Yeah, remember that time Kurt Eichnewald investigated child pornography and ended up convincing a victim to escape that world and inform on the predators who paid for child porn?
A Congressional subcommittee investigating the growth of online child pornography has referred the names of hundreds of people who purchased illegal images to state prosecutors around the country, according to government officials.
The referrals for possible prosecution were made late last month to attorneys general in 46 states by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The information provided to prosecutors included names, credit card information and identifying details of the computers used to purchase monthly memberships at an illegal child pornography site.
The records were turned over to the committee by Justin Berry, a 19-year-old California man who, beginning at age 13, ran a pornographic Web site featuring images of himself streamed onto the Internet through inexpensive Webcams. Mr. Berry was the committee’s major witness in its opening day of hearings, during which he described his descent into Webcam pornography and his decision to turn against that business.
The subcommittee provided the attorneys general with records involving residents of their states,.....
Prosecutors from more than a dozen state attorneys general offices have already contacted the subcommittee, saying that they intend to pursue the cases, Mr. Whitfield said in an interview yesterday.
It seemed great, but there is a lot to suggest that he also exploited the victim as a viewer, possibly even as a partner of the site. I wonder about his motivations for writing the story, given the incongruent events and his level of involvement. His financial contributions could have been explained as part of an undercover operation, but he chose to deny completely and took steps to cover things up. That’s just weird. I’m finding that complete transparency is the only option when one is faced with being implicated in something like this. Anything else just looks bad. I appreciate your skepticism, because if there is something to this report, it should be reasoned well. Also, thanks for useful the link.
Given the circumstances and comments of Eichenwald and NYT pedonormalizing articles, this is a post based on legitimate suspicion. No torches or pitchforks yet.
He made payments to the kid and to the site’s producers and denied it. I have doubts about his excuses for the inconsistencies It seems strange that I give you a synopsis of the video linked here; as any can watch the video and check the news reports mentioned therein. Did you do so, before responding?
Perhaps some reading the comments here did not, so I will clarify my point.
If it weren’t for those facts of payments and denials, one could ascribe reasonable motives for reporting in this case. With those facts included, and the timeline of events concerning Eichenwald’s involvement and denials, the door opens for several possible theories. Blackmail, coercion, payback... if he was involved, and had knowledge of a forthcoming exposure... it would behoove him to expose first and get in front of the situation. I will admit that it seems incongruent to imagine all of this to be true and still make room for the fact that he encouraged the kid to come forward and participate with law enforcement. I don’t have enough info to construct a theory that explains that. However, neither is there a reasonable explanation for these payments and denials.
As to the New York Times articles that pertain to pedonormalization, you should know perfectly well. You have been here long enough. Here is the result of a simple google search. Hopefully It will catch the attention of any that haven’t seen it before.
When have you ever laid out all the facts, AWS? Eichenwald paid a source to reactivate a kiddie porn site, so he could do a story, and blamed (((epilepsy))) for failing to disclose multiple payments he gave to the kid running it. He is a despicable character who uses his (((esteemed journalist))) mask to cover his nasty activities. The fact that you would do PR for a guy like this is amazing.
why are you putting echoes around epilepsy? Are claiming he doesn't have epilepsy?
Let's lay out some facts
The pedophile Greg Mitchel got sentenced to 150 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
The pedophile Timothy Ryan Richards was sentenced to 16 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
The pedophile Ken Gourlay was sentenced to between 6 and 20 years in the Berry case and to 10 to 15 years in prison in the case of another boy that investigators discovered while looking into the Berry case due to Eichenwald's invovlement.
The pedophile Aaron Campbell Brown was sentenced to between 9 and 13 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
Justin Berry credits Eichenwald with getting him out of the porn business and off drugs.
What do you have on the otherside of the ledger that lets you call him despicable and nasty?
So, you think it's okay for newspaper reporters to pay sources to engage in child porn, to set up a honeypot to bust pedos...and then blame their epilepsy for failing to disclose the money that changed hands and face no professional or legal consequences?
I think he is very volatile and super thin skinned, but I also think he's a gifted reporter. And I do think he was attempting to rescue the kid who was almost 19 when he got involved. He says this involvement and this impulse to rescue happened before he decided to write about it. He talked to his minister, not his editor early on. He was a business reporter. This wasn't his beat. And I do think his intention was trying to sting pedophiles. He was working with prosecutors fairly early on.
