Female child pornography suspect apprehended


86 Responses to “Female child pornography suspect apprehended”

  1. Liam Shiels says:

    I’m always surprised by my reaction to stories of female sex offenders.
    It’s always pity first: as if she did this under duress or coercion of some form.  I never give that type of sympathy to male offenders. 
    I guess I generalise too much about behaviour.
    Still, without knowing anything further about the matter except what’s written, I shouldn’t judge. I hope the children are being helped and that this aids to prevent harm in the future.

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      It’s so worrisome that the victim hasn’t been ID’d or found.

      • Boundegar says:

        No, I think the victim hadn’t been found before the woman was arrested.  They most probably have now, if the police arrested the right person.

        • Xeni Jardin says:

          That’s total speculation. It says right there in the HSI document produced just hours ago that the victim has not been identified or rescued.

          • benenglish says:

            No, it’s not speculation.

            The beginning of the third paragraph “in the HSI document produced just hours ago” says:  “The quick identification of the victim and suspect in this case demonstrates…”They’re not exactly trumpeting it (I assume to keep media focus away from an abused kid) but this pretty clearly says the victim has been identified.  Given that an identified 4 to 6 year old is usually pretty easy to locate, my bet is on Boundegar being right – that the victim has also been rescued by now.

          • Boundegar says:

            Actually, it was intended as speculation.  That’s why I said “probably.”  A comment thread seemed to me a good place to speculate.  Sorry about that.

          • Sean says:

            That refers to before the video was investigated. Today’s report notes “the quick identification of the victim” and also says “due to these efforts, a child is now safe and her tormentor now in custody.” So I’m assuming they did rescue the victim.

    • Preston Sturges says:

      I think this stuff has always gone on, but the internet creates a trail so they can be tracked down.  Someone that abuses a small child is an animal.  It would be interesting to do a survey to see what their profile is.  How many of them are middle managers?  HR people?  A woman arrested a couple weeks ago was a lawyer  and known for her “family values” and anti-gay advocacy when not pimping underage teenage girls and feeding a coke habit.   A psychologist and many laymen would instantly sense they were evil unstable psychos, but many organizations would consider them management material.


      Probably most  sex offenders were raped as children.  In some of the cases played up by the media where the female teacher has sex with an underage student, the offender is, well, smoking hot. And when I see that, I figure that she was probably a beautiful child and someone was raping the hell out of her when she was 11, which made her what she is.  I knew a couple girls, one very petite could get into bars when she was 14, and another one who looked like a 20 year old centerfold at the age of 15.  They both had a very rough time.  Anyway, in those salacious media cases I’m reminded of girls I knew, and I figure they have a sad backstory.

      Then there is always a cultural aspect and double standard. Back in the 19th century, the female domestic servant was frequently the first sexual experience for boys.  A male servant would have gone to prison for touching a girl.  It’s different than having sex with prepubescent children obviously, but it’s only recently that we even acknowledged that sex between women and underage boys happens. We still seem to be processing information that was taken for granted 150 years ago.

      But in cases like this one, the question needs to be asked whether this woman is merely a footsoldier. She’s making videos for someone’s consumption so she is part of network. As the Penn State case showed, predators can operate with impunity for years as organizations circle the wagons around them. Also people like this often have surprising connections to politicians, cops, and judges who are pedophiles or child porn consumers.

      • Mike says:

        A psychologist and many laymen would instantly sense they were evil unstable psychos, and for exactly that reason many corporations would consider them management material.

      • Missy Pants says:

        “Probably most  sex offenders were raped as children.” – untrue. We want it desperately to be true because we want a reason that we can blame and use to prevent future crimes, but it’s just not true. 

        ” the majority of studies found that most adult sex offenders said they had not been sexually abused during childhood” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#Offenders

        • Preston Sturges says:

          Well I was thinking of female pedophiles specifically, although obviously I did not say that.   Any numbers on that?

