Texas Man With Diaper Fetish Waives Hearing On Internet Porn Charges

[superdiaperbaby]

The below story indicates why we all should not have any pictures of kids in diapers on our computers. While this man may not be a pedo, he had 23 pictures of underage children "in various states of dress including diapers". At the bottom of the article it said they found 23 questionable pictures and at the top of the article it says he is charged with 23 counts of abuse. It is better to have no pictures and a clear conscience. For those on this board who have such pictures, imagine if it was your name in print with 23 counts of abuse. It makes our community look bad as well as you.

SDB

http://www.gantdaily.com/news/43/ARTICLE/4...2009-03-19.html

CLEARFIELD – A Texas man with a diaper fetish accused of downloading internet porn waived his right to a preliminary hearing on Wednesday.

Bryan Park, 37 of Baytown, TX, is charged with 23 counts of sexual abuse of children.

According to the affidavit of probable causes state police were made aware of Park on Oct. 28. police interviewed Park’s local roommate. The roommate said that he was downloading music from one of Park’s CDs when he found images. He told police that he did not want any part of it and that was why he called them.

On Oct. 8 police spoke with Park at the barracks in Woodland. Park related to police that he was from Houston and that he was living in Tennessee before coming to Pennsylvania. He stated that he met his current roommate on a chat room and that he was asked to come to Pennsylvania. He said that he had been in Pennsylvania for about three weeks.

According to the affidavit Park told police:

“I have a fetish with diapers. The computer and CD are mine and I downloaded the pictures from …

“I have been in counseling numerous times. I’m not interested in the pictures because of the children. I’m interested because I want to be a kid again. I have kept myself away from kids, because the lines are too confusing and I don’t want to put myself in a position to be alone with them.”

Park gave police a written statement.

On Oct. 7 police viewed some of the photos on Park’s computer and determined that the photographs were questionable. The computer and CDs were seized after Park signed a waiver of rights and consent to search.

The computer was taken to the PSP Punxsutawney Computer Crime Unit for investigation.

On Nov. 19 the computer was returned to the Clearfield barracks along with a report. Two DVDs accompanied the report as attachments. One DVD was found to contain music folders and files in an additional folder entitled “Stuff.” According to the affidavit that folder contained numerous photos of children various states of dress. It also reportedly contained numerous photos of children in diapers.

A total of 23 photos were found, according to the report.

[Cherie Blossom Girlie]

Horrible.

Part of me feels bad for the guy, because some of the "children" could very well have been those pictures that have been floating around for years.... like high school girls. The pictures that no one really knows whether they are 18, 17, or 16.... I'm sure if you're on diaperspace you've run across one of them.

But then the other part doesn't know at all what kind of pictures they were, and he could very well be some sort of pedophile.

Either way it's just a reminder to make sure you don't look at anything sketchy, 1) because it's just sick and wrong, and 2) because even thumbnails are stored in your internet cache. You can never truly clean off your computer... even if you reformat it.

[sarah_ab]

so i just have to ad... ever been flipping through the sunday paper ads, maybe looking at what deals they have, and you pass the kids clothing section of the adds, and there are girls and boys modeling swim suits.... if there wa s apicture of a child in a swim suit on a computer in some of the poses those kids are in, cops would find them 'questionable' but because they in a catalogue they are ok? when police are called on a possible child porn case they sorta go into overdrive and find questionable or incriminating material everywhere!!! sometimes it is actually a case of child porn, sometimes its a poicture of someones niece or nephew given to them by the kids parents.... in our family photo album there is a pictur eof my brother and i at ages 2 and 3 lying in the bathtub on out backs.... with bubbles all over out faces like beards... we were naked in the picture, does this make it child pornography? no. would a cop who was called to the house because of questionable photos find this questionable? i am pretty sure they would isolate this picture and claim it was proof we were subjected to some sort of horrible treatment by our parents.

anyway, i'm not justifying this man's actions, he CLEARLY needs psychiatric treatment to stablize his life and encourage him to make better decisions, my guess is if this is a first offense, he'll get off on a psych plea and spend 6 months in a mental health institute and then have to register as a sex offender.

but i agree unless the pictures are clearly your own children, or family etc.. don't just have random pics of kids on your computer.

it is why ia m very wary of some of these profile pics that have pictures of children, or what appear to be groin shots of children in diapers.... we could ALL be held accountable if someone decided they were questionable.

