Pedophiles and the twinks who operate webcams.

[VaHawk]

>Since this debate occurs in cyberspace, where the only parties

>who identify themselves and their professions are the escorts

>who engage in debate here, it is unfair of you to belittle

>Tom's arguments on ethics.

 

Not true, as many, many Hoovillians have identified their professions, if not their true identities (and even the escorts don't reveal their "true" identities) here in the mc. Just a few: deej is in IT, Flower is an attorney, jackhammer is an actor, Huey is a deejay. The list could go on, but what is the point, as just these few disprove your assertion?

 

>After all, you could be a bankrobber, for all we know, or maybe a choirmaster who diddles little boys. Why should we consider your arguments and lectures any more seriously, if they have to be based on your profession or personal proclivities, of which we are totally

>unaware.

 

And in turn, WHY should we consider your beratings about Woodlawn's postings, when you could ALSO be any of the above that you cite???

 

You could be the owner of EGF, (escort glue factory), schilling your product! along the tag line of "one drop on the tip of your tongue, is all it takes to have your lips permanently pressed to escorts' buttholes, and deliver you to HEAVEN!".

 

Sheesh, I really didn't see any lecturing from Woodlawn, just from you.

[Luv2play]

>Not true, as many, many Hoovillians have identified their

>professions,

 

>And in turn, WHY should we consider your beratings about

>Woodlawn's postings, when you could ALSO be any of the above

>that you cite???

>

>You could be the owner of EGF, (escort glue factory),

>schilling your product!

 

I have been a participant on this board for over 3 years and can only recall a few dozen posters who have identified their real professions. And are we to believe everything they have said about themselves? You yourself have called into question who I profess to be! Your own statements only serve to prove my point.

 

>Sheesh, I really didn't see any lecturing from Woodlawn, just

>from you.

 

This is hilarious. No lecturing from Woodlawn? I think Tom and any objective person would see it differently. But then, he is an escort, which apparently disqualifies him from commenting on ethical issues (as per Mr. Woodlawn). The only berating going on around here is Woodlawn's berating of escorts in general, a tendency I also see coming from you in other recent postings of yours on this site. x(

[rickyricardo]

this is great.. i hate CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN.. some people debate this as kids willinness to do the act.. but kids are impressionable and can be influence.. PEDOPHILIA is sick sick sick.. this is the only thing that I do past judgment on .. sorry

 

 

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_21_5.gif

[twinkboylover28]

This now 19-year-old man was on Oprah a few months ago.

 

Yesterday he was on the Today show, and he also testified before Congress.

 

He claims on Oprah that he turned down "hundreds of thousands of dollars" for a book deal because he's only going public to "save the children" from enduring what he "went through."

 

No one put a gun to his head to make his little "Christmas list" that he posted on Amazon.com listing the various sex acts he would perform in order to get those items/gifts.

 

I do understand that anyhting which occurs when he was under 16 is considered corrupting a minor under the law, but this guy isn't 100% innocent as he makes himself out to be.

 

The Oprah interview was a total softball. Lots of questions weren't asked, and he went through the entire interview unchallenged.

[Guest novabear22031]

Came across this thread by accident....

 

In trying to find out more about the story (without having to register at the NYT site) I came across this Wikipedia listing.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry

 

One of the "key" players in this kids life has recently been found guilty....

[bakopanda]

Thanks for the update.

 

Interestingly, this story has been a non story in Justin's hometown: a hotbed of Republican, religious and social conservatism. The local newspaper and three local television stations have been silent about this case.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Eichenwald A Berry Investor?

 

The former New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald received considerable criticism for his journalistic lack of ethics in the way he covered this story, as discussed above. Now it turns out that he may have actually invested money in Justin Berry's webcam business. There is no doubt that he lied about giving money to Berry, he says $2000, others say thousands of dollars. (The family has since repaid $2000 whcih Eichenwald claims was a loan.)

The whole matter is discussed in The Public Editor column of this week's Sunday New York Times.

 

I have often wondered what Eichenwald's interest in Berry was. Did the little hustler get him too? And I wonder what Justin is doing now...has he stayed on the straight and narrow or is he back to his old tricks?

 

From Sunday's Times:

The Public Editor

Money, a Source and New Questions About a Story

By BYRON CALAME

Published: March 25, 2007

CONTROVERSY is again swirling around The Times’s 2005 article about 18-year-old Justin Berry and the Web world of child pornography, where the reporter Kurt Eichenwald discovered him and younger boys under the sway of predatory adults.

