login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Police: Underage Girls Posed Nude For Photog Search   Reply
12345last
Photographer
Steinberg Photo
Posts: 1,118
Boston, Massachusetts, US


News Story (Video): Local photog arrested, charged with taking nude photos of 17 y/o
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/2 … index.html

(If this has already been posted, please accept my apology for the dupe post).
Mar 29 10 08:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
tenrocK photo
Posts: 5,412
New York, New York, US


Due process...
Mar 29 10 08:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jim Cookfair
Posts: 245
Buffalo, New York, US


so typical - conviction by media
Mar 29 10 08:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M A R T I N
Posts: 3,893
Calgary, Alberta, Canada


Do you have a point with this?
Mar 29 10 08:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photo Chan
Posts: 123
Portland, Oregon, US


This is why I hate the media. Because at some point you can never tell whos telling the truth. The girl could have lied to get money out of it or he could really have taken tons of photos of those girls.

heres an idea... maybe they should check the photocopied IDS of the girls *which is required for such things as this* to see their age and to match the photos with the models.  And the girl said that he ALLEGEDLY took photos of her naked... Does she have prof?
Mar 29 10 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darwin Young
Posts: 996
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Steinberg Photo wrote:
News Story (Video): Local photog arrested, charged with taking nude photos of 17 y/o
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/2 … index.html

(If this has already been posted, please accept my apology for the dupe post).

Well MM sure has changed, I was once brigged (

Mar 29 10 08:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brooklyn Bridge Images
Posts: 9,259
Brooklyn, New York, US


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v394/papavic/jeezsb6.jpg
Mar 29 10 08:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,395
Columbus, Ohio, US


Did I read that right.....bail of 5 Thousand?

They must not be to confident of the case against him with a bail that low.
Mar 29 10 08:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Davian J
Posts: 303
Sacramento, California, US


innocent til proven guilty but that's fucked up they got his house and shit on there. even if he get off he's ruined in that town.
Mar 29 10 08:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photo Chan
Posts: 123
Portland, Oregon, US


Davian J wrote:
innocent til proven guilty but that's fucked up they got his house and shit on there. even if he get off he's ruined in that town.

Agreed, they should have kept his face and HOUSE out of it since they did say he was not guilty as of yet and if they do find him innocent then no ones going to trust him again.

Mar 29 10 08:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Davian J
Posts: 303
Sacramento, California, US


Cherrystone wrote:
Did I read that right.....bail of 5 Thousand?

They must not be to confident of the case against him with a bail that low.

500K but he only has to pay 10% a bail bondmans fronts the rest

Mar 29 10 08:47 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Kevin_Connery
Posts: 3,305
Fullerton, California, US


Moderator Warning!

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v394/papavic/jeezsb6.jpg

That is not acceptable in the industry forums.

If you do not feel a thread belongs, report it. Hijacking it is explicitly against the rules.

Mar 29 10 09:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,395
Columbus, Ohio, US


Davian J wrote:

500K but he only has to pay 10% a bail bondmans fronts the rest

He paid 5k cash bond......does not automatically mean 10%. But even if it was, according to my math, that would be 50K.

Still pretty low bond for a presumed kiddie porn guy. I gotta laugh how they portray a guy shooting kiddo porn with a 17 yr old model.

Mar 29 10 09:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GCobb Photography
Posts: 15,891
Southaven, Mississippi, US


Jim Cookfair wrote:
so typical - conviction by media

Exactly

Mar 29 10 09:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Simpson Images
Posts: 1,326
Bangor, Maine, US


Davian J wrote:

500K but he only has to pay 10% a bail bondmans fronts the rest

bail bonds man is in for 5k or accused must have 500k property

Mar 29 10 09:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matt Wright Photography
Posts: 227
Worcester, Massachusetts, US


Mar 29 10 09:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Elicson
Posts: 183
Sunbury, Ohio, US


David Simpson Images wrote:

bail bonds man is in for 5k or accused must have 500k property

The last time I checked, 5,000 is 10% of 50,000, not 500,000

Mar 29 10 09:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RW Photo Art
Posts: 1,666
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


I know the law has to set a specific age, but it still amazes me that people (including some on MM, from the threads I've seen) seem to think that a young person (usually a girl) is a fragile, innocent child until they reach their 18th birthday, at which point they suddenly grow up and can do hard-core porn if they wish.

Maybe this photographer is a creepy GWC and maybe he was careless checking IDs. Does that really put him in the same league as someone who rapes a 4-year-old and takes pictures to share with pedophiles? Apparently it does.

Hell, we have sexually active teenagers being charged with child porn because they send nude cell phone pictures to their friends/hookups.