[Yvhuce]

Well put, and probly a bit softer than I would've said it... One should avoid such pictures, anyway. Apart from a grandma, I can't think of anyone who'd have a reasonable excuse for having pictures of kids on their computer...

[ultrapampers]

I'm surprised at some of your responses. I'm as strongly against child abuse and pedophilia as anybody can be, but to take the position that the simple possession of images of children is a crime is absurd! We might as well lock 99% of the population up, because just about everybody I know has pictures of their kids, and relative's kids, and events at which kids were present (neighborhood picnic, baseball game), etc. Why do we jump to the conclusion that if you have pictures of kids, you're a pedophile? How did we get to be such an irrational, guilty-until-proven-innocent society? It's downright scary.

Who is the victim when you have bytes of data on your hard drive that assemble together to form an image of child? If the child was photographed in normal life (playing on a swing set, or jumping on a trampoline) by parents or other caring people, and were not exploited in order to take the photograph, who has been hurt?

I collect vintage diapers, and in some cases I have the advertisements that go along with the introduction of that particular brand. Many of those ads feature babies wearing diapers. The children were certainly not harmed or abused in the taking or publishing of those photographs. The ads didn't inspire people who saw them to go out and abuse children. What is the harm in having those?

If it can be proven that a person has abused children or has a sexual attraction to them then, by all means, lock 'em up and throw away the key for all I care. But to prosecute somebody just because they are in possession of normal photographs of children is ludicrous.

[Angela Bauer]

Please note, Everyone:

Clearfield is a city in Pennsylvania. The man arrested, Bryan Park, 37 of Baytown, Texas, was visiting Pennsylvania where he was arrested by the PA State Police, not US Federal law enforcement.

Mr. Park was charged under Pennsylvania state law. PA has some difficult to understand laws against all sorts of images.

Although I am a senior partner of a major law firm, we do no criminal defense. Therefore I can only offer general advice, which is to be circumspect storing even the most innocent pictures of children on any computer also storing any adult or ABDL pictures. Basic USA "kiddy porn" laws are not as strict as the UK about non-photo or computer-generated illustrations, but we all should be prudent.

For years there has been a general policy in the adult entertainment industry to refuse to ship material to PA addresses.

[Nat]

Does that mean we can't have pictures of our nephews or nieces or friend's kids on our computers they send us through email and we save to our computers?

Too many people make false assumptions.

[tenderheart]

this is ridiculous, unless the children are naked, (even then can you take naked pics of your kids is that illegal too?) how is it any different than the images on a package of diapers? Can they give him an abuse count for that also because he has a fetish. There is a line between pictures of children and explicit pictures of children. I don't believe that children in diapers falls into the explicit or sexual category, although I have to say that I personally would not have any such pics on my PC. But if you convict this man it opens up prosecution of outlandish types, such as having pics of nieces nephews or just about any children really.

[Yvhuce]

Without knowing just what was on the computer, we can only sepeculate... It's possible that he did have some kiddie porn on there... It's also possible that the roommate overreacted... But that's the risk people take when they leave pictures in places where others can find them. Especially when they're living with someone else.

There's a reason I kept my CDs of diaper pics at my grandparents' house while I was in collage and my laptop had separate boot-up and login passwords based on subjects that I never discussed with my roommate and why I only did schoolwork and played games on it while I was at collage. This was very much the same reason I left the diapers at my grandparents' house: I'm a very untrusting individual and the last thing I needed was someone at collage finding out about the diaper thing. I didn't have anything particularly bad or anything even involving children, but I would've had one hell of a rough time if anyone had found the pics, simply due to the "Hey! That person's different from us! Get 'em!" mentality (this happened to someone who was living in the adjacent room [the dorms're set up so that a 2-person room shares the bathroom with a 3-person room] over something far more insignificant than diapers). I didn't have to worry about my grandparents looking at the CDs because they didn't even have a computer.

[Dubious]

search for diapers on google and u get tons of pictures of babies

im not into that stuff, but is it then illgal to have those on ur pc then?

maybe they should shut down google? and all other search sites for that matter...

looking and doing is 2 different things, dont judge a person just cause he got some pictures on his pc

[Nat]

Yep if any of your friends or your cousins or your brothers or sisters email you pictures of their kids, save it to a disc so that in case anyone is on your computer and sees them, they won't go stupid by assuming you're a pedophile and report you to the police and you're arrested. What if you had to register as a sex offender all because you had pictures of your friend's photos on your computer or your siblings, etc because they wanted to share their pics with you of their kids? I mean when people go in our homes and see photo albums and they have kids in it, they don't freak out and report you to the police after looking at them.

[TheMagicDragon]

I'm mildy surprised myself, U. However, I am getting very used to these type of responses.

Angela, always great to read your well-informed and interesting responses, so Thanks for the breath of fresh air.

[BabyJune]

Well...what about the people that actually put the pictures onto the Internet and made them accessible? No one said anything about that. Obviously the diaper-wearing children had parents or caregivers that took the pictures and posted them for all to see. If you put it out there and people look at it, who do you blame? (It's the "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" theory) If people aren't supposed to look at pictures of children (non-pornographic, of course) then why do other people put pictures of children on the Internet? A child wearing a diaper is not pornography in my opinion, and someone looking at a picture of a child wearing a diaper is not a pervert. Who hasn't seen a kid in a diaper at one time or another?

Go to Flickr or PhotoBucket and you'll see tons of (innocent) kiddie pictures. Just remember: WHO PUT THE PICTURES THERE? And why are they there? FOR PEOPLE TO LOOK AT.

You'd have to prove actual damages before that guy could be convicted of a sex crime against a child, and from what I read in the article, the evidence does not exist nor were the pictures in any way pornographic.

[Yvhuce]

Unfortunately, there are a sickos out there who do trade in kiddie porn... They're the same kind of people who get caught with kiddie porn on their computers. Sometimes, they're the same type of people who kidnap and rape kids, too. They have online communities, the same as any other type of people do... As long as there's someone who gets off on something, there'll be someone else who's willing to provide them with their fix...

[BabyJune]

I guess my point was, who decides if a picture of a baby wearing a diaper is considered kiddie porn? You'd have to prove "damages" before that would hold up. In other words, there'd have to be a link between the person possessing the picture and them actually harming, intending to harm, or attempting to harm a child. (I suppose "better safe than sorry" could apply here, but is that really fair?)

You could also argue that a knife can be used by a chef to prepare food or by an attacker to kill someone. Who decides whether the person in possession of the knife is a chef or a murder? How do you know the person's intent until they act out? Tough call, actually, but you still have to be careful about jumping to conclusions.

It's also like having a beautifully landscaped yard and then complaining that too many people are driving past your house to admire your work. If it's there for people to look at and see, people will look at it and see it, simple as that!

And it bears mentioning again that if people are posting pictures of their little darlings on the Internet, others have those pictures available to look at. Those pictures can be downloaded and saved. If people don't want that to happen, then simply don't upload the kiddie pictures to the Internet. I'd say that 98% of the pictures on the Internet of people's children are NOT pornographic and that at least 98% of the people looking at those pictures are not pedophiles.

Would the pictures in question actually be of interested to someone who deals in kiddie porn?

[tenderheart]

I think you are right BabyJune. Personally when it comes to convicting someone of a crime however if there is any doubt they should not be convicted. It's better to set 10 guilty men free than convict a single innocent man.

[Yvhuce]

Tell that to the victims of the 10 convicted men, and their future victims...

[Youngatheart252]

Tell that to the victims of the 10 convicted men, and their future victims...

Are you willing to be the innocent that goes to jail?

It's a hard call but for every innocent that gets arrested another criminal gets off on a technicality, the systems not perfect but it's better then letting our emotions rule our action like a lynch mob would.

