Does anyone in the Keene area have any experience or know anything direct about an officer James McGlaughlin?
I bet Russell could tell you what each officer's favorite food and color is.
;D
He's apparently been targeting gay men, entrapping them by soliciting pornography, obtaining search warrants based on their possession of pornography, then picking through their hard drives looking for pictures which could be minors and trumping the men before a jury to make the determination if the photos on their hard drives are of adults.
I think it's time to expose this homophobic jackass using his badge to conduct a witchhunt.
"Soliciting pornography" is illegal in New Hampshire, or is this just a local Keene ordinance? You have an RSA citation? I and a few others are building lists of idiotic laws in need of repeal.
As for the cop, he definitely needs to go down. Privacy concerning people's data, the whole "kiddie porn" hysteria, and pretty much any legally enforced prudery with respect to sex, are things I especially want to help out with.
This guy looks like quite the crusading nutjob:—
- Internet crimes against children (http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/task_force.htm) page at the Keene PD.
- Fearmongering (http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/myspace.htm) about MySpace.
- Some paper (http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/Typology.html) he wrote on "cyber child sex offenders."
- An article (http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060305/NEWS/603050527/0/FRONTPAGE) (with photo) on his exploits in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.
And the winner is:—
- He apparently believes cybersex is a paraphilia (http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/technophilia.html).
The cop was the one who solicited the pornography, and yea I've been finding similar shit. He needs to be taken down.
Officer McGlaughlin has been going onto gay.com chat posing as a 21 year old looking for sex, getting guys to go on webcam with him, getting them to send him pornography, then going to a judge with this "evidence" to do a search and seizure of their property. He then goes through their personal files looking for photos which could be children and plans to present the whole of his pornography to a jury trying to get them to call him a sex offender.
In the case I'm aware of, the target was a school teacher, and the Sentinel published inaccurate facts about the case (ie, wrote that Officer McGlaughlin was posing as a 14 year old) in a bias article after he had already been fired from his job before the case even went before a judge. The article was syndicated via the AP and reprinted all over the state, even in Boston, see Former teacher challenges child porn charges (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/06/21/former_teacher_challenges_child_porn_charges/).
More than a year later the case still hasn't been tried but he has had to move to Manchester since everyone in Keene thinks he's a pervert trading kiddie porn movies online, he couldn't find work, he's basically broke. The accusation alone was enough to ruin his life.
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 27, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
The cop was the one who solicited the pornography, and yea I've been finding similar shit. He needs to be taken down.
Officer McGlaughlin has been going onto gay.com chat posing as a 21 year old looking for sex, getting guys to go on webcam with him, getting them to send him pornography, then going to a judge with this "evidence" to do a search and seizure of their property. He then goes through their personal files looking for photos which could be children and plans to present the whole of his pornography to a jury trying to get them to call him a sex offender.
The
Telegram link has his picture, although I'm confused how he could pass for a 21 year-old on a webcam. Post it far and wide, including on gay.com, letting people know who he is. Maybe he deserves an entry here (http://www.whosarat.com/), too. Maybe a whole site dedicated to outing cops (since he's technically not a "rat," being an actual cop) who entrap people like this is needed.
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 27, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
In the case I'm aware of, the target was a school teacher, and the Sentinel published inaccurate facts about the case (ie, wrote that Officer McGlaughlin was posing as a 14 year old) in a bias article after he had already been fired from his job before the case even went before a judge. The article was syndicated via the AP and reprinted all over the state, even in Boston, see Former teacher challenges child porn charges (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/06/21/former_teacher_challenges_child_porn_charges/).
Ah, I saw that article in my searches.
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 27, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
More than a year later the case still hasn't been tried but he has had to move to Manchester since everyone in Keene thinks he's a pervert trading kiddie porn movies online, he couldn't find work, he's basically broke. The accusation alone was enough to ruin his life.
Yeah, that's usually how it works. I and a few other people are working against the whole sex-and-children hysteria over here (http://cursor.eprci.com/) and know quite a bit about the whole "pedophile" accusations.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 27, 2007, 09:39 PM NHFT
As for the cop, he definitely needs to go down.