Where is the common sense?
Mar 29 10 09:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FotoMark
Posts: 2,978
Oxnard, California, US


Cops even said "Many that were of questionable age" meaning it's BS that the Media is saying Kiddie porn. He photographed a minor, not a little kid.
Mar 29 10 09:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,395
Columbus, Ohio, US


RW Photo Art wrote:
Where is the common sense?

The age of consent in Mass is generally 16.
Screwing her is fine, just don't take a picture.

Lot's of common sense there, he ruined the poor child.

Had that same child killed someoe, she would be tried as an adult in a NY second.
More common sense.

Mar 29 10 09:21 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,376
San Francisco, California, US


This seems pretty simple to me.  He is either going to have ID for the girls or he isn't.  If he has the ID's then this will go away.

Here is what I found disturbing, at least from the perspective of the news article, they arrested him based on the declaration of the alleged victim.  She claims he took nude photos, but, as of the writing of the article, they hadn't found any nude photos of her.

It seems to me that the first thing they will have to do to convict him is to find some nude photos of her.
Mar 29 10 09:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


FotoMark wrote:
Cops even said "Many that were of questionable age" meaning it's BS that the Media is saying Kiddie porn. He photographed a minor, not a little kid.

Exactly, and the parents on the street with little kids are horrified.  What?  Yeah, nothing worse you can do to someone than take their picture like they asked you to do.  Oh the humanity....skin.

I agree with laws against exploitation, but they are acting like this guy grabbed some 5yr old from the sand box kicking and screaming into his rape van.

Mar 29 10 09:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
This seems pretty simple to me.  He is either going to have ID for the girls or he isn't.  If he has the ID's then this will go away.

Here is what I found disturbing, at least from the perspective of the news article, they arrested him based on the declaration of the alleged victim.  She claims he took nude photos, but, as of the writing of the article, they hadn't found any nude photos of her.

It seems to me that the first thing they will have to do to convict him is to find some nude photos of her.

Yeah, I find that disturbing also, having your home raided and being arrested just on someone's word itself is very disturbing to me.

Mar 29 10 09:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matt Wright Photography
Posts: 227
Worcester, Massachusetts, US


Does anyone know of any websites that have downloadable model releases?
Mar 29 10 09:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,531
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


For the cops' sake the pics of the complainant sure better be clearly lewd and lascivious and she better have been under 18 at the time of the shoot and all that stuff. If not,  they will be in deep doodoo for being the ones who irrevocably weaken that statute and let real child porn go unprosecuted.    But from the press conference I'm really doubting it.  If they had him on the first charge, they would be proudly (well quietly proudly) displaying his horrific crimes and not asking everyone (anyone? please?) to come forward sad
Mar 29 10 09:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Lucas Chapman
Posts: 6,129
Scottsdale, Arizona, US


Total bullshit...  the media and locals have in convicted and sentenced already.  I hope he has his ducks in a row, and sues the living fukk out of everyone.
Mar 29 10 09:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
tenrocK photo
Posts: 5,412
New York, New York, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
If he has the ID's then this will go away.

You really think so, now that it is all over the press?
The charges might not stick but his rep (including at his day job) is certainly messed up for a long time.

Mar 29 10 09:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vanishing Point Ent
Posts: 1,688
Los Angeles, California, US


Davian J wrote:
innocent til proven guilty but that's fucked up they got his house and shit on there. even if he get off he's ruined in that town.
Photo Chan wrote:
Agreed, they should have kept his face and HOUSE out of it since they did say he was not guilty as of yet and if they do find him innocent then no ones going to trust him again.

This should finally answer the question that keeps getting posted on here,
about shooting underage girls, or even 18 yr olds, when they have a witness, ( chaperone ) & the photographer doesn't.

When it comes to sex, it's guilty until proven innocent.

It makes having a M.U. Artist under the employ of the photographer
cheap insurance against, definition, ( defamation ), of character.

When it comes to I.D.'s remember what Ronald Reagan said;
" trust but verify ".

Mar 29 10 09:31 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,376
San Francisco, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
If he has the ID's then this will go away.
tenrocK photo wrote:
You really think so, now that it is all over the press?
The charges might not stick but his rep (including at his day job) is certainly messed up for a long time.

That is a different issue, and on that I don't disagree.

Mar 29 10 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
For the cops' sake the pics of the complainant sure better be clearly lewd and lascivious and she better have been under 18 at the time of the shoot and all that stuff. If not,  they will be in deep doodoo for being the ones who irrevocably weaken that statute and let real child porn go unprosecuted.    But from the press conference I'm really doubting it.  If they had him on the first charge, they would be proudly (well quietly proudly) displaying his horrific crimes and not asking everyone (anyone? please?) to come forward sad

Why would the cops be in "deep doodoo" for jumping the guy and arresting the guy with no proof.  They have the power, and excessive it, all the time.  There really isnt any consequences for doing that to someone especially when they are just "protecting the children" 

I wish it would have some backlash, but sadly I just dont think it would.

