Mother of 2 from VERY prominent Richmond family arrested by FBI for child p@rn, exploitation, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't think people are looking for compassion, more trying to understand the factors that created her to become an abuser. Women sex abusers are far more uncommon, so this case is more interesting and complex. Was it combination of mental illness, possibly triggered by MS, coupled with her own history of sexual abuse? Was this the first time she engaged in this behavior or did she abuse children previously? Was she reliving abuse she experienced as a child? We don't know the answers to any of these questions.

I hope that as this case unfolds, we can learn more about what happened so that abusers like her can't harm vulnerable children.

Coming up with all those theories of 'what made her do it', does, on some level, act as finding an excuse for her.

Some acts, planning on raping an 8-year old and likely having a history of sexually abusing children among them, are so vile that this act is really all I need to know about that person. I don't care if she got a mean case of the sads or how complex a person she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a fetish website? Why aren’t these monitored for postings about children?

That’s exactly how she got caught…

But it was a sting operation. A kind of entrapment. Not monitoring actual details between two people without fake police involvement.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. They go to the sites where people like her go and find them on the message boards. What more do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a fetish website? Why aren’t these monitored for postings about children?

That’s exactly how she got caught…

But it was a sting operation. A kind of entrapment. Not monitoring actual details between two people without fake police involvement.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. They go to the sites where people like her go and find them on the message boards. What more do you want?

I think they should focus on the cases they have where people report and stop the sting operations. Now there are two children and a husband hurt by this plus her for a fake person and what exactly did she do? She was going to watch? It wasn’t even like she proposed the act. The police did. I mean it’s creepy but I don’t really understand the crime exactly. There are thousands of actual sex abuse cases that don’t get the attention they deserve. Where people call up and the police don’t have time for them or the judge rules that it was a lesser crime or no crime. Why are they making up cases rather than doubling down on the reported ones?

[Anonymous]

I guess I don't know all the details of the case, but these sting operations seem to do more harm than help. In some ways they exacerbate the situation and hurt innocents. I remember recently it was found that some of these police actually used sex workers that they were incriminating. Just like how so many people were drawn to the capita riots because others were doing itl, I think these fake crimes just encourage more people to do the crime. It also takes out workers from the economy and workers from focusing on actual crime. We have so much crime going on. Why do we need to make up crimes these days with such a shortage of law enforcement?

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe people are still trying to excuse this perverse deviant. The FBI is doing good work catching losers like her.

[Anonymous]

Shut down porn sites. Quit viewing as free speech, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t she only entitled to a public defender is she cannot afford an attorney of her own?

She’s looking at spending a long time in prison. If I were her, I’d want the best attorney money could buy. I’m shocked her family hasn’t hired some well connected, well skilled criminal defense attorney.

This may very well be intentional.

Her father PERSONALLY got her 2019 sex crime conviction thrown out on appeal.

A high priced lawyer will take over closer to the hearing date, mark my words.

Entirely possible. But 2019 was four years ago. I can see the point of view of the family if they have done everything they feel they can to help her and aren't going to do any more. From the little I have read/seen she is either suffering from a horrific mental illness or she is an evil person. They may think prison isn't a bad place for her to be at this point.

Uh, no. The father who got her off in 2019 offered to be her pretrial custodian! They are narcs who may well have abused or enabled abuse of her as a kid, so she thinks it's "normal." 2019 was a missed opportunity. Could have been compelled to get treatment by the court.

I’m not sure you know what a narc is.

NARCISSISTS, dumbass. The kind like the HUNTONS who care more about family reputation than her getting compelled treatment. NARCISSISTS or narcs in COMMON PARLANCE have a higher rate of incest and child sexual abuse because they do not feel rules apply to them. See also, elite deviance.

Some people, so hell bent on showing others how dumb they are try to make threads about horrific abuse of kids all about how smart they are. Like a narcissist would. Oh, wait...

Different poster from who you are replying to, but I have never heard of narc used to refer to a narcissist.

