Stuffed toy bunny helps police unravel giant global child porn network

Trigger warning, for sure, in this Associated Press story about a single physical clue that led police to bust a network of child rapists who published evidence of their acts online: "43 men have been arrested over the past two years in a horrific, far-flung child porn network that unraveled like a sweater with a single loose thread. In this case, the thread was a stuffed toy bunny. The bunny, seen in a photo of a half-naked, distraught 18-month-old boy, was used to painstakingly trace a molester to Amsterdam. From there, investigators made one arrest after another of men accused of sexually abusing children, exchanging explicit photos of the attacks and even chatting online about abducting, cooking and eating youngsters."


    1. I’ve seen it on reddit before, but it was basically a warning that the content could “trigger” some behavior like cutting, or things like that because it may show pictures of it.

      I don’t really get the warning on this.

      1. Youre a little off in this context Relawson.  Trigger warning is for people who have had past experiences related to the topic ( In this case sexual abuse).  Many times, someone who has had a traumatic experience has an event that can trigger flashbacks and psychological episodes.  This can be anything from people touching or hugging them, or sometimes even something as simple as reading about similar acts, such as this article. 

        While it can apply to things such as “cutting”, where people will see a picture and harmful thoughts will re-appear.  In this case though its a warning to those who may have a episode reading about sexual abuse.

        Source: Worked in a psych hospital.  Sometimes having to restrain a patient, especially children, would trigger events.

    2. Reading about abuse like this can be profoundly disturbing for certain people, so it’s considered polite to stick such a warning at the beginning of articles that talk about sexual abuse, rape, and so forth.

      1. Interesting.  It’s only done for trauma-type-things, though? I would think that yesterday’s story about Detroit being covered in murdered bodies should be far more disturbing, but that sort of thing doesn’t require “trigger warnings”?

        1. A full discussion of what does and does not require a trigger warning is probably beyond the scope of a comment thread, but the primary audience of trigger warnings are survivors of the kind of abuse or violence that is related in the article.

          Of course, those who have lost a loved one to murder might very well be upset by descriptions of dead bodies being dumped. I doubt there is a universal rule that will work in all cases.

        2. “should be far more disturbing”?  Can you post a cell number up in here, too, so the world can check with you first whenever anyone feels anything?  

        3. It is hard to explain at times, and in reality everyone who has suffered trauma has different triggers, some worse than others. I cannot handle yelling. You can show me the worst of human nature and I will feel emotion, I will shed a tear, but only very specific events from my past will trigger anything. But yell, as I have heard for most of a long lifetime and I retreat into childhood with head bowed and eyes to the floor. The response is instantaneous and unavoidable because it is a trigger response.

    1. You see it in substance abuse recovery, psychology for all types of PTSD, eating disorders, etc.  If someone has just gotten back from a war zone, a polite friend might trigger warn them about a new movie; if someone just got off the Horse, you might trigger warn them before Requiem for a Dream; obviously if someone of any sex has a history of abusing or being sexually abused, common courtesy trigger warns them of graphic descriptions and/or photos.  

  1. The first guy caught provided a treasure trove of information leading to other offenders via his computer.  I can’t imagine someone who feels the need to rape kids, take pictures, and discuss such things with others who is also so lacking a sense of self preservation that they would fail to encrypt their computer.  I didn’t realize that pedophile==stupid but apparently it does.

    1. There’s probably no such relation. Pedophilia is a disorder, yes. A number of pedophiles do not become child abusers, because they fight and control these urges.

      To be blunt: It’s not related to intelligence, the same as heterosexuality, homosexuality or different kind of fetishisms.

      Which is too bad. If so, child abusers would be stupid and would be easier to catch. Unfortunately, there are Plenty of smart child abusers around.

    2.  Someone with such a deep compulsion is perhaps not thinking logically when they act out their compulsion, and is thus perhaps less likely to take logical steps to cover their tracks.

      1. Plenty of heterophiles arround who cheat on their partners, frequent bordellos, hire prostitutes (even where both are banned) and never get caught.

  2. I feel an immense respect for the investigators who dredge through hours of horrific shit looking for details like a specific commercial being shown during a specific episode of a TV show so that they can nail down exactly when and where these crimes took place. They look at stuff that they can’t just wipe out of their minds when they punch the clock and go home. It’s a rotten job, to have to look through that crap, and I’m thankful that there are people tough enough to do it.

  3. Pedophilia laws have gotten out of control.  We’ve seen people who are punished for life, even after jail time, for crimes that aren’t really pedophilia (e.g. 18 year old has sex with 16 year old girlfriend, her mother has him arrested, he’s now a registered sex offender who can’t go to a park, beach or give out Halloween candy at his house for the rest of his life).  However, these guys are repeat offenders who can’t be reformed.  They permanently mess up the lives of  innocent people who suffer from childhood to the grave  because someone wanted the child version of a human sex toy.  I’ll let the legal system decide what’s just but if they’re guilty and get locked away for life I won’t complain.  

    Here’s what Miffy looks like:

    1.  I think it’s a failure of mandatory sentencing, in some just-over-the-line statutory rape charges it’s the letter of the law forcing the sentence, not any reasonable human making a decision about who should go to jail or not.

  4. sexually abusing children, exchanging explicit photos of the attacks and even chatting online about abducting, cooking and eating youngsters.”
    Did you just say “eating”? What the fucking fuck, man? I don’t want to be a part of the human race anymore…

    1. Abducting, cooking and eating youngsters isn’t exactly a novel idea, unless you grew up without a copy of Grimm’s Fairy Tales and the like.

      1. At least they were chatting about cooking and eating abducted children, as opposed to actually cooking and eating abducted children. It’s the Internet, you can say all sorts of shit that you’d never even want to verbalize in front of anyone in person. I’m not justifying it, but at least the horror about pedocannibalism is over the concept and not over raw evidence of it actually happening.

        Not that these fucks shouldn’t be punished severely for crimes they’ve committed, of course. I’m a pacifist but FSM help me I would assault them so hard if nobody was watching.

        1. From the article:

          They are also trying to determine whether the men who talked about murder and cannibalism actually committed such acts or were just sharing twisted fantasies.

          They don’t know yet. And since cannibalism is not unknown in contemporary society I’m not taking any bets.

        1. But as a result,  I bet anyone currently in existence and named Jon Swift is on the No-Fly List.  I might suggest we kill and eat all the TSA and DHS workers, but that would probably be an end to all my clearances :-)

      2. Ah, but the witch is actually the villain in those stories. Killing and cooking youngsters is being presented as a sick behaviour of monsters, not something the reader should emphasise with  or emulate or get turned on by.

  5. I am just horrified by the content in the linked article… the two year old bound and raped. and people here want to quibble about trigger warnings. wow.

    1. I have a three year old.  I can’t click on the article because it will end my day, full stop.  Nothing but crying my eyes out for the next 24 hours or so. 

Comments are closed.