You seem to think he's lying about his epilepsy. I'm not convinced of that. His story was he had been lying that his epilepsy was under control when in fact it was still happening frequently and causing memory losses. He was lying because he was afraid he would lose his job. His neurologist said this was the case that his epileptic episodes were still frequent and still caused memory losses.
Given the kid was almost 19 what do you mean by paying sources to engage in child porn?
No, I don't think he is lying that he has epilepsy. I think he is lying that it caused him not to mention he was paying the guy, using it as a shield. Whether it was his beat or not, the fact that he was willing to create a story by giving money to a source, or even give the appearance of doing so, means he is absolutely NOT a "gifted reporter". He should have given the story to someone else, since he was involved in creating it.
what do you mean by paying sources to engage in child porn
According to what I've read, when the guy reactivated his porn site after Eichenwald gave him money, new underage performers got involved.
According to what I've read, when the guy reactivated his porn site after Eichenwald gave him money, new underage performers got involved.
The first time Eichenwald gave him money, the guy was still in the life. The money was an inducement to meet. It only after they met that he identified who he was and that the kid agreed to get out.
Eichenwald says only after Berry agreed to get out and to try to help was after that that he started seeing it as a story. This was was he met Berry for the first time. And then Eichenwald convinced Berry to go the FBI and called a federal prosecutor on his behalf. Eichenwald and the Times maintain he did nothing illegal as part of the article. I don't think the FBI would agree to do a deal with Berry that involved Berry getting new kids involved. The dates for Berry finally agreeing to get out is July 5th, then Eichenwald calls a federal prosecutor and by July 25th, the FBI Interviews Berry. So those 20 days would be the crucial dates.
I know that a lot of the info on Eichenwald comes from the discovery info given to one of the convicted pedophiles and was put online with all comments and speculation about this evidence intended to discredit Eichenwald. It would helpful to see what the full testimony at trial was, but I know the pedophile was convicted, appealed and lost his appeal.
I think he is lying that it caused him not to mention he was paying the guy, using it as a shield.
Could be. The Times said after they learned this that they should have given it to a different reporter. I'm not saying he did things perfectly. I'm saying I believe his intention was sincere. I have seen more exaggerated claims about this that Eichenwald was a pedophile himself or was a child pornographer that seem to be less about addressing the actual case than about going after Eichenwald for other reasons.
In terms of being a talented reporter, I was thinking about things like his Enron reporting where learned enough about complicated financial maneuvers to explain it others.
Interesting. I agree, access to the trial documents would be helpful. When people see
Money being paid to a child porn maker
that money being hidden
Eichenwald getting a story out of it and
Eichenwald accidentally leaving a tab open to hentai in the background of a screen pic,
they are going to conclude he is dishonest and likely a pedo. Especially if they have repeatedly watched this stuff be covered up by the media and LEOs in the past like with Epstein, Weiner, the Seattle mayor and that ambassador that the Obama State Dept covered for. The court of public opinion is real.
Also, if Berry was not a minor and didn't recruit and new minors when he reactivated his site for the sting after Eichenwald got involved, how is it multiple pedos got convicted as a result?
Also, if Berry was not a minor and didn't recruit and new minors when he reactivated his site for the sting after Eichenwald got involved, how is it multiple pedos got convicted as a result?
I'm not sure if any straight up customers got prosecuted. That information was shared with local prosecutors, but the 4 convictions I speak of were all for folks directly involved with Justin Berry. And the crimes went back years. Some were for abusing Berry himself. One of the reasons they restarted the website was to get access to the customer billing records I believe. So it did not need to involve recruiting new minors. It could just involve uploading previously made videos. Of course, once you go to the FBI that opens up other avenues of investigation.
Kenneth Gourlay was convicted of among other things molesting Berry in 2002 and also in 2002 helping Berry setup his earlier porn sites when he was underage.
Timothy Ryan Richards who provided the info against Eichenwald ran several kiddie porn sites beyond site with Berry, handled the billing of still other kiddie porn sites and personally appeared in kiddie porn with 14 year old.
When Aaron Campbell Brown plead guilty, he admitted the "the conspiracy spanned more than five years and involved a number of commercial child pornography websites." I assume that the conspiracy was from 2002-2007.
As for your 4 points. Eichenwald obviously was not about covering up the world on online child porn as his article was one of the first on the subject, led to congressional testimony and the pedophile convictions above. So I think you're twisting your reasoning around. And that hentai wasn't pedo-hentail was it? I haven't heard that it was.
Remember that time Kurt Eichenwald openly admitted showing anime tentacle porn to his children to prove it existed? Remember those times the New York Times published articles attempting to normalise child rape/defending paedophiles?