+1 a narc is a narcotics officer


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I don't know all the details of the case, but these sting operations seem to do more harm than help. In some ways they exacerbate the situation and hurt innocents. I remember recently it was found that some of these police actually used sex workers that they were incriminating. Just like how so many people were drawn to the capita riots because others were doing itl, I think these fake crimes just encourage more people to do the crime. It also takes out workers from the economy and workers from focusing on actual crime. We have so much crime going on. Why do we need to make up crimes these days with such a shortage of law enforcement?

How many children are saved from this abuse because of this type action prevents a future action, before a child is harmed?! Would hope that it also helps deter some of the online images and online approach to access, by ensuring people with these proclivities from acting on them, sharing files,etc to ensure they are not arrested in a sting operation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I don't know all the details of the case, but these sting operations seem to do more harm than help. In some ways they exacerbate the situation and hurt innocents. I remember recently it was found that some of these police actually used sex workers that they were incriminating. Just like how so many people were drawn to the capita riots because others were doing itl, I think these fake crimes just encourage more people to do the crime. It also takes out workers from the economy and workers from focusing on actual crime. We have so much crime going on. Why do we need to make up crimes these days with such a shortage of law enforcement?

How many children are saved from this abuse because of this type action prevents a future action, before a child is harmed?! Would hope that it also helps deter some of the online images and online approach to access, by ensuring people with these proclivities from acting on them, sharing files,etc to ensure they are not arrested in a sting operation.

None are saved because of this in reality. Hypothetically also very few. The situations aren't set up in the same way real situations are set up. There are eight times the number of stings compared to actual crimes. So it's way beyond what the actual crime is. The people that like them are the police and the attorneys and the public that thinks they are safer as a result.

This article is about men but gets to why this is actual a problem with how the police are trying to go after this crime. It's not effective for stopping actual crimes. I'm not saying this is the case with this person, but sting operations in general are not effective.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html

In a national study from 2017, 87 percent of 334 men convicted in such stings had no record of prior, concurrent or subsequent convictions — data in line with Packard and O’Connell’s estimates.

The men caught in these cases can wind up serving more time than men who are convicted of sexually assaulting and raping actual children. The legal standard for making an arrest in police stings is not high. Washington law allows undercover officers to use “deception, trickery or artifice.” They can fake sympathy or friendship. The police need only demonstrate that their target took a “substantial step” toward meeting the undercover officer.

Jurors who serve in Net Nanny cases often express surprise that the defense doesn’t argue entrapment. In fact, an entrapment defense is almost never successful in sting cases, according to Jessica Roth, a professor of criminal law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. In most criminal trials, prosecutors present their version of events, and the defense lawyer tries to poke enough holes in their account to produce reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. But entrapment is an affirmative defense that effectively requires the defendant to admit wrongdoing (“Yes, I wrote those texts that talk about having sex with a 13-year-old”) while at the same time arguing that he was manipulated by the police into doing something he wouldn’t normally do (engage in talk about having sex with a 13-year-old). In entrapment cases, the accused often take the stand to give their side of the story, which rarely works in their favor. “Even the most law-abiding person, subject to cross-examination, can look unreliable,” Roth says. Of the nearly 300 Washington State sting arrests, I was able to find only one case in which an appeals court threw out the charges on grounds of entrapment.

In a December 2015 email to his superiors, a state police captain, Roger Wilbur, wrote why they should do more stings: “Plea bargains start at 10 years in prison. Compared to other criminal cases that can take a year or longer, may result in a few years in prison, costs hundreds of man-hours and still only result in a single arrest, this is a significant return on investment. Mathematically, it only costs $2,500 per arrest during this operation! Considering the high level of potential offense, there is a meager investment that pays huge dividends.”

Yet most men caught in these raids pose a low risk to the public, according to Dr. Richard Packard, a past president of the Washington State chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and Dr. Michael O’Connell, a member of the state’s sex-offender policy board, who have examined about three dozen men arrested in cyberstings around the state. They say that relatively few — maybe 15 percent of men they saw — pose a moderate to high risk. Many have addiction problems, suffer from depression or anxiety, are autistic or are, as O’Connell described them to me, simply “pathetic, lonely people.” He went on: “Some are in marriages where things aren’t going great. They’re socially inept, but this is the way of having sex and having a relationship. They’re just stupid and making not very well thought out decisions. They weren’t looking for kids, but there was this one ad that caught their attention.” And a sizable percentage of those arrested are themselves in their late teens and early 20s and may, according to current scientific research, exercise poor judgment because the regions of the brain that control risk taking are not yet fully developed.