 

Mr. Eichenwald’s unusual reporting tactics, which included convincing Mr. Berry to leave that world, swear off drugs and cooperate with a federal investigation of child pornography, had raised questions of journalistic ethics. Might the personal relationship, for example, have caused Mr. Eichenwald to sugarcoat Mr. Berry’s actions in his Dec. 19 article? In my column on this subject in January 2006, I concluded that the extraordinary precautions taken by the reporter and Times editors had preserved an adequate balance between humanitarian and journalistic concerns.

 

But earlier this month, a copy of a $2,000 cashier’s check sent by Mr. Eichenwald to Mr. Berry in June 2005 turned up in the trial of a Michigan man charged with criminal sexual conduct. That sparked a loosely worded Editors’ Note in The Times on March 6 and a new round of questions about the integrity of the reporting. The note said that although the $2,000 was later repaid by Mr. Berry’s family, the original payment should have been disclosed to editors, but was not.

 

Mr. Eichenwald, who went to work for Condé Nast’s new business magazine, Portfolio, in September, quickly defended himself in a rambling 2,600-word post on Romenesko, a journalism Web site. His basic point: He sent the check as a private citizen in an effort to locate and help Mr. Berry, and demanded repayment when he decided the next month that there was a story to be reported as a journalist.

 

“I should have told my editors,” Mr. Eichenwald wrote of the $2,000 transaction, which he said had simply slipped his mind. “Once the reporting began ... a financial transaction from a month before ... just slipped away amid the 18 hour days, seven days a week of turmoil and chaos.”

 

Despite the debate over how the 6,000-word story was reported, no facts in it have required correction. At least three men have been incarcerated with Mr. Berry’s help. And Mr. Eichenwald received a 2006 Payne Award for Ethics in Journalism from the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communications for “preserving the editorial integrity of an important story while reaching out to assist his source.”

 

Since Mr. Eichenwald is no longer at The Times, my focus is on the performance of its editors in dealing with all the questions that have been raised by his reporting. Despite the focus on Times editors, however, Mr. Eichenwald remains crucial to any assessment.

 

Times editors were misled by Mr. Eichenwald on the $2,000 payment to Mr. Berry, in a fashion that makes it hard for me to hold the editors responsible for the cloud that the cashier’s check creates over the story. The key ethical lapse lay beyond Mr. Eichenwald’s failure to tell his editors about the payment while disclosing a host of instances where he had intervened to assist Mr. Berry with personal problems. Those interventions were carefully spelled out in a “Reporter’s Essay” published online the day the main article appeared.

 

The major lapse came in early January of last year, when a Times editor asked Mr. Eichenwald about an e-mail from the mother of Greg Mitchel, one of Mr. Berry’s former business partners on the Web. Her complaints in that Jan. 3 e-mail included the assertion that her son, who had been sentenced to 150 years in prison, said Mr. Eichenwald had “Fed Ex’d several thousand dollars” to fund their business.

 

Mr. Eichenwald responded to Lawrence Ingrassia, the business editor and the supervising editor on the Berry article, in an e-mail on Jan. 6. The relevant sentence: “i don’t want to start heading down the path of denying every crappy lie that greg mitchel says, cause we will continue to face new ones after new ones.” Mr. Eichenwald wrote in an e-mail to me last week that the specific accusation that he had financed the Mitchel-Berry partnership was a “crappy lie” and rejected any suggestion that the reference to “several thousand dollars” should have “brought to mind” his $2,000 cashier’s check and its repayment.

Mr. Eichenwald’s dismissive e-mail came to light after the Editors’ Note led me to ask Mr. Ingrassia on March 9 when he had first become aware of the $2,000 check. He said a Times lawyer had told him and other editors about it a week earlier, when a copy of the check surfaced as potential evidence in the Michigan trial. Three days after our initial conversation, Mr. Ingrassia came back to me to report that a weekend search of his files had turned up the January 2006 e-mails and the reference to “several thousand dollars” being sent to Mr. Berry.

 

 

Mr. Ingrassia said he hadn’t remembered the January e-mails and acknowledged that Mr. Eichenwald was never specifically asked if he had done any other favors for Mr. Berry besides the long list in the online Reporter’s Essay. “If you didn’t have all that disclosure,” he said, “you would have been more prone to ask, ‘Anything else?’ I wish I had.”