[wetvinyl]

I have a picture of a two-year-old toddler wearing nothing but a diaper. What's more, I've had this pic on my DL website for years.

The pic is of ME. My mom took it.

Should I be worried?

wv

[DprDJeff]

It's all about context with investigators. And they will find a connection between things that will blow your mind sometimes. If your computer is full of standard stuff and they find a few photos of kids in diapers, they would dismiss it as family photos and not think twice. If you have adult diaper fetish material on your computer and they find pictures of kids in diapers, suddenly it's child porn. Law enforcement are some of the most narrow minded people out there in my opinion.

[ultrapampers]

Should I be worried?

Your mom should be worried. She obviously exploited a minor to take that photo. You do feel victimized don't you?

[Toddler Pampers]

This topic really hits home with me. Like UltraPampers, I'm totally fixated on old-fashioned Pampers, the ones that came in paper boxes back in the 1970s. I'm such a fan, in fact, that I construct my own diapers so that I can wear "old-fashioned Pampers" (what a feeling, so much better than contoured diapers!).

Not surprisingly, I like old ads and brochures and TV commercials for Pampers (as well as Johnson & Johnson disposables --- anybody remember them?) YouTube has some great vintage Pampers TV commercials, and they're not in the adult section either. Yeah, they show diapers on babies, and, in some cases, babies being diapered. So what!?

Well, it turns out this makes lots of folks nervous. Try posting these videos on Diaper Space. They'll remove them (from your page) because, when you ask, it bothers countless other members. Presumably, they are afraid of guilt by association, more specifically, having the site as a whole shut down.

People, you gotta stop panicking over being called a pedophile. Haven't you ever heard the saying, "It's not what they call you, but what you answer to." Kiddie porn is obvious. If it's not (AS IN A TV COMMERCIAL OR A MAGAZINE AD) and you have to infer it from something else about the accused, then it's not. Furthermore, the vanilla sex crowd thinks just liking diapers makes us pedophiles. Possessing TV commerials available on YouTube does NOT make it worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But a lot of people overreact because they are afraid, which fear is largely held out of ignorance, not to mention not being genuinely comfortable with their kink. Me, I'm totally comfortable, I'm absolutely not focused on children, and I truly dislike the attitude that says we don't want to do anything that could be misconstrued. Misconstrued? That's your problem, not mine.

[dl_ashlee]

With the number of pictures I have collected I am sure there is bound to be some "questionable pictures" in my collection, but I surely don't leave this anywhere people could find them. And my computer is passworded, so people can't just randomly go on my computer if I'm not home or what not. I live at home with my mom though and she has no reason to even go on my computer. I certainly would not have them on cd's where someone could just take them and find them when they were looking for something else. That was his mistake, if he just had passworded his computer and not had cds laying around, he would have had no problem.

[Dill_Pickle]

It's all about context with investigators. And they will find a connection between things that will blow your mind sometimes. If your computer is full of standard stuff and they find a few photos of kids in diapers, they would dismiss it as family photos and not think twice. If you have adult diaper fetish material on your computer and they find pictures of kids in diapers, suddenly it's child porn. Law enforcement are some of the most narrow minded people out there in my opinion.

Went and looked up the criminal records, PA docket # CP-17-CR-0000219-2009

The fees are byzantine...the man was convicted, sent to western state hospital as a risk for 3 months to 5 years, but does not have to register, however, he is to have no contact with anyone under 18 or the internet. However, there's precious little of that context remaining in the court records, and the man's statement was destroyed.

I suspect that part of the context was actually following through on meeting someone in chat...the guy seems like he may have been a bit of a drifter.

[Marcuss]

I have a picture of a two-year-old toddler wearing nothing but a diaper. What's more, I've had this pic on my DL website for years.

The pic is of ME. My mom took it.

Should I be worried?

wv

Technically if it is considered porn by some you could indeed be charged with both possession and distribution of child porn. I have heard of preteens being threatened with charges of pedophilia for sending dirty pics to their boy and girlfriends of them self. Dont follow it enough to know if it has gone so far as to have charges filed.