Mar 29 10 09:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M A R T I N
Posts: 3,893
Calgary, Alberta, Canada


tenrocK photo wrote:

You really think so, now that it is all over the press?
The charges might not stick but his rep (including at his day job) is certainly messed up for a long time.

he will never be exonerated. you can't prove a negative.

Prosecutors can withdraw charges but the ignorant masses think cops only press charges against the guilty.

Mar 29 10 09:34 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Terry Moody Photography
Posts: 308
Gastonia, North Carolina, US


Today I want to be a model, tomorrow I will change my mind and tell on you.

That's the way it works.
Mar 29 10 09:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


Vanishing Point Ent wrote:
When it comes to sex, it's guilty until proven innocent.

Needs quoted again for emphasis...

Mar 29 10 09:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


Martin Bielecki wrote:

he will never be exonerated. you can't prove a negative.

Prosecutors can withdraw charges but the ignorant masses think cops only press charges against the guilty.

And the police are fully aware of this fact, they know they have the power to exact a level of punishment on people even if it never makes it to court.

Mar 29 10 09:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Beatrix Mae
Posts: 2,499
Calgary, Alberta, Canada


So are they nude photos or porn? they kind of blended the two together
Mar 29 10 09:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18,134
Orlando, Florida, US


OMG a girl was talking on MM about this guy before  she had a thread in Model colloguy I asked her who the photographer was she said he found her on facebook and had shot photos of her nude when she was 17 and  he was also taking photos of her friends still who were still under age she sent me the link to his facebook and this was the same dude. I still have the private message from her telling me about this guy.

What a coincindence. I had asked her who she was talking about because she was local to me.


This is the thread

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 847&page=1


The Photographer the OP is talking about it's the same guy in the news.


Atleast I can say I heard it on MM before it hit the news.
Mar 29 10 09:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
CGI Images
Posts: 4,989
Wichita, Kansas, US


Beatrix Mae wrote:
So are they nude photos or porn? they kind of blended the two together

You see that a lot with these kinds of cases, the media in particular doesn't really put much effort into differentiating between the two.  To point out they may be simple nudes and quite possibly legal would kill the excitement of having yet another child predator on the loose in your neighborhood as a story.

Mar 29 10 09:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dario Western
Posts: 622
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


This is what's so screwed up about America - David Hamilton and Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are allowed to sell images of similar stuff in bookshops but this guy is treated just like a rapist or a paedophile?

America is a sick country and has the worst people working in the media.  I pray for one whole year that nobody is able to speak or write a single lie and see how things will change.  Maybe that could be the making of a sequel to Jim Carrey's film "Liar, Liar".  smile

If Americans didn't get so uptight with nudity or sex unlike most European people, then things would be in a much better state.

Curse Queen Victoria and the Comstock regime, may both of them rot in hell.
Mar 29 10 09:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 36,395
Columbus, Ohio, US


Dario Western wrote:
This is what's so screwed up about America - David Hamilton and Jock Sturges and Sally Mann are allowed to sell images of similar stuff in bookshops but this guy is treated just like a rapist or a paedophile?

America is a sick country and has the worst people working in the media.  I pray for one whole year that nobody is able to speak or write a single lie and see how things will change.  Maybe that could be the making of a sequel to Jim Carrey's film "Liar, Liar".  smile

If Americans didn't get so uptight with nudity or sex unlike most European people, then things would be in a much better state.

Curse Queen Victoria and the Comstock regime, may both of them rot in hell.

Ummmm, I've seen some pretty screwed up things in the way of laws and prosecutions out of Oz buddy. Got any mirrors down there?

Mar 29 10 09:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,531
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


CGI Images wrote:

Why would the cops be in "deep doodoo" for jumping the guy and arresting the guy with no proof.  They have the power, and excessive it, all the time.  There really isnt any consequences for doing that to someone especially when they are just "protecting the children" 

I wish it would have some backlash, but sadly I just dont think it would.

right now that statute is hanging there and not really tested.  As you must have seen here on MM there is a lot of fear and uncertainty over its limits.  This gives them the ability to say  they are 'holding the line against porn' or whatever they want to say.   

Should those limits get pushed back even a bit it will be considered a horrible failure on the police side and they will totally get blamed for moving the line in the sand closer to sanity.  We all know what someone famous can do but until now nobody knows what john GWC can do safely.

Mar 29 10 09:46 pm  Link  Quote 
12345last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers