Forums > General Industry > How easy would it be to ruin a photographer?

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Jan 06 13 10:39 pm Link

Photographer

Coyote Creations NW

Posts: 131

Vancouver, Washington, US

The risk is present in many fields. Dentists don't work on sedated patients without a nurse present.  I enjoy children and could be very happy wiring in a day care center, but the potential liability outweighs the enjoyable job.  We are a frightened and paranoid society.  Take reasonable precautions. I shoot no one under 18 without parent or legal guardian in the room.  I worked with a high school photography club on the condition that a teacher be present whenever students were in the room. 

Life isn't fair and I feel for the photographer.  Be reasonable, and keep your fingers crossed.

Jan 06 13 11:09 pm Link

Photographer

Paolo Diavolo

Posts: 8795

Martinez, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

sounds right.

Jan 06 13 11:23 pm Link

Photographer

Paul Ferris

Posts: 3508

New York, New York, US

If he is innocent they print a retraction on page 34 so everything will be ok.

Jan 06 13 11:33 pm Link

Photographer

Apodyopsis

Posts: 6087

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Change your company name.

And, provided you're not in some little bumfuck town where you're the only guy with a camera...eventually people forget.


I've heard the story a billion times but I can't for the life of me remember the name of the guy in DC that scammed the fuck out of a ton of models , and he's still doing it despite it being public.

Jan 06 13 11:35 pm Link

Photographer

Darren Brade

Posts: 2831

London, England, United Kingdom

John Jebbia wrote:
This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

I pretty much agree with you, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish any traceable details until there is a conviction. I often see stories on the news and wonder if they are right or wrong.

Here's a story that happened in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … -here.html

Jan 07 13 12:09 am Link

Photographer

Michael McGowan

Posts: 3653

Tucson, Arizona, US

Here's the thing. As a journalist, I've had to report on a bunch of these cases. Warrants filed against people are public documents. That way we can't be charged with secret stuff. It's to curb the police more than to humiliate those charged.

Prosecutors hardly ever go after somebody on child porn charges unless it's a slam dunk. Even in this case, they're asking for other parents to come forward if they suspect anything happened to their kids.

Assuming the guy skates, he can sue for wrongful prosecution. If the DA was really sloppy, that might give the guy a certain amount of justification in the public eye.

There have been a number of child porn cases involving people who used to be on MM and omp. In each of them, authorities watched and waited a long time because initial suspicions just weren't enough.

So, once the matter is released by the cops or prosecutor's office, it's public information. Do what you will with it. You won't face any legal repercussions, unless you live somewhere that requires you to print the results of the trial and you don't. Not sure if any of those laws are still around.

Jan 07 13 12:34 am Link

Photographer

Faces2Die4 Photography

Posts: 426

Houston, Texas, US

As the father of a 7 year old daughter, I'll argue the flip side. If there's no publicity and this guy gets out on bond, other children are at risk. Same is true if he gets off on a technicality. The other issue to think about - is this the first/only time he's done this? There may be other victims too scared to tell their parents what happened.

If this guy is exonerated, he can sue the cops and the prosecutors involved. I know this does little, if anything, to restore his reputation - but there's not much you can do to get that back.

Sometimes you have to face the reality that life's not always fair.

Jan 07 13 12:55 am Link

Photographer

R Michael Walker

Posts: 11986

Costa Mesa, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Because we the public love other people's dirty laundry. As for ruining his rep, how few ever knew of Jock Sturges before he was arrested on similar charges? He not only survived it but got famous off the notoriety. A certain Miss America was de throned for "nude lesbian" photos. She went on to become more famous than ever.

Jan 07 13 01:18 am Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

Is he on MM?

Jan 07 13 01:23 am Link

Photographer

Cherrystone

Posts: 36710

Columbus, Ohio, US

R Michael Walker wrote:

Because we the public love other people's dirty laundry. As for ruining his rep, how few ever knew of Jock Sturges before he was arrested on similar charges? He not only survived it but got famous off the notoriety. A certain Miss America was de throned for "nude lesbian" photos. She went on to become more famous than ever.

And yet today...by his own words...he is still not the same as before.

Jan 07 13 01:26 am Link

Photographer

Boho Hobo

Posts: 25351

Portland, Oregon, US

So....let me see if I understand this.