          • Boris Bartlog says:

             But based on your post, you’re conflating pedophiles and those who engage in sex with minors near the age of consent. The former have some problem where they’re turned on by children without any secondary sexual characteristics; the latter are probably just opportunists without a lot of respect for societal norms. And I would have to consider the former a lot more dangerous; first, because of the amount of damage done by abuse of someone so young is likely far larger than that in the case where the victim is a teen who nominally consented. And second, because you probably can’t rewire their brains any more than you could make a straight person gay (or vice versa). Actual pedophiles need to be removed from society (or at least the presence of children) permanently. Older men and women who have sex with sixteen year olds… well, there should be a penalty to discourage such behavior, but they probably don’t have congenitally defective sex drives the way that someone who abuses six year olds does.

          • Preston Sturges says:

            Oh agreed, it’s just that there was the other recent case of the female “family values” lawyer making porn movies with underage teenage girls.   What was her motivation?  Sexual? Financial?   And did she have any standards that would have prevented fron preying on much younger children?

          • Missy Pants says:

            Not numbers, but the research is the same. 

            “While not causes of pedophilia themselves, childhood abuse by adults or comorbid psychiatric illnesses—such as personality disorders and substance abuse—are risk factors for acting on pedophilic urges.”


            And then there’s the weird bit about left handedness, older brothers, and finger length, which is so so so weird…

            “males with a pronounced degree of paraphilic interest (including pedophilia) had a greater number of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization may play a role in deviant attractions”

            (I run in legal/mental-health circles, this comes up a lot, I’m not just a weirdo.)

          • Preston Sturges says:

            Well, as daddy always said,  life is a bunch of confounding variables and no clear causal relationships. Then he would dress me like Judy Garland and make me sing show tunes.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Back in the 19th century, the female domestic servant was frequently the first sexual experience for boys.

        19th century? I have friends whose parents fired the maid in the 1980s because one of the teenaged sons was screwing her. Not to mention the Adulterous Adventures of Arnold the Austrian Actor / Governor.

        • Velocirapt42 says:

          I suspect that most female domestic servants in the 19th century who were a first sexual experience for boys were not enthusiastic participants in the process. Sexual assault and class privilege were pretty rampant, and there was really no recourse for someone from the working classes who needed to keep their job or at least get a good reference upon leaving. (Hopefully this was less of a problem in 1980, at least in the U.S./ Europe.) 

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            And you think that the woman from Guatemala who speaks no English and has no green card is somehow in a better bargaining position?

          • Velocirapt42 says:

            I said less, not nonexistent. In my experience, every middle and upper-class household is not furnished with an underpaid vulnerable female  performing manual labor. Some still are, but it’s not woven into the fabric of society the way it has been in the past, and currently is in other countries. My apologies for not clarifying.

          • IRMO says:

            In the 19th century, those servants were themselves teenaged girls with even fewer options. 

    • blueelm says:

      She could also be a sociopath who got paid good money to exploit a kid. Sympathy and compassion are fine, but the minute you start to feel sorry for some one… watch out :/

      If this sounds mean, I promise it isn’t meant that way. Just that some people are dangerous, and that’s a fact.

      • Preston Sturges says:

        And for a frightening look at how primitive and completely psychotic child abuse can be, google “bite marks.” I can only guess that some drugs like PCP or  “bath salts” are involved.  Bath salts abuse were prominent in last summers flesh eating zombie style assaults.

        • ethicalcannibal says:

          I thought that was debunked, and the zombie guy had an underlying violent past, and had recently quite smoking pot, which was the only thing keeping him in check. 

          Plus, bit marks were a problem before bath salts. It got a mention in my nursing school topic of abuse back in the late 90s. 

        • C W says:

          “Bath salts abuse were prominent in last summers flesh eating zombie style assaults.”

          Prominent in media reports and internet experts, but toxicology results showed no actual bath salts in the system.

    • Gulliver says:

      It’s always pity first: as if she did this under duress or coercion of some form.

      I know you don’t mean to consciously, but just heads-up that that’s a type of denial of free agency because it suggests a disbelief that a woman has the same choice as a man in choosing between right and wrong or good and evil or however one frames moral decisions. It implicitly devalues the integrity of the vast majority of women who didn’t rape or molest children, because it suggests that it wasn’t by their own choice.

