, 8:38 p.m. ETFirst report
Inmate pleads guilty to child pornography possession on altered prison tablet
An inmate has pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on an altered prison tablet, according to a litigation release from the U.S. Attorney's Office reported by FOX 5 Atlanta.
The office identified the defendant as Timothy Jock Knight, 45. The case is criminal and was adjudicated in district court on a guilty plea, the release states.
The release lists a $250,000 fine. The proceeding is at the adjudicated-liable stage, according to the office.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 00:38current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 00:42current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 00:54current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.