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Yeah, remember that time Kurt Eichnewald investigated child pornography and ended up convincing a victim to escape that world and inform on the predators who paid for child porn?
Remember when this led to Congressional Testimony by the vicitm and you can watch his testimony right here and Law Enforcement action against consumers of child pornography?
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/us/14porn.html
https://www.c-span.org/video/?191923-1/exploitation-children-internet-day-1
ben_matlock ago
Watch @matheasysolutions' detailed breakdown of the Justin Berry case.
Are_we_sure ago
I've not found him to be a reasonable source. So no.
GreenDell144 ago
It seemed great, but there is a lot to suggest that he also exploited the victim as a viewer, possibly even as a partner of the site. I wonder about his motivations for writing the story, given the incongruent events and his level of involvement. His financial contributions could have been explained as part of an undercover operation, but he chose to deny completely and took steps to cover things up. That’s just weird. I’m finding that complete transparency is the only option when one is faced with being implicated in something like this. Anything else just looks bad. I appreciate your skepticism, because if there is something to this report, it should be reasoned well. Also, thanks for useful the link.
Given the circumstances and comments of Eichenwald and NYT pedonormalizing articles, this is a post based on legitimate suspicion. No torches or pitchforks yet.
Are_we_sure ago
A partner? Wasn't the kid running the site himself? Are you saying Eichenwald parnered with the kid?
Could it be the same as many of the people on this board?
examples?
GreenDell144 ago
He made payments to the kid and to the site’s producers and denied it. I have doubts about his excuses for the inconsistencies It seems strange that I give you a synopsis of the video linked here; as any can watch the video and check the news reports mentioned therein. Did you do so, before responding?
Perhaps some reading the comments here did not, so I will clarify my point.
If it weren’t for those facts of payments and denials, one could ascribe reasonable motives for reporting in this case. With those facts included, and the timeline of events concerning Eichenwald’s involvement and denials, the door opens for several possible theories. Blackmail, coercion, payback... if he was involved, and had knowledge of a forthcoming exposure... it would behoove him to expose first and get in front of the situation. I will admit that it seems incongruent to imagine all of this to be true and still make room for the fact that he encouraged the kid to come forward and participate with law enforcement. I don’t have enough info to construct a theory that explains that. However, neither is there a reasonable explanation for these payments and denials.
As to the New York Times articles that pertain to pedonormalization, you should know perfectly well. You have been here long enough. Here is the result of a simple google search. Hopefully It will catch the attention of any that haven’t seen it before.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html
Vindicator ago
Such passion, AWS! Must be for fairness, right. Riiiight.
Are_we_sure ago
Are you coming out against fairness and laying out all the facts?
Vindicator ago
When have you ever laid out all the facts, AWS? Eichenwald paid a source to reactivate a kiddie porn site, so he could do a story, and blamed (((epilepsy))) for failing to disclose multiple payments he gave to the kid running it. He is a despicable character who uses his (((esteemed journalist))) mask to cover his nasty activities. The fact that you would do PR for a guy like this is amazing.
Are_we_sure ago
I always argue for nuance.
why are you putting echoes around epilepsy? Are claiming he doesn't have epilepsy?
Let's lay out some facts
The pedophile Greg Mitchel got sentenced to 150 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
The pedophile Timothy Ryan Richards was sentenced to 16 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
The pedophile Ken Gourlay was sentenced to between 6 and 20 years in the Berry case and to 10 to 15 years in prison in the case of another boy that investigators discovered while looking into the Berry case due to Eichenwald's invovlement.
The pedophile Aaron Campbell Brown was sentenced to between 9 and 13 years due to Eichenwald's involvement.
Justin Berry credits Eichenwald with getting him out of the porn business and off drugs.
What do you have on the otherside of the ledger that lets you call him despicable and nasty?
Vindicator ago
So, you think it's okay for newspaper reporters to pay sources to engage in child porn, to set up a honeypot to bust pedos...and then blame their epilepsy for failing to disclose the money that changed hands and face no professional or legal consequences?
Are_we_sure ago
He did face professional consequences.
I think he is very volatile and super thin skinned, but I also think he's a gifted reporter. And I do think he was attempting to rescue the kid who was almost 19 when he got involved. He says this involvement and this impulse to rescue happened before he decided to write about it. He talked to his minister, not his editor early on. He was a business reporter. This wasn't his beat. And I do think his intention was trying to sting pedophiles. He was working with prosecutors fairly early on.