  2. EvilSpirit says:

    Glad she was apprehended, but still, can I get a unicorn chaser?

  3. CSBD says:

    Am I the only one that finds it odd that Immigration and Homeland security are on top of this case rather than “protecting us from the Terrorists”.

    • donovan acree says:

      I thought that was odd as well. This link http://www.ice.gov/about/offices/homeland-security-investigations/index.htm has the answer.

      HSI investigates immigration crime, human rights violations and human smuggling, smuggling of narcotics, weapons and other types of contraband, financial crimes, cybercrime and export enforcement issues.
      ICE investigates human rights violations. This gets me thinking back to the entire concept of the DHS which was supposed to co-ordinate federal assets and eliminate duplicate efforts. Does the FBI not have a human rights section?
      I did some looking and found this

    • Preston Sturges says:

      Well Denamrk initiated the case, so I guess that put it into the federal system.

      Also, if someone can distribute child porn on line without being detected, then there would also be terrorist organizations operating freely.

    • grant11 says:

      Mission creep is their mission

  4. Preston Sturges says:

    OK, so this wasn’t the female “family values” advocate arrested for making child porn a couple weeks ago.

  5. welcomeabored says:

    I would wager she was once the child that appeared in those videos… that’s the way these stories usually go, the victim becomes the persecutor.

    • ethicalcannibal says:

      If you look up thread, someone has been debunking this theory rather well. 

      • welcomeabored says:

        Well first of all, ethical, I have no sympathy for those, male or female, who sexually abuse children.  I think all pedophiles should be permanently institutionalized.  There’s no cure.  In my younger days, I would have liked to have seen pedophiles executed by the state.  Every last one of them.

        Over the last two decades I’ve read different material than those up thread and I’ve come to a different POV.  We all tend to favor the ‘facts’ that support our experience of life so far. 

        These are the ‘facts’ as I see them:  Little girls are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than little boys.  The perpetrators are more likely to be male, and someone the children know.  While some pedophiles seem to have been born or wired for an attraction to children, the majority of pedophiles were once victims of abuse themselves (usually incest); their pedophilia is an outcome of the trauma.  Victims of child abuse are more like to be a danger to themselves than to others.   I’m inclined to want to hear more of this woman sexual history… and then I’d like to see her locked up.

        • ethicalcannibal says:

          My facts came from a formal education in nursing. Being abused is not exactly correlative to becoming an abuser. It’s a myth. 

          If you have facts and studies saying otherwise, that pedophiles abusing children is caused by their own abuse and is positively an outcome of trauma, I would love to see it. I am always interested in getting updated on the latest science has to offer. 

          • welcomeabored says:

            End pissing contest… here.  You win.

          • ethicalcannibal says:

            I didn’t want to win. I just wanted to know if you had access to information I didn’t, in case I was wrong. I am always open to being wrong. 

            I think I am right, but that’s no reason not to look at other studies, and see if information on the subject has changed in the last decade or so. If that information proves me wrong, I’d rather know, and adjust my world view accordingly. 

          • C W says:

            If someone offers facts versus “common knowledge” narrative assumed to be true, it’s probably good to be open minded and not so passive-aggressive.

  6. Jellodyne says:

    Female sex offenders like this are pretty rare, but anyone want to lay odds there’s a male sex offender in her past?

  7. Will Tingle says:

    This seems a bit… not BoingBoing.

    • Xeni Jardin says:

      I’ll let you know when we decide to take editorial direction from random guys on the internet.

      • Roger Green says:

         Snarky, but funny.  And true.

      • benenglish says:

        BB has paid much attention to the murders of children, lately – mostly with bullets; this story, metaphorically, by wanton destruction of innocence.  Will Tingle clearly isn’t comfortable with this.  Is it too much for him or her to hope for a civil response to a legitimate concern?

        • Stooge says:

          No, the issue is someone saying what should or should not be on BoingBoing, and Xeni’s reply is perfectly consistent with that given every other time the issue has been raised.

