Pembroke woman, 53, arrested on child pornography charge

All that effort and money spent on catching someone with pictures. for as many years as I've been reading these reports, they all seem to have the same things in common. These people go online and download child porn on peer to peer networks and because they keep the files in a sharing location for others to retrieve from their computer, the police are able to track them down the same way they track down people sharing music files.

The thing is, they're probably trading the same pictures and videos that have been online since file sharing was made easy. I don't think I've ever heard of one of these people actually molesting a child.

Before you go all ballistic on me about how these people are the reason why child pornography is created in the first place, let me say that I just don't agree. Child pornography is produced because there are people who like molesting kids and they want to film it so they can watch it over and over. People who are getting it for free on P2P networks aren't the threats and I don't want to have to pay to house and feed them when the person who made the porn is still out running free.

It all seems like a lot of effort to catch picture and video peepers and at a huge expense to tax payers. Go after the people who made the porn, especially if it's something new that hits the file sharing networks. The police must know which images and videos are decades old and which are new, so go after the source.

Doug, in reading the article I got the impression that she was charged after the material was found on her computer. The impression I got this from was the involvement of the local drug enforcement task force, and the secret service. They dont usually get involved with child porn issues. But since Fredrick was arrested for criminal weapons posession that maybe the original warrant was for drug related stuff and they found these other things as well.

I do agree though on focusing on the creators of this stuff. I have 2 mid 20's stepsons and get angry when I find out they visited porn sites from my computer while visiting. Some of the popups that occur after they have left are the only indicators that they visited these sites and some of them are disgusting. I had a friend in Syracuse who was bankrupted by his daughter's son who went on porn sites frequently, because of his daughters staying with him his home was subject to search warrant, they seized his computer and charged him with the child porn charges. So much for innocent til proven guilty, he was treated as a sex offender until he cleared his name and was able to get them to dig further into his computer to prove it was his grandson's logon that was browsing and saving the filth.

Hopefully soon the tech will be there to track this stuff to it's source and make those responsible for it pay dearly. Til then I guess we have to deal with what we have though.

i find myself very surprised that homeland security and tsa were not involved in the investigation.
the secret service?isn't it their job to protect the president and look for counterfeit money.?

"Since 1984, the Secret Service's investigative responsibilities have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers and money laundering as it relates to the agency's core violations."

http://www.secretservice.gov/investigations.shtml

ha ha and who took care that business before the SS ?

There wasn't an Internet or for that matter commonly available home computers before then Mr Spaulding

Just curious David, what the heck does the TSA and Homeland Security have anything to do with Child Porn? They are agencies that would have nothing to do with this type of crime.

Thank you Howard that clarification clarifies things a whole bunch.

I'm wondering if she took the fall for her husband on this one. Maybe the police levied these charges against her so that her husband will be compelled to confess.

Howard, are you saying it never happens? She could easily have incriminated herself when the police asked who the computer belonged to. If she said "It's mine" then anything on it could, by law, be pinned on her, even if she had nothing to do with the kiddie porn on the computer. I'm just throwing that out there as a possibility.

I know better than to think that the police don't lie from time to time in order to get what they need to do their job. To think otherwise would be naive. The world we live in isn't perfect and sometimes it's for the best, sometimes it isn't. The fact is, everyone lies about something at some point. Most of us try not to and make a conscientious effort to be forthcoming. Nobody is perfect.

Doug you are absolutely correct on one thing Police can and do lie in interrogations which leads me to believe they would be capable of doing just what you suggested in post 13. I called my brother in law who is a detective in the Virginia State Police's Homicide division who told me the distinction between intrinsic lies which are allowed and encouraged and and extrinsic lies which can throw out a confession (yes I had to look up intrinsic and extrinsic). The scenario you propose is what I feel is that grey area where they can go that is not really ethically sound. I looked further and found this lil tidbit online@
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2842/what-can-the-police-lie-a…

In a 1993 ruling, the Hawaii Supreme Court collected some examples of intrinsic and extrinsic misrepresentations:

Intrinsic misrepresentations (usually not coercive)

1. Placement of the defendant's vehicle at the crime scene.

2. Physical evidence linked to the victim found in the defendant's car.

3. Discovery of the murder weapon.

4. A claim that the murder victim is still alive.

5. Presence of the defendant's fingerprints on the getaway car or at the crime scene.

6. Positive identification of the defendant by reliable witnesses.

7. Discovery of a nonexistent witness.

Extrinsic misrepresentations (more likely to be coercive)

1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession.

2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession.

3. Assurances of treatment in a "nice hospital" (in which the defendant could have his personal belongings and be visited by his girlfriend) in lieu of incarceration, in exchange for a confession.

4. Promises of more favorable treatment in the event of a confession.

5. Misrepresentations of legal principles, such as (a) suggesting that the defendant would have the burden of convincing a judge and jury at trial that he was "perfectly innocent" and had nothing to do with the offense, (b) misrepresenting the consequences of a "habitual offender" conviction, and (c) holding out that the defendant's confession cannot be used against him at trial.