Double entendre noted. ;D
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 27, 2007, 11:02 PM NHFT
The Telegram link has his picture, although I'm confused how he could pass for a 21 year-old on a webcam.
He didn't, it was a one-way webcam. The cop was asking to see him naked prior to coming over to have sex.
According to him the photo the cop posted of himself on gay.com was of "a hot college-aged guy". As that 21 year old Officer McGlaughlin played "hard to get" and asked specifically for photos of younger guys to turn him on after numerous disturbing questions about wether he had ever seen a male student in class with an erection, wether he ever had sexual thoughts about his students, etc.
He was of course completely honest about his name, his job as a teacher and the grade levels he taught, etc online. This is obviously why Officer McGlaughlin targeted him. His co-workers knew he was gay, as much of the community was. It wasn't an issue until the child pornography charges were made.
If Officer McGlaughlin had been posing as a minor he would have been charged with soliciting sex from a minor. That charge wasn't made.
Quote from: Scott Roth on September 28, 2007, 12:39 AM NHFT
An independent investigation by a local citizen's group may be in order.
I don't know why your karma is so mediocre as a long-time, always un-offensive, poster, but +1 from me!
How would such a group be established?
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 27, 2007, 10:39 PM NHFT
More than a year later the case still hasn't been tried but he has had to move to Manchester since everyone in Keene thinks he's a pervert trading kiddie porn movies online, he couldn't find work, he's basically broke. The accusation alone was enough to ruin his life.
I wonder if there's anything we can do.
Quote from: Scott Roth on September 28, 2007, 12:39 AM NHFT
McLaughlin is the cop on the Keene force that works specifically with porno freaks on the Internet. I am not sure of the legallity of his job title, but I think that he oversteps the boundaries of his job description and illegally gets people to admit to sex crimes that aren't prosecutable. I am sure he gets his share of true perverts, but how he gets them is questionable at best. An independent investigation by a local citizen's group may be in order.
Why would it be illegal to get someone to admit to an un-prosecutable sex act? (Is it a crime if it's not prosecutable?)
Quote from: KBCraig on September 28, 2007, 12:59 AM NHFTI don't know why your karma is so mediocre as a long-time, always un-offensive, poster, but +1 from me!
Maybe for straying from the orthodoxy on certain points, like me. I've never been particularly foul-mouthed, personally affrontive, or rude in my posts, but my points of view themselves are enough to cause some people to smite me.
Quote from: mvpel on September 28, 2007, 09:12 AM NHFT
Why would it be illegal to get someone to admit to an un-prosecutable sex act? (Is it a crime if it's not prosecutable?)
What?
Let's use a metaphore here.
You're talking to people online about an upcoming Samhain celebration. An undercover cop starts asking you questions such as if children are involved in the ritual, wether you bring your own children, if you use sheeps blood etc and you very patiently and maturely answer his questions directly as a sort of education process and share your own beliefs with him.
Despite telling him repeatedly that nothing illegal was going to be done he uses the fact that you're wiccan to get a search warrant for your house. They confiscate your pagan alter, books off your shelf about wicca, your photo albums, and drag you into the cop shop to answer questions about your religious beliefs and practices. The prepare to parade all these things as evidence in front of a jury who they know at least a few will be morally offended and thus bias against you.
The only thing they can hit you with is a charge for indecency since in one of the photos in your album you're practicing in the nude. The charge itself is legally debatable since the courts haven't decided yet if nudity in a private setting is illegal and they cannot prove that it was a public setting, instead leaving it to a jury to decide wether they believe it was a public setting with experts, hired by public funds, testifying various "facts" about the background of the photograph.
They embellish the facts to get the newspapers to write about it, who focus on the fact that you're nude doing a religious ritual rather than the actual controversy in the case or the fact that you're being targeted because of your religion, your private life suddenly very public as rumors fly about animal sacrifices and vigin blood magic until you loose your job and are forced to move.