        • blueelm says:

          Lately? I have been reading for years, and they have always followed some more serious stories from what I remember.

          I like this about BB. Some times people come on and say “but this isn’t wonderful.” I’m not sure whether it was intentional or not, but this place seems to have taken “wonderful” and used it in the more philosophical sense. 

          If the story is upsetting just say that it is upsetting.

          It’s upsetting to me, I’ll definitely say that.

          From the headline one would have to know that the story is going to be upsetting. A good defense system starts with recognizing words in headlines that seem like they might be triggering.

      • kent williams says:

        Right answer. I don’t care about everything I see on BoingBoing but it does have a consistent editorial viewpoint.  That’s valuable.  If a media source is up front about their worldview, users can consume it critically, conscious of that world view.

        Which is why things like Fox’s “Fair And Balanced” is so insidious.  Everything they do has a decided editorial slant, and yet they claim an objectivity no one has the right to claim.  They don’t call it “fair and balanced” because they think they can convince their critics, they say that to reassure their user base that they’re getting the truth there and that other news sources are untrustworthy.

        Hence the complete epistemic closure of conservatives in the US.  Insert Mark Twain quote about believing things that aint so.

      • mccrum says:

        How come he gets to be first?

        So not fair.

      • ChicagoD says:

        Should I expect an email, or do I have to look at the comments?

  8. welcomeabored says:

    ‘mot-ley’:  incongruously varied in appearance or character; disparate:  “a motley crew of discontents and zealots”.

  9. JosephE says:

    Why they bothered looking anywhere but Florida is beyond me.

  10. Boundegar says:

    I wonder what a “long-form child pornography video” is?  The only “long-form” I’m aware of is Form 1040, and any attempt at humor is totally inappropriate so I’d better stop typing now.

    • I think what they mean was: “It was long, had lots of different stuff in it, and in no way could have been interpreted as incidental contact that could be other than sexual in nature.”

    • C W says:

      Pushing my snark aside, literature, news articles, theater, movies, radio, the “form” likely refers to format.

      In this loathsome case, I assume there were tapes made versus web clips.

  11. Hugh Johnson says:

    Americas’ Wang.

  12. It’s slightly comforting knowing they caught the suspect in under a month. Seems like a long time, but compared to before the internet and the internet’s early days, it’s very quick.  Good on law enforcement for this one. Here’s hoping they can identify and help the victim quickly now as well.

  13. Should we really be posting pictures of suspects of crimes, even despicable ones like this? What if she’s innocent?

    • Stooge says:

      “We” as in society or BoingBoing?

      If the latter, it’s already been published by the Escamvua County Sheriff’s office, so the cat’s out of the bag already; if the former, are you seriously suggesting that things would be better if Sheriff’s routinely put kept in jail without making it public?

      In any case, your point is moot: the woman in the first picture is definitely guilty of a crime, and not publishing the mugshot wouldn’t stop the woman looking exactly like the criminal.

      • Anyone I guess. Except for rare situations (e.g. when the accused has already gone public themselves), is it not more fair to withhold the reporting of an accusation and trial until a guilty verdict has been reached? There’s a difference between making these details public and reporting on them in the press. (By the way, I would be saying exactly the same thing if this was a man)

        • Gulliver says:

          While I’m sympathetic to objecting to a rush to judgement, I think you answered your own question. BB and the sheriff’s office reported the accusation. The problem is not that accusations are reported. The problem is that many in our self-righteous society regard an accusation as the same as a guilt verdict. Concealing the accusations won’t fix the problem, but it will open the door for police to arrest suspects without notifying the public. It’s bad enough the Feds treat the Sixth Amendment as optional.

      • Boundegar says:

        Well if the Sherriff says you’re a monster then to hell with a fair trial.  And if the internet backs him up, then it’s lynchin time, boys.  See also: War on Drugs.

      • SamSam says:

        In any case, your point is moot: the woman in the first picture is definitely guilty of a crime

        Not true at all — not legally and not as a matter of fact either.

        Legally she is innocent until proven guilty.