 

Mr. Berry repaid the $2,000 with a check dated Sept. 12, 2005, his lawyer, Stephen M. Ryan of McDermott Will & Emery, told me Friday. The money came from Mr. Berry’s grandmother, Mr. Ryan said. Mr. Ingrassia said Mr. Berry had told him that most of the $2,000 from Mr. Eichenwald was used to buy expensive toys, although The Times has not obtained documentation of those purchases.

 

Mr. Eichenwald’s contention that he wasn’t required to disclose the $2,000 transaction to Times editors because he was acting as a private citizen is baloney. Times journalists are free to do many things as private citizens, such as donating money to a struggling charity in their community. But they can’t then simply turn the switch to “journalist” and do a story about that charity; that assignment must go to another reporter.

 

Moreover, Mr. Ingrassia told me that Mr. Eichenwald didn’t mention to him before publication of the article that any aspect of the effort to find and win the confidence of Mr. Berry was done as a “private citizen.”

 

Mr. Eichenwald’s memo on Romenesko raised another serious ethical question: Had Times editors resisted disclosing in the Reporter’s Essay the tactics used in reporting the original article? In my earlier column, I had called the disclosures in the essay “vital” to showing me and other readers that, on balance, the reporting had been ethical. The editors, Mr. Eichenwald charged, “fought me in the fall of 2005, arguing that I could NOT reveal the things I did for Justin Berry while acting as a reporter that brought benefits to him.” Mr. Eichenwald said he was told at one point that the essay “would not be published,” and that only because of his “insistence” was it published online.

 

I have not yet found evidence to support his assertion. “We always planned to have an explanation,” Bill Keller, the executive editor, told me. Mr. Ingrassia said that there had been a lot of discussion about the Reporter’s Essay, but that he never heard anyone say the explanation would not be published. I believe the editors.

 

Editors did allow the March 6 Editors’ Note to become a bit flabby on both ethics and facts. I don’t buy the implication that disclosure of the $2,000 transaction would have made it O.K. to publish the article. If the transaction had been known, editors would have needed to find other staffers to re-report the article, perhaps with Mr. Eichenwald as one of the players in it. With Mr. Berry being the central source, a solid article could have been prepared that would still have struck a substantial blow against child pornography.

 

The Editors’ Note also muddied the picture a bit. It had Mr. Eichenwald saying he had asked Mr. Berry to return the money “after they met in person, but before he decided that he wanted to write an article.” Given that the two first met in Los Angeles on June 30, 2005, the Editors’ Note would appear to contradict the Dec. 19 first-person essay, which began, “My reporting on Webcam pornography began inadvertently last May.”

 

Did editors miss any obvious loose ends before the article appeared that should have raised questions — queries that could have led to discovery of the $2,000 check? I found one possibility. Mr. Eichenwald’s essay acknowledged that he had sidestepped The Times’s standard practice of identifying himself as a reporter in June 2005 during his online efforts to get Mr. Berry to meet with him. And a proactive misrepresentation that makes me uncomfortable had developed when Mr. Berry or his associate asked straight out, “What do you do?” Referring to a pastime of his, Mr. Eichenwald said he replied, “I write music.”

 

Although editors saw the covert reporting cited in the drafts of the essay, I found no evidence that anyone asked who had approved that deviation from the paper’s ethics policy. If some editor had wound up checking with Mr. Berry about those exchanges, it’s possible some hint of the $2,000 transaction could have appeared.

 

But it’s easier said than done. When I was preparing my previous column on this article, that obvious loose end didn’t get my reporting pointed in the direction of Mr. Berry or the check. And this was despite my asking questions that Mr. Keller had called “prosecutorial” and “scab-pulling.”

 

Still, even if editors ask a reporter the right questions, they must be able to trust the answers they get.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

RE: Eichenwald A Berry Investor?

 

>Did the little hustler get him too?

 

Lucky, isn't that kind of cold?

[Louis]

RE: Eichenwald A Berry Investor?

 

I personally know a pedophile. He used to go around the town here and the town across the river in the US. He was known as the Ninja, because he would check to see if people's doors were open, and then go into their houses and then find the boy's bedroom. He went into the bedroom of one of my friend's, and almost went into another friend's house. Fortunately for him he did not go into the latter, becsause there was a gun on the other side of the door waiting for him should he try to open a locked door.