What legal right do the police have to violate your privacy in this manner and spin lies about you? Much less, paid by public funds to do so?
Is there a legal mechanism which protects the police from slander/defamation?
Oh, I see what you mean - the issue isn't getting someone to admit to something that's not illegal, it's using that as a basis to get a search warrant, yes? So perhaps the issue is the judge that's signing the warrants as well as the overzealous cop who's trying to catch predators.
... and the fact that they used what he said, embellishing it greatly and mixing in blatant lies, to get his name in the newspapers next to the title "child pornographer" and get his employers to fire him lest they be protecting an accused pervert.
It's one thing to mistakenly conduct a search warrant, or question you about things that are irrelevant to wether you committed a crime or not, but then to spin and spread details irrelevant to the case to the public..
This officer used his position to violate his privacy and engage in a smear campaign because he didn't want a gay man teaching children in the local school. That's what this case is really about. Officer McGlaughlin already won in that - it's very likely he'll never be able to teach in public school again. That's what he went to school for, that's his passion in life.
Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized: A public pressure campaign on the Keene PD to get them to remove him from this division, trying to find some dirt on him to put him through the same ringer he's putting innocent civilians through, advertising the guy's tactics all over these gay sex websites to the point where he's no longer effective at his job, and so on.
Quote from: srqrebel on September 28, 2007, 11:04 AM NHFT
Sounds like this individual desperately needs to be exposed to the services of an honor rating company, as being discussed here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.msg188537#new
The world needs to be shown how many lives he has ruined through his dishonest crusade against perfectly harmless lifestyles.
I am currently trying to work out the details of how such a business would operate profitably. I will be posting my ideas on the following thread (A Stateless Society By 2020), and any constructive input would be appreciated:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0
Great idea. ;D (Just made me delete the last sentence of the post I was writing.)
I also like the idea of a site like www.whosarat.com, but for undercover cops who pull shit like this. The idea would be something like, "these are cops who tried to wreck the lives of the innocent," and eligibility for the database would be based on whether or not any stings the cop engaged in resulted in a non-guilty verdict. This is something I'd work on myself but I'm already stretched a bit thin between the activist sites I'm doing, the Manchester newspaper, and a potential business I may be starting up soon. :-\
OOPS! I accidentally removed this post after J'raxis posted above, thinking it was a double post. :blush: Here it is again:
Sounds like this individual desperately needs to be exposed to the services of an honor rating company, as being discussed here:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=11006.msg188537#new (top of page)
The world needs to be shown how many lives he has ruined through his dishonest crusade against perfectly harmless lifestyles.
I am currently trying to work out the details of how such a business would operate profitably. I will be posting my ideas on the following thread (A Stateless Society By 2020), and any constructive input would be appreciated:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=10944.0
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 28, 2007, 11:05 AM NHFT
Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized
Exactly, and doing so would greatly help people such as Bryan who's trials are still pending.
Also it'd be good to find a lawyer interested in going on the offensive vs the Keene PD and the Sentinel re: the false and slanderous information that was printed and syndicated about the case. There's a fairly severe difference between soliciting sex from a 14 year old and having an adult conversation online with someone posing as a 21 year old.
A likely outcome of this would be the Sentinel testifying that they were merely reporting what the Keene PD (specifically this officer) gave them, which gives even more weight toward going after him directly. It doesn't let the Sentinel off the hook, they still printed and syndicated libel without checking the facts, but an out of court settlement could include a written statement as to the source of it.
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 28, 2007, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 28, 2007, 11:05 AM NHFT
Even if what this cop did isn't illegal conduct for a police officer, he's still a slimebag and needs to be removed or otherwise neutralized
Exactly, and doing so would greatly help people such as Bryan who's trials are still pending.
Also it'd be good to find a lawyer interested in going on the offensive vs the Keene PD and the Sentinel re: the false and slanderous information that was printed and syndicated about the case. There's a fairly severe difference between soliciting sex from a 14 year old and having an adult conversation online with someone posing as a 21 year old.
