News: employee at Walter Johnson HS arrested

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the comments on the WJ Pitch Instagram page, there is discussion of him being reported to admin well before this incident. Nothing was done.

I feel really bad for the wife and kid.

When reported to admin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the comments on the WJ Pitch Instagram page, there is discussion of him being reported to admin well before this incident. Nothing was done.

I feel really bad for the wife and kid.

When reported to admin?

Supposedly back during COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two more w school arrests.

you should seek help for your w-school-syndrome.

+100000

There are child victims here. What is wrong with you?

Yes, they are, which is why you all putting the W schools on a pedestal is strange to some of us as they have the same exact/different and recently more issues. If this were a DCC school, it would be slammed instantly. Why do W schools get a pass?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter sent to parents was very vague (no, I will not copy it here).
As the parent of a junior, I want to know how long he has worked there and if any other videos are recovered. My child recognized him immediately.

He has been there for a long time. I'm not going to quote from the rumor mill, but I won't be surprised if this has been going on for a long time.

I hope they do a forensic search of his computer equipment and accounts. Who knows how long he has been doing this and if he has posted footage on-line? It's a terrible violation of these young women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

He did not have consent and they are minors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

He did not have consent and they are minors.

It is a different crime, but it doesn’t fall within the ambit of Maryland’s CSAM statute. I don’t know what else to tell you. Read the statute if you don’t believe me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

Is that why he was charged with child sex abuse and not pornography?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

Is that why he was charged with child sex abuse and not pornography?

I assume so. He should also be charged with 3-902, which specifically criminalizes secretly filming someone in a place where they can be expected to undress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

Which means that there is evidence of something worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Unbelievable. The investigation on who knew what and when will be very telling.

I’m sure no one at the school knew anything. They wouldn’t protect this guy.
I’m more worried about whether there are now videos of my daughter circulating on the dark web. Hopefully he wasn’t selling the videos or posting them.

I would not be so confident about that.

Enough with the conspiracy theories. Kids reported it, and it was dealt with. The play is going on now, so it must have been fairly recent. I'm wondering where the abuse charge comes from. Wouldn't it normally be an exploitation charge if all he had were videos of kids changing?

I’m not aware of any Maryland law that defines or prohibits “exploitation” separately from abuse. There is a MD published appellate case saying that filming a minor changing after getting out of the shower is sex abuse of a minor even if there’s were no contact sex offenses. Very similar situation.

I think the PP was talking about a child pornography charge. Maryland does have a statute criminalizing possession of these materials, but I’m skeptical about its application here.

Yeah, I’m not sure that videos of kids changing clothes would be considered pornography. No sex acts and possibly not even nudity of private parts. It’s a violation for sure. It’s creepy/icky. But it’s not necessarily pornography.

The sex abuse of a minor case with the filming of a child changing after showering is pretty on point though. And sex abuse of a minor is a very serious felony.

Posting pictures of naked/changing kids is porn. You want your kids pictures online for ever?

I’m not defending the conduct, but as a Maryland prosecutor I’m telling you that nudity alone does not equal CP.

Which means that there is evidence of something worse

How do you figure? He was not charged with CP.

[Anonymous]

WTAF MCPS

What is wrong with ppl???

So many incidents lately (and these are just what's named + seen + not fake documented away), does anyone have any glimmer of a feeling of accountability, for anything? Literally at all levels, kids included

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The letter sent to parents was very vague (no, I will not copy it here).
As the parent of a junior, I want to know how long he has worked there and if any other videos are recovered. My child recognized him immediately.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the comments on the WJ Pitch Instagram page, there is discussion of him being reported to admin well before this incident. Nothing was done.

I feel really bad for the wife and kid.

Typical MCPS.