6. Misrepresentations by an interrogating police officer, who is a close friend of the defendant, that the defendant's failure to confess will get the officer into trouble with his superiors and jeopardize the well-being of the officer's pregnant wife and children.

This was basically confirming what my brother in law told me and I had heard from others in law enforcement as well. So lying is not only permissable it is encouraged, so its not so hard to believe that with police being human beings that they might even lie in other aspects of their job subconciously believeing it to be acceptable because of it's being allowed in interrogations. Whew quite the morning's education this am LOL

Kyle, I just know that when dealing with the police, saying nothing at all is the wise choice. If they're asking you questions because they think you've done something wrong, shut the hell up. You can and will say something that makes it look really bad for yourself even if you've done nothing wrong.

Doug and Kyle, it is apples and Oranges to what Howard said.

1) The court citing by Kyle refers to interrogation and interview, NOT the filing of charges or affidavid of evidence before a judge.

2) Doug while you are correct in that thge best thing to say is nothing, and correct that if she owns the computer even if her husband put the pictures on it, she still owns the computer and law enforcement actually can not charge the husband with that unless he confessed or other forensic evidnce proved that he did.

3) Howard's statement referred to the actually filing of charges and testimony before a grand jury or judge for a warrant, in which case he is absolutely correct, the officer seeking warrant or testimony is bound by evidence and MUST tell the truth or it would be both perjury and a violation of her 4th amendment rights.

Mark, I have first hand knowledge of police lying in order to obtain a search warrant. It was many years ago but I'm sure it still happens now. As it ended up, charges were never filed with the court system but the person had mugshots and fingerprints taken and it took 5 years for everything to go away. Police and investigators use the same tactics to obtain warrants as they do to bust a suspect. I know for a fact that it happens.

Doug there are people that drive drunk, they are violating the law.

There was a case a few years ago when a NYSP investigator lied infront of a grand Jury and a judge in an Arson/Murder investigation in CNY

That trooper is now in Jail

Of course there are always going to be cases like that and thank God, they are few compared to the many that are not.

But it is not the norm by any means, not even close.
In order for it to be so in this case, several law enforcement folks from several different agencies would have to have lied.

You can argue that those images might have been her husbands, in that case short of a confession from him, even if i were true, under the law she would still be in possesion of the pron.

If you were driving your car, and a friend put herion on the back seat and you were pulled over, unless that friend came clean, you would still under the law be in possesion of herion, because the car is yours and the herion was there.

Hey Mark funny you should bring that Trooper up.... I lived in Ithaca at the time that particular incident happened and you might not be aware of the skinny on that. It was the Troop C barracks down there in the Binghamton Ithaca region. The trooper you are talking about was David Harding. Apparently he had falsified evidence in the Shirley Kinge investigation of her involvement in the Harris family murders. The way it came to light and the domino effect it had was what was so shocking. He applied for a CIA job and in his interview he proudly boasted he would break laws to protect the US then went on to explain how he fabricated evidence in investigations of suspects he was 100% sure were guilty.

The CIA reported this to the Dept Of Justice which began an investigation that ended up costing 5 troopers their careers... So it was more than just one investigator and I think as many as 30 cases were thrown out due to these officers admitting fabricating evidence. Prehaps rippling across many more. Sad though it was I know that the NYSP weren't trusted for a while after that, especially since they were all out of Troop C barracks.

Here is the list of Troopers and charges from that... courtesy of Wiki of course

Craig D. Harvey was a lieutenant who headed the identification unit, and was a 16-year veteran of the force. He pleaded guilty on July 29, 1993 to fabricating evidence in three cases, and agreed to serve 2½ to 7 years in prison.[3]

David L. Harding was a 7-year veteran of the force, was sentenced on December 16, 1992, to 4 to 12 years in prison and fined $20,000 for fabricating evidence in four documented cases.

Robert M. Lishansky was an 11-year veteran of the force, was sentenced June 10, 1993 to 6 to 18 years in prison for fabricating evidence in 21 cases.

David M. Beers was a 15-year veteran, pleaded not guilty on May 5 and on July 29 to fabricating evidence in two cases, was acquitted by a jury on September 28, 1993.

Patrick O'Hara was a lieutenant and 16-year veteran of the force, was suspended July 29, 1993 pending an investigation into Mr. Harvey's allegations that Lieutenant O'Hara helped fake evidence.[3] Prosecutors dropped the charge that O'Hara had helped Harvey fake a fingerprint, but O'Hara served one year in prison as part of his plea agreement.

I was very much aware of that Kyle, a high school friend of mine got transferred to Troop C as a result of that case.

I am also very much aware of the positive reverbarting effects of that case, which caused a complete make over of the way the NYSP and all police angencies across the state have made major changes in the way evidence is collected and subsequently handled for the better.