A likely outcome of this would be the Sentinel testifying that they were merely reporting what the Keene PD (specifically this officer) gave them, which gives even more weight toward going after him directly. It doesn't let the Sentinel off the hook, they still printed and syndicated libel without checking the facts, but an out of court settlement could include a written statement as to the source of it.
Right, they'll claim they checked facts by talking to Officer Scumbag, and then the responsibility for the libel falls to him. A large financial settlement against the paper isn't the end of the world for them, and won't serve much purpose for our goal here, but could make life very difficult for the cop here.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 28, 2007, 01:29 PM NHFT
could make life very difficult for the cop here.
And if he's implicated in spinning lies about the evidence every case he testifies in thereafter, well, his credibility is lost.
Quote from: ArcRiley on September 28, 2007, 02:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on September 28, 2007, 01:29 PM NHFT
could make life very difficult for the cop here.
And if he's implicated in spinning lies about the evidence every case he testifies in thereafter, well, his credibility is lost.
Maybe. But most people have an incredibly easy time accepting pretty much anything a cop does, so long as he's "protecting society" from all the bad guys out there. Either his continued employment by the Keene PD has to make them look so bad they have to fire him, or he has to be ruined as a result of the lawsuit against him (sort of like what he did to this Farr guy).
The officer can certainly be held in a civil suit for this behavior. If I understand correctly, the 'search' came before the arrest in this case. IN other words, there wasnt enough evidence to outright arrest him from their IM chats, but there was now 'probably cause' take your belief to a judge to issue a warrant for kiddie porn, based on the premise that he was allegedly pretending to be a child to this teacher... or based on questionable conversations perhaps that may be indicative of child porn? It be interesting to see what the search warrant request was drawn up.. and I am sure the defense atty has this information. Depending on what the probable cause determinations were, the judge may have issued a warrant for a search that may not be legal if the probable cause of the alleged crime was misrepresented by the officer. The judge issues the warrant in good faith and cannot be sued. Warrants can only be granted for probably cause (4th amendment) and generally those are based on the idea that under a given set of circumstances a reasonable person would have reasonable cause to believe that a particular person has committed a specific crime. But even if the judge issued a warrant on 'bad' probable cause... and items were found that constituted a crime.. the case can still go forward. Google the case of US vs Leon and you will see this exact scenario played out already for drugs. And even when the affidavit for the warrant was found to be baseless and unsupported by the original 'probable cause' the US Supreme court upheld Leons conviction against him for the drugs that were recovered from his home.
So the government still has a case against the teacher even if the warrant was bad, as far as a crime being committed (allegedly) goes. But that doesnt mean the teacher does not have a potential civil case against the officer, especially if the case is tossed or found to be unsupported by the facts and that the officer should have known this and was negligent in disregarding this information and you would need to prove police misconduct during the 'investigation'. The teacher probably didnt save his IM messages... and I wonder how much of the cops message is in its totality. After all, any discrepancies cannot be disputed unless the defendent/teacher saved his own copies.
The only way for the teacher to win this case (now that so called evidence of KP has been seized) is to prove these arent children. That's an awfully expensive defense.. or to suppress the evidence by saying the state has not proved it's case that this constitutes KP. Both of those are dicey gambles. It is not clearly defined who has the burden of 'proof' when it comes to KP images. Generally the state always has the burden of proof beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. The state's argument is correct, let reasonable people determine if they reasonably believe these are minor children and this would constitute kiddie porn.. however.. the defense has an equally accurate poosition in saying that these could just as easily be adults who look young and therefore pose as minors would pose. I'd really have to see the photo to say anymore.. /my 2 cents
Quote from: LaurieP on September 29, 2007, 07:46 PM NHFT
The only way for the teacher to win this case (now that so called evidence of KP has been seized) is to prove these arent children.
They are pushing on the basis of a single photo, the same one sent to Officer McGlaughlin online after he repeatedly asked for photos of young guys. It's the only thing they found on his laptop and something he likely downloaded that night to fulfill the cop's request.