You seem to think he's lying about his epilepsy. I'm not convinced of that. His story was he had been lying that his epilepsy was under control when in fact it was still happening frequently and causing memory losses. He was lying because he was afraid he would lose his job. His neurologist said this was the case that his epileptic episodes were still frequent and still caused memory losses.
Given the kid was almost 19 what do you mean by paying sources to engage in child porn?
Vindicator ago
No, I don't think he is lying that he has epilepsy. I think he is lying that it caused him not to mention he was paying the guy, using it as a shield. Whether it was his beat or not, the fact that he was willing to create a story by giving money to a source, or even give the appearance of doing so, means he is absolutely NOT a "gifted reporter". He should have given the story to someone else, since he was involved in creating it.
According to what I've read, when the guy reactivated his porn site after Eichenwald gave him money, new underage performers got involved.
Are_we_sure ago
The first time Eichenwald gave him money, the guy was still in the life. The money was an inducement to meet. It only after they met that he identified who he was and that the kid agreed to get out.
Eichenwald says only after Berry agreed to get out and to try to help was after that that he started seeing it as a story. This was was he met Berry for the first time. And then Eichenwald convinced Berry to go the FBI and called a federal prosecutor on his behalf. Eichenwald and the Times maintain he did nothing illegal as part of the article. I don't think the FBI would agree to do a deal with Berry that involved Berry getting new kids involved. The dates for Berry finally agreeing to get out is July 5th, then Eichenwald calls a federal prosecutor and by July 25th, the FBI Interviews Berry. So those 20 days would be the crucial dates.
I know that a lot of the info on Eichenwald comes from the discovery info given to one of the convicted pedophiles and was put online with all comments and speculation about this evidence intended to discredit Eichenwald. It would helpful to see what the full testimony at trial was, but I know the pedophile was convicted, appealed and lost his appeal.
Could be. The Times said after they learned this that they should have given it to a different reporter. I'm not saying he did things perfectly. I'm saying I believe his intention was sincere. I have seen more exaggerated claims about this that Eichenwald was a pedophile himself or was a child pornographer that seem to be less about addressing the actual case than about going after Eichenwald for other reasons.
In terms of being a talented reporter, I was thinking about things like his Enron reporting where learned enough about complicated financial maneuvers to explain it others.
Vindicator ago
Interesting. I agree, access to the trial documents would be helpful. When people see
they are going to conclude he is dishonest and likely a pedo. Especially if they have repeatedly watched this stuff be covered up by the media and LEOs in the past like with Epstein, Weiner, the Seattle mayor and that ambassador that the Obama State Dept covered for. The court of public opinion is real.
Also, if Berry was not a minor and didn't recruit and new minors when he reactivated his site for the sting after Eichenwald got involved, how is it multiple pedos got convicted as a result?
Are_we__sure ago
I'm not sure if any straight up customers got prosecuted. That information was shared with local prosecutors, but the 4 convictions I speak of were all for folks directly involved with Justin Berry. And the crimes went back years. Some were for abusing Berry himself. One of the reasons they restarted the website was to get access to the customer billing records I believe. So it did not need to involve recruiting new minors. It could just involve uploading previously made videos. Of course, once you go to the FBI that opens up other avenues of investigation.
Kenneth Gourlay was convicted of among other things molesting Berry in 2002 and also in 2002 helping Berry setup his earlier porn sites when he was underage.
http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/Opinions/Final/COA/20090303_C278214_68_278214.OPN.PDF
Timothy Ryan Richards who provided the info against Eichenwald ran several kiddie porn sites beyond site with Berry, handled the billing of still other kiddie porn sites and personally appeared in kiddie porn with 14 year old.
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0282p-06.pdf
Gregory J. Mitchel convicted of running several sites beyond Berry's starting in 2003. He also abused an underage Berry, but that was in Mexico.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/us/virginia-man-pleads-guilty-in-online-pornography-case.html
When Aaron Campbell Brown plead guilty, he admitted the "the conspiracy spanned more than five years and involved a number of commercial child pornography websites." I assume that the conspiracy was from 2002-2007.
https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2007/May/07_crm_354.html
As for your 4 points. Eichenwald obviously was not about covering up the world on online child porn as his article was one of the first on the subject, led to congressional testimony and the pedophile convictions above. So I think you're twisting your reasoning around. And that hentai wasn't pedo-hentail was it? I haven't heard that it was.
Podge512 ago
Remember that time Kurt Eichenwald openly admitted showing anime tentacle porn to his children to prove it existed? Remember those times the New York Times published articles attempting to normalise child rape/defending paedophiles?