        The fact of the matter is that we simply don’t know what was happening. If the video is everything we are told it was, maybe it’s 100% clear that the woman herself was committing a crime. But we don’t know that.

        We don’t know that she wasn’t being forced to do this. We don’t know that she’s not mentally retarded and has no understanding of her actions. All we know is that she was accused of a crime.

        Sure, it seems almost certain that she committed a horrific crime, given the limited information we have been told, but we *don’t* know.

        I am all for not playing internet witch-hunt and jumping on the bandwagon to post names and pictures of people on the web. Sure, Xeni was probably pretty confident that this case is open and shut, but the one time you’re wrong you might help ruin someone’s life.

        • Stooge says:

          Granted, there’s at least a theoretical possibility that the woman being sought has not committed a crime, just as it’s possible that the arrested woman is actually not the one in the video, but I can’t see why people are getting bent out of shape because police seeking someone who they know only from some images have found someone who actually looks like that. This is the cops doing stuff transparently and, apparently, competently. What’s wrong with that?

        • C W says:

          “Legally she is innocent until proven guilty.”

          Wow, I’m a judge in a court of law!

  14. Missy Pants says:

    There is so much sympathy and speculation regarding this woman and her past, I’m amazed. Gender bias is such a weird creature. 

    • Preston Sturges says:

      Not nearly as much as you seem to think. Keep in mind that a large number of child molesting and abuse cases are enabled by parents who can’t bear to think about why people become abusers or what situations provide abusers with access to children.  In other words, living a life of nothing but 100% church oriented activities and The 700 Club would not mean your kids wouldn’t be at risk.  Denial is an essential part of many abuse cases.

  15. dculberson says:

    Unintentionally hilarious Beaker is hilarious.  Good humor break for a sad story.

  16. Ladyfingers says:

    It’s good to see women catching up with men in so many areas.

  17. niktemadur says:

    There’s a nagging thing in the back of my head, not yet fully formed.

    Time dictates that at a certain point, the physical body and the law make one an adult.  Not so the mind, the most vital part and a murky no-man’s-land, especially in the emotional areas.

    OK, I sorta got it:  the point would be to break the self-repeating cycle from perpetuating.
    To qualify as a fully functioning member of society, there’s a legal standard (18 or 21 years) and an intellectual standard (education).  Flawed, yes, but it’s a standard and better than nothing in a land swarming with people.

    Yet a standard is missing in the emotional area, which is where the majority of  real damage is passed on from generation to generation, synthesized in one word:  abuse, both suffered and inflicted.  Physical, emotional, social-economical, etc.
    What came first, the chicken or the egg, doesn’t matter this late in the game, the fact is that it’s there and it’ll be the end of us all if it isn’t addressed properly.

    On point with the topic, a Humbert Humbert is socially and intellectually sophisticated, but emotionally stuck in a loop from age 12.  So we hear or read about an adult abusing a child and physically that is correct, but emotionally it’s a 12-year old being a resentful 12-year old to another 12-year old.  Please disregard the horrible discrepancy in body ages and sizes for the moment, as that gets in the way of dealing with the root of the situation, which is arrested development, which can also go the other way, towards older men and women.

    Obviously, I’m not offering any solutions here, I’m just trying to feel my way towards a workable framing of the problem.

  18. Boundegar says:

    Toby Kieth neglected to mention trial by jury.  Also, black people.

  19. wysinwyg says:

    Toby Keith seems to be ignoring a lot of scapegoating and lynching of innocent black folks in that lyric.

    Mob justice probably won’t make our society more civilized.  And I understand where you’re coming from because stories like this do make me want to commit murder.  It’s a feeling one should try to conquer, not indulge.

  20. John Vance says:

    I’m pretty sure “bad boys” is Toby Keith’s euphemism for “black people.”

  21. Boundegar says:

    Strange fruit, man.

  22. Gulliver says:

    Would you care to present a shred of supporting evidence. I don’t have much time for country western, but without something to back up your claim, you sound like you’re just biased against country-western musicians, which comes off sort of bigoted.

  23. C W says:

    Non-Country music fans, the ~real~ racists.

Leave a Reply