He was caught in the US by a teenager who was stronger than he was, and was convicted and sent to jail, for a few years. Somehow he met a pedophile in Burlington Ontario, and I saw him on the news, because he moved in with this other guy, and they both lived a block or so away from a school. People in the community found out about them, and there was quite an uproar.

He hurt a lot of children mentally, and I have no idea as to how long the hurt will last with some of them.

The whole problem with pedophilia is that inocent people get hurt and or exploited, and some people unfortunately have suffered years or their whole lives because of this.

While maybe it can be said that some pedophiles are celebate, if they look at pictures of nude children or children having sex, read books about children having sex with adults or other children, then they are guilty of supporting a very heinous industry.

Children should never be exploited or exposed to anything that can harm them physically, emotoinally or phsycologically.

There are those who claim to be cured, but I seriously doubt it, and the one or two that I know, though they have recieved help, they have not changed. If anything they found more pedophiles, when they went to jail, so they found group support if you will.

One of the good things about the internet is that police have been able to track down more pedophiles, on the other side of the coin, more pedophiles can find stimulous on the net, and do it in private. They figure that they are hurting no one, but in reality they are because if no one looked at pictures or movies of childen having sex or in the nude then there would be no market for this kind of thing.

So anyone who watches is just as bad as the person behind the camera, or the person trying to sneek into houses so he can have his way with one of the children.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

RE: Eichenwald A Berry Investor?

 

I thought that Lucky was refering to Justin Berry as a "little hustler". No matter what, I still see Justin Berry as the victim. I think that its kind of cold to call him a little hustler. That doesn't mean that I don't like you, Lucky :-) Please don't get offended.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Eichenwald A Berry Investor?

 

Not to worry, Os. I did mean it in the cold way that it sounded as I have no sympathy for him. But, that doesn't mean I have to be cold, so point taken.

[+ Lucky]

Kurt Eichenwald, the ex-New York Times reporter who "exposed" the Justin Berry story appears to now have himself become one of Berry's many victims.

 

The current issue of New York magazine has a lengthy piece on how he claims his life has been ruined by the people he exposed. I tried to post the link, but the magazine was having none of it, so I guess someone with a fancier computer than mine might give it a try.(Or, God forbid, I might actually have to buy the magazine!) I was only able to read online the first of 7 pages in the story. I am pretty curious to know the rest, since I always thought that Eichenwald was much more involved with Berry than he should have been...at least as a respectable reporter for the NY Times.

 

Can anyone else get the story to link here?

[Guest Rendie]

http://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39957

 

Is this the link Lucky?

[+ Lucky]

RE: Ex-Reporter Gone Wild

 

Yes, but my computer still comes up with the gray box saying Internet Explorer cannot open the webpage...then it disappears!

[Guest Rendie]

RE: Ex-Reporter Gone Wild

 

Lucky

 

I have Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox browsers and the link works ok on both. Can you access http://www.nymag.com ?

 

Try deleting cookies, browsing history, temporary internet files...

 

r

[seaboy4hire]

I don't know quite what to say but that man is a freaking hero! He put his personal life and professional life on the line to save a kid. I hope that everything works out in the end for him because what he did was amazing and he deserves better then what he's getting dealt with. I'm glad Barry is doing well and on the right path.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[email protected]

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

Chicago Oct 26, 2007.

[+ Lucky]

RE: In My Opinion

 

My guess is that Berry is a born scam artist and will always be one. Even if he stopped selling his body on camera, in my opinion, he will come up with something new.

 

The reporter went way over the boundaries here and is paying for it. In my opinion, he wasted his time, and I find it hard to believe he wasn't lusting for Berry as much as any other guy involved.

 

Update:

Thanks, rendie. Firefox got me in and I read all 7 pages. It is worse than I thought about the reporter. If one can only read one page of this article, make it page 7. Sounds to me like the man has a lot he isn't truthful about!

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: Ex-Reporter Gone Wild

 

>Yes, but my computer still comes up with the gray box saying

>Internet Explorer cannot open the webpage...then it

>disappears!

 

I also get the same results.

[Guest ReturnOfS]

RE: In My Opinion

 

>My guess is that Berry is a born scam artist and will always

>be one. Even if he stopped selling his body on camera, in my

>opinion, he will come up with something new.