Nicole simpson gets killed and the media can report on it.

But under Jebbia's rule, when OJ gets arrested there is no news report.

When he gets arraigned....no news report.

The trial...no news.

He gets found not guilty, no news.


So no one ever finds out that OJ was on trial for killing his wife?

That's the Jebbia plan?

Jan 07 13 01:41 am Link

Photographer

TomFRohwer

Posts: 693

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

John Jebbia wrote:
Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

How many innocent people would decay in jail if not for the media which covered a case from the beginning? How many guilty people would have got away by corrupting prosecuters and judges or by threatening witnesses?

There is a word for this: secret judiciary. It's a favoured kind of justice in dictatorships and with despots. If you like to know how it works just have a look to Russia, Iran, China, ...

Jan 07 13 02:59 am Link

Photographer

William Kious

Posts: 8841

Delphos, Ohio, US

Faces2Die4 Photography wrote:
Sometimes you have to face the reality that life's not always fair.

It might be interesting to see if this opinion would change if your own ass was in the hot seat.

Jan 07 13 03:09 am Link

Photographer

William Kious

Posts: 8841

Delphos, Ohio, US

The fundamental problem is that the media is granted entirely too much freedom to speculate, editorialize and report unsubstantiated "facts". The public, in its lust for salacious "news", encourages the behavior.

Even when they're wrong, you will never see/hear a retraction.

Jan 07 13 03:12 am Link

Photographer

Justin Suyama

Posts: 113

Seattle, Washington, US

Yes the media blows. They should be sued for running this story. They probably shouldn't run stories on people until they are actually convicted as everyone in America (supposedly) is considered innocent until proven guilty. Though it seems in the eyes of the government and law enforcement we are all guilty until proven innocent and the media contributes to this.   

Photographing an underage nude isn't child porn unless the images are sexual in nature as I am sure many of you know from the story of Jock Sturges. I haven't seen this LV photographer's work to be able to judge but whenever you photograph an underage person nude, you always open yourself to the potential wrath of parents, the Christian right, Feds and a general mob mentality which is very much exacerbated by the media.

Jan 07 13 03:16 am Link

Photographer

John Jebbia

Posts: 27614

Phoenix, Arizona, US

Patchouli Nyx wrote:
So....let me see if I understand this.


Nicole simpson gets killed and the media can report on it.

But under Jebbia's rule, when OJ gets arrested there is no news report.

When he gets arraigned....no news report.

The trial...no news.

He gets found not guilty, no news.


So no one ever finds out that OJ was on trial for killing his wife?

That's the Jebbia plan?

I'm not advocating eliminating this information from public records. Michael McGowan brought up a good point about that. But there should be some restraints on the media when it comes to reporting this information. Ever notice they don't report the names or publish the photos of minors when something happens, unless they're deceased?

Jan 07 13 03:45 am Link

Photographer

Supermodel Photographer

Posts: 3309

Oyster Bay, New York, US

Coyote Creations NW wrote:
I enjoy children and could be very happy wiring in a day care center

Wasn't there an article about that in Wired magazine?

Jan 07 13 04:03 am Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11892

Olivet, Michigan, US

John Jebbia wrote:
This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Darren Brade wrote:
I pretty much agree with you, the media shouldn't be allowed to publish any traceable details until there is a conviction. I often see stories on the news and wonder if they are right or wrong.

Here's a story that happened in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ … -here.html

All that matters is the hype.

There was a "child molestation" case in my area a few years back.  Guy was accused, and named, and later found not guilty.

But the amazing part is that at the time of the incident, they said "we do not report the names of victims in sexual offenses."  They DID, however, report her age, and her MOTHER'S NAME.

Jan 07 13 04:20 am Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7248

New York, New York, US

Depending on the state, most times if you are falsely convicted/arrested you can not sue. The prosecutor is not held accountable and there are no monetary damages. If you can it will not be easy. Most of the time you have to prove damages by imprisonment or malicious prosecution. Good luck, if you don't have tons of money for a civil rights attorney.

There are thousands of people in prison because the media and politics demand that someone be punished. The Central Park Jogger case, ten years old. The kids didn't do it, someone else did. Did you hear about it? Was it as big a deal on the news after the fact? No.  Was the prosecutor or police punished for not doing a full investigation? No. They had evidence that proved the kids were not "wilding" as they invented...To top it off the real rapist went on to kill one more person and rape another woman. The kids were coaxed into confessions and it goes on and on. Moral of the story, something has to change. We need a better way as a society to learn from these mistakes. No one wants a child molester on the street any more than a rapist but this hanging by the media and prosecutors without any checks and balances is really not working!!!

Jan 07 13 04:34 am Link

Photographer

liddellphoto

Posts: 1801

London, England, United Kingdom

Paul Ferris  wrote:
If he is innocent they print a retraction on page 34 so everything will be ok.

Even better, relink the orginal article in the correction for SEO purposes so it is still the first thing that pops up when the guy's name is put ino google. Bonus points: don't edit the orginal either.

Jan 07 13 04:38 am Link

Photographer

Dan Howell Tearsheets

Posts: 572

Jersey City, New Jersey, US

Yes, all governmental actions should remain secret until their effect is felt by the general public. NOT

Your assertion that the press should not report crime until the verdict is so against the nature of our country's tradition of checks and balances that it is downright irresponsible. If you have specific problems about media coverage point them out and rally against them, but to suggest that media does not have a right and responsibility to question and report about alleged crime, corruption and debate is certainly counter to the constitution and, in my view, wholly uninformed. History, practice and statistics are against your view.

But then again, I work in media and have a journalism degree...what do I know.

Jan 07 13 05:16 am Link

Photographer

KA Style

Posts: 1583

Syracuse, New York, US

Its guilty until proven innocent.

I have personally been bashed by the media, and untrue facts were printed. No retraction was ever printed.

Jan 07 13 06:02 am Link

Photographer

Viking Models

Posts: 1553

Huntington Beach, California, US

John Jebbia wrote:
This really applies to any profession..

I just got done reading a story about a photographer in Las Vegas who has been arrested on child porn charges. I'm not going to link the story, but it's fresh as of a day or so ago.

Anyways, I was reading the story and watched the video and it got me to thinking. This guy has just been accused and arrested. Not convicted.

However, the report splashes his face all over the net, the address to his studio, his business name, etc, etc, etc.. No matter the outcome, innocent or guilty, this guy's ruined.

Questions: If you were in this guy's shoes, and you were exonerated what would you do? Would you pretty much be forced to give up photography? Would you continue photography, having to explain to every potential client that you didn't do it. Would they believe you? Would they think you just got off on a technicality? Would they just move onto the next photographer who doesn't have all the baggage?

Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

maybe the question should be: How easy is it to ruin anybody?

Jan 07 13 06:09 am Link

Photographer

TheLittleG Photography

Posts: 66

Columbus, Ohio, US

Faces2Die4 Photography wrote:
As the father of a 7 year old daughter, I'll argue the flip side. If there's no publicity and this guy gets out on bond, other children are at risk. Same is true if he gets off on a technicality. The other issue to think about - is this the first/only time he's done this? There may be other victims too scared to tell their parents what happened.

If this guy is exonerated, he can sue the cops and the prosecutors involved. I know this does little, if anything, to restore his reputation - but there's not much you can do to get that back.

Sometimes you have to face the reality that life's not always fair.

as a father of two daughters and a son i understand and respect your point of view.

this is where i have a problem with your statement...

where were the parents of the children he supposedly took nude photos of? not having read the article myself, from what the OP said they named the studio, by that i am guessing they are saying the photos happened in the studio and not in the basement of some sick freak.  want to protect kids if this guy gets out on bond? make sure you are in the studio at all times (which should be a parents standard practice and the practice of the photographer) and if the photographer has a problem with that.. find another photographer.  lets look at that they published the article to find other victims... then publish that a local photographer has had complaints made about inapropriate behavior and if you have any iformation or suspect this may have happened to you or a family member please contact the law enforcement. in my opinion that would be more credible when other witness would come forward as the witness would not have been tainted by the press putting the persons name out there. and doing this would put people on a high alert to watch what happens at ALL photo shoots. then if he is found not guilty his name is not ruined nor his reputation. if he is found guilty publish the crap out of his name....



personal note.
quite a few years ago i was falsely accused of a crime, i was arrested, it was published in the papers, went through a trial, the jury found me NOT GUILTY and i was not guilty, i did not do what i was accused of. me found not guilty was never reported, there was nothing in the paper about it or anything. i couldn't sue and win. my character was destroyed. there are certain things to this day that require that i tell them that i have an "arrest record". even though i was not convicted, then i have to go through and explain everything to them about it and give them court case numbers and the such. yes i could get it esponged but i don't have the money to do that. 



so to sum it up.... not mentioning names YES, not reporting it at all NO

Jan 07 13 06:20 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21900

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

liddellphoto wrote:

Paul Ferris  wrote:
If he is innocent they print a retraction on page 34 so everything will be ok.

Even better, relink the orginal article in the correction for SEO purposes so it is still the first thing that pops up when the guy's name is put ino google. Bonus points: don't edit the orginal either.

When it comes to witch hunts the Brits do it better.

JUST TODAY!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Gregg.html
Greggs baking heir arrested by child sex police as his luxury farmhouse is searched by officers screams the headline - - - BUT - - -

It's only in the small print that there is mention that he is 71 and the alleged offences allegedly took place in the 1960s - - - FIFTY FUCKING ODD YEARS AGO!!!

The police may be in a position to arrest him even on some unsubstantiated complaint with no attached hard evidence, or no evidence at all save for a statement by the complainant, but the CPS is going to be faced with the task of establishing that there is a likely case that can be PROVEN. I would be flabbergasted if there is even the remotest possibility of a realistic prospect of conviction. Even if there is some case to answer, there is a defence available in "abuse of process" in cases like this where the complaining party has waited half a century to come forward.

The other interesting thing that you would not see in the US is that though he has been arrested HE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED. If he had been, and at any time after that, the newspapers, here, could not have reported his name or any other details about him or the offences he supposedly committed. That is the law in respect of crime reporting in the UK. So it is absolutely clear-cut that he has not been charged yet, if he ever is charged..

This will cost this guy a king's ransom in legal fees and will likely end in nothing except the character assassination.

Yellow press at it's very worst.

Studio36

Jan 07 13 06:58 am Link

Photographer

intense_puppy

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

studio36uk wrote:
Yellow press at it's very worst.

They should just close that comic called "The Daily Mail" down and put everyone out of their misery.

Jan 07 13 07:02 am Link

Photographer

Jouissance Images

Posts: 744

Bloomington, Minnesota, US

Michael McGowan wrote:
Here's the thing. As a journalist, I've had to report on a bunch of these cases. Warrants filed against people are public documents. That way we can't be charged with secret stuff. It's to curb the police more than to humiliate those charged.

Prosecutors hardly ever go after somebody on child porn charges unless it's a slam dunk. Even in this case, they're asking for other parents to come forward if they suspect anything happened to their kids.

Assuming the guy skates, he can sue for wrongful prosecution. If the DA was really sloppy, that might give the guy a certain amount of justification in the public eye.

There have been a number of child porn cases involving people who used to be on MM and omp. In each of them, authorities watched and waited a long time because initial suspicions just weren't enough.

So, once the matter is released by the cops or prosecutor's office, it's public information. Do what you will with it. You won't face any legal repercussions, unless you live somewhere that requires you to print the results of the trial and you don't. Not sure if any of those laws are still around.

It isn't paranoid to assume that there are many police investigators posing as photographers and models on MM, watching and waiting.

Jan 07 13 07:04 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21900

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

intense_puppy wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Yellow press at it's very worst.

They should just close that comic called "The Daily Mail" down and put everyone out of their misery.

In a turn of the phrase -

Shut them down and put them out of OUR misery.   LOL

Studio36

Jan 07 13 07:05 am Link

Photographer

Creative Image

Posts: 1327

Avon, Connecticut, US

I vote "yes" because most of the cases cited here are pre - social media.  I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that someone with a big enough grudge could do a lot of damage by having a media story, justified or not, go viral on the web.

Jan 07 13 03:22 pm Link

Photographer

Ed Woodson Photography

Posts: 2644

Savannah, Georgia, US

Brings to mind a fellow by the name of Richard Jewell.