Using the porn terminology, the photo in question is of a "barely legal twink"; some skinny 18 or 19 year old guy, likely with blond hair and shaven body. These photos are everywhere, it's hard not to stumble across them. Lets see what I can find in under 5 minutes (NOT WORK SAFE, just nudity no sex pics):
- http://teenboydirectory.com/alltwinks77.htm (http://teenboydirectory.com/alltwinks77.htm) - by a company based in Texas
- http://www.hotmuscleboyz.com/2003cfm/twink/5/1/index.htm (http://www.hotmuscleboyz.com/2003cfm/twink/5/1/index.htm) - by a company based in Massachusetts
What they're charging him on is that the man in the photo
could be a minor. In New Hampshire, that's 15 or younger. After being sent the photo Officer McGlaughlin then complained that he wasn't young enough - even he knew the photo wasn't illegal - and continued to use his offer for sex as a lure to get a photo that looks younger.
The search warrant was obviously an attempt to gain a photo which was illegal using the photo which likely wasn't as probable cause, ie "he has a photo of a young man maybe he has younger ones too!", but still they didn't find anything more than the one they already had.
Quote from: LaurieP on September 29, 2007, 07:46 PM NHFT
Generally the state always has the burden of proof beyond a 'reasonable doubt'. The state's argument is correct, let reasonable people determine if they reasonably believe these are minor children and this would constitute kiddie porn.. however.. the defense has an equally accurate poosition in saying that these could just as easily be adults who look young and therefore pose as minors would pose.
I'm shocked they're not pursuing entrapment as a defense, given the cop bluntly and repeatedly asked for the photo he was sent. They're charging him with "trafficking child pornography" for the act of sending it to Officer McGlaughlin when he, himself, asked for it.
It's not like Mr Farr was online for the purpose of trading these photos, to be blunt he was online looking for sex with another adult, Officer McGlaughlin claimed to be interested in the same, and asked for porn of young guys to get turned on (or whatever). This is
exactly where the legal term "entrapment" comes from, a possibly illegal act committed only because the arresting officer asked. It would be an undercover cop offering some guy desperate for money five thousand dollars to kill some guy, then arresting him when he agreed.
I dont agree with what the State is doing.. it's shocking and senseless to go forward with something like this that is based more on emotion than fact, but the defense can show that the state CANT prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt since they cannot prove the age of the individual in the photo. A seasoned defense attorney will make a fool out of this vigilante cop on the stand (and I'd pay money to watch!!), making it clear, line for line, that his inquiry was to elicit an illegal photo with the lure of having sex. Trying to comply without doing anything illegal, the teacher sends the youngest looking male photo he can scrounge up in a matter of minutes. Another huge part of the teachers defense, should he go to trial even, is to pick a reasonable jury. It's a costly defense, one he can't likely afford given the damage to his reputation for just having the accusations tossed at him. (which is the problem with ANY sexual assault accusation nowadays, you have NO rights left just because of an accusation which may or may not be supported by facts). A jury of fairly intelligent people who arent likely to be bowled over at the emotionally charged dual topics of homosexuality and KP would probably see this case for what it is... As for the teacher not going to trial yet, do you know if he was officially indicted by the Grand Jury?
As for entrapment, it's a tricky term. It seems it could hold up in this case at first pass. In order for entrapment to be successfully used, you have to prove 3 things generally. 1) that the idea originated with the 'govt' or in this case 'officer'. 2) that the govt persuaded him to committ the 'crime' rather than just 'afford him the opportunity to committ the 'crime' and 3) the teacher wasnt ready or willing to committ the crime until the government planted the idea in his head. All of that seems to be the case here... but again.. was the teacher actually indicted or just arrested? Before the state can move forward to prosecute, there has to be an official indictment that the crime occurred as charged and that the needed evidence is there to move forward. If the teacher hasnt gone to court yet or heard more... it makes me wonder if the case ever got off the ground.
Quote... in Sorrells v. United States (287 U.S. 435 (1932)) unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".