>

>The reporter went way over the boundaries here and is paying

>for it. In my opinion, he wasted his time, and I find it hard

>to believe he wasn't lusting for Berry as much as any other

>guy involved.

>

>Update:

>Thanks, rendie. Firefox got me in and I read all 7 pages. It

>is worse than I thought about the reporter. If one can only

>read one page of this article, make it page 7. Sounds to me

>like the man has a lot he isn't truthful about!

 

Wow, Lucky. You really have it in for Justin Berry. I didn't get a feeling at all that he is a "scam artist" from reading the article.

[seaboy4hire]

RE: In My Opinion

 

RoS in the article it said that he had made unauthorized purchases using others credit cards and I think one or two other things. It's late, I'm tired and going to bed. But I think if you reread the article you'll see at least the credit card part.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[email protected]

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

Chicago Oct 26, 2007.

[seaboy4hire]

RE: In My Opinion

 

>My guess is that Berry is a born scam artist and will always

>be one. Even if he stopped selling his body on camera, in my

>opinion, he will come up with something new.

>

>The reporter went way over the boundaries here and is paying

>for it. In my opinion, he wasted his time, and I find it hard

>to believe he wasn't lusting for Berry as much as any other

>guy involved.

>

>

Lucky if the reporter had done anything wrong I think that when the authorities were taking apart the boys computer and what not they would have found the evidence if the reporter had truly done something wrong. I don't feel he was lusting over the boy at all. I think that he was genuinely worried about him. Even at 18 or 19 a good majority of young people are not emotionally mature and are still easily influenced by older adults. Thus I feel that they should be protected just as much as a young child. Where you and I have a history of life experience someone Berry's age does not have the experience you or I have and it was obvious he was being guided by some pretty bad folk.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[email protected]

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

Chicago Oct 26, 2007.

[+ ArVaGuy]

RE: In My Opinion

 

>My guess is that Berry is a born scam artist and will always

>be one. Even if he stopped selling his body on camera, in my

>opinion, he will come up with something new.

>

>The reporter went way over the boundaries here and is paying

>for it. In my opinion, he wasted his time, and I find it hard

>to believe he wasn't lusting for Berry as much as any other

>guy involved.

>

>Update:

>Thanks, rendie. Firefox got me in and I read all 7 pages. It

>is worse than I thought about the reporter. If one can only

>read one page of this article, make it page 7. Sounds to me

>like the man has a lot he isn't truthful about!

 

 

There's way more to this story than meets the eye as it's presented. The reporter violated so many standard principles it's no wonder he's in such trouble. How convenient to claim his epilepsy clouds his short term memory, but he's learned to work around this handicap by taking more extensive notes and memory exercises than other reporters.

 

However, he does not follow such procedures in his personal dealings, which he states this story became for him, and that's why he can't remember certain transations. That's one easy fall back postion if you ask me. One would expect that the same techniques would be needed in personal situations as well in his condition, especially financial transactions.

 

No, the reporter is playing victim here just a bit too much. As for Berry, we'll be reading about this kid in the future and it won't be positive I'm sure.

[+ Lucky]

RE: In My Opinion

 

Greg, there has been much more media about this case than just the article here. Berry went on TV (I think before Congress) and talked at length...I have met his kind many times. The sweet talking cute kid who has the sincerity level of a soapdish.

 

But, please note, I have been careful to mark this all as my opinion. I haven't met these people...although again, don't we all know some older man who got totally infatuated with a cute young kid that he would do anything for the kid's attention?

[Guest zipperzone]

RE: In My Opinion

 

>As for Berry, we'll be reading about this kid in the future

>and it won't be positive I'm sure.

 

I totally agree. Berry is just too "cute" for words and I am NOT referring to his physical appearance.

[seaboy4hire]

RE: In My Opinion

 

>>As for Berry, we'll be reading about this kid in the future

>>and it won't be positive I'm sure.

>

>I totally agree. Berry is just too "cute" for words and I am

>NOT referring to his physical appearance.

>

 

I guess I try to be optimistic with some especially the youngins that they will eventually do the right thing :-( Sometime times it bites me in the bum but those that do turn their lives around always gives me hope for the others.

 

Hugs,

Greg

[email protected]

http://seaboy4hire.tripod.com http://www.daddysreviews.com/newest.php?who=greg_seattle

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6707/lebec084a9ad147f620acd5ps8.jpg

Chicago Oct 26, 2007.