Jan 07 13 03:28 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42494

Houston, Texas, US

As bad as child porn and pedophiles are, I believe that the "witch hunt" may be harming and intimidating more people than either of those offenses, and sometimes I wonder how often such material found on people's computers was planted somehow.

Jan 07 13 05:06 pm Link

Photographer

Markcomp

Posts: 40517

Royal Oak, Michigan, US

John Jebbia wrote:
Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

Agreed, and not only for this crime but many other similar types.

Jan 07 13 05:24 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 42741

Salinas, California, US

It's not the end of the World if you are innocent.  Look at what happened to Jock Sturges for example.  The FBI raided his studio and home, but the grand Jury would not go forward with charges.  He then moved out of the country, but continues to shoot.  Then there is the owner of TTB's website, Jimmy was arrrested, brought to trial and aquitted.  He continues to run a successful business online.  He still photographs teens in bikinis.  so ...

I think that teachers would have more to lose in a case where charges are brought against them.  It's funny, but to Catch a Predator never seemed to have caught photographers, but they did catch plenty of clergy, off duty police, teachers, and even a District Attorney ... who blew his brains out before being arrested.   That's when the show lost popularity.

There have been many cases of convictions of innocent people ... in worst cases ... of murder.  When those cases are over thrown, then person falsely accused is usually given a settlement.  One man who spent 25 years in Texas prison for murder has gotten 2 million dollars for a settlement.   No amount of money will bring his wife back or replace the 25 years he lost.  He had three words of advise;  Never Give Up!

Jan 07 13 05:56 pm Link

Photographer

Mark Salo

Posts: 8380

Olney, Maryland, US

How easy would it be to ruin a photographer?

Pretty easy.  It seems that photographers are more suspect than most other occupations.

Jan 07 13 06:10 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

I think it would depend on how well the person does their online branding and watches their name. If someone does things right they could easily bury any bad news like this, after a while, on the 2nd or 3rd search page. If they don't pay attention and have no online presence, it may take a while and the stigma may last longer.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Jan 07 13 08:07 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Mark Salo wrote:
How easy would it be to ruin a photographer?

Pretty easy.  It seems that photographers are more suspect than most other occupations.

It may seem that way because this is your career or hobby and you're more involved with this than others. I think any professional would  be subject to review sites, blogs, lists, and other ratings that go around online.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Jan 07 13 08:10 pm Link

Photographer

Wolfstar Studio

Posts: 861

Cross Roads, Texas, US

John Jebbia wrote:
Opinion: Upon conviction, report away! But until then, I think it's utter bullshit that the media can in effect ruin a person, regardless of guilt or innocence.

And unfortunately you can't sue them for liable and defamation if you're found innocent, which would be justice. They settle for millions in damages so that you can at least try and make a life after the ordeal is over. It would also make them think twice about slandering you all over the place BEFORE a verdict is handed down.

Either way, I guess you change your identity. New name, new birth certificate, SSI number, hometown, etc. And yes, you can do all that legally. The problem with doing it legally is there's a tie to your former life. If someone digs deep enough, they'll find it. So you still have to keep your nose clean the rest of your life. Some reconstructive plastic surgery wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Jan 07 13 08:13 pm Link

Photographer

Julian W I L D E

Posts: 1829

Portland, Oregon, US

Something about this reminds me of the Michael Jackson train wreck.  The only way to remain immune from this nonsense is to keep that 10 foot pole handy.  In other words: Stay away from it.  ;-)

Jan 07 13 08:17 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

Do you remember the name Richard Jewell? He was the one who found the suspicious knapsack and within moments he was being tried in the media for the Atlanta Olympic Park bombings in '96. Months and months of this guy's face on the front of every newspaper and media outlet, digging into his personal life on the news, ruining his job and personal life.

Even though he was later exonerated (with much less fanfare) the damage was already done.

He ended up suing several media outlets and, ironically, became a police officer. He also died a few years ago (diabetes, I think).

The sad thing is, I still remember his name 16 years later but couldn't tell you the name of the actual guilty person.

Or an even worse case was the McMartin Preschool molestation case. Their entire family was ruined.

If it was me, it would be lawsuits galore and I'd move to Fiji.

Jan 07 13 08:18 pm Link