Unfortunately for Wright, there was no victim in his case, or in any of these cases. In Washington, a man could be caught fondling his niece and potentially qualify for an alternative sentence, but if he sends lewd texts to an undercover detective, he does not. The judge in Wright’s case noted that while the law might be problematic, it was up to the Legislature to change it.

Among the 271 Net Nanny arrests I was able to verify, however, none involved physical contact with a real child. Martina Vandenberg, the president of the Human Trafficking Legal Center, a national organization that trains lawyers to provide pro bono services to victims of real-life traffickers, is critical of operations like Net Nanny. “These stings are tricking guys into showing up,” she says. “Law enforcement can get dozens like a conveyor belt, and when you see who’s arrested, it’s kind of pathetic. In states where prosecution numbers are low for actual human trafficking, what a godsend! But you have not helped release one victim or child. My feeling is they should be doing real cases with real children.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I don't know all the details of the case, but these sting operations seem to do more harm than help. In some ways they exacerbate the situation and hurt innocents. I remember recently it was found that some of these police actually used sex workers that they were incriminating. Just like how so many people were drawn to the capita riots because others were doing itl, I think these fake crimes just encourage more people to do the crime. It also takes out workers from the economy and workers from focusing on actual crime. We have so much crime going on. Why do we need to make up crimes these days with such a shortage of law enforcement?

How many children are saved from this abuse because of this type action prevents a future action, before a child is harmed?! Would hope that it also helps deter some of the online images and online approach to access, by ensuring people with these proclivities from acting on them, sharing files,etc to ensure they are not arrested in a sting operation.

None are saved because of this in reality. Hypothetically also very few. The situations aren't set up in the same way real situations are set up. There are eight times the number of stings compared to actual crimes. So it's way beyond what the actual crime is. The people that like them are the police and the attorneys and the public that thinks they are safer as a result.

This article is about men but gets to why this is actual a problem with how the police are trying to go after this crime. It's not effective for stopping actual crimes. I'm not saying this is the case with this person, but sting operations in general are not effective.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/magazine/sex-offender-operation-net-nanny.html

In a national study from 2017, 87 percent of 334 men convicted in such stings had no record of prior, concurrent or subsequent convictions — data in line with Packard and O’Connell’s estimates.

The men caught in these cases can wind up serving more time than men who are convicted of sexually assaulting and raping actual children. The legal standard for making an arrest in police stings is not high. Washington law allows undercover officers to use “deception, trickery or artifice.” They can fake sympathy or friendship. The police need only demonstrate that their target took a “substantial step” toward meeting the undercover officer.

Jurors who serve in Net Nanny cases often express surprise that the defense doesn’t argue entrapment. In fact, an entrapment defense is almost never successful in sting cases, according to Jessica Roth, a professor of criminal law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. In most criminal trials, prosecutors present their version of events, and the defense lawyer tries to poke enough holes in their account to produce reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. But entrapment is an affirmative defense that effectively requires the defendant to admit wrongdoing (“Yes, I wrote those texts that talk about having sex with a 13-year-old”) while at the same time arguing that he was manipulated by the police into doing something he wouldn’t normally do (engage in talk about having sex with a 13-year-old). In entrapment cases, the accused often take the stand to give their side of the story, which rarely works in their favor. “Even the most law-abiding person, subject to cross-examination, can look unreliable,” Roth says. Of the nearly 300 Washington State sting arrests, I was able to find only one case in which an appeals court threw out the charges on grounds of entrapment.

In a December 2015 email to his superiors, a state police captain, Roger Wilbur, wrote why they should do more stings: “Plea bargains start at 10 years in prison. Compared to other criminal cases that can take a year or longer, may result in a few years in prison, costs hundreds of man-hours and still only result in a single arrest, this is a significant return on investment. Mathematically, it only costs $2,500 per arrest during this operation! Considering the high level of potential offense, there is a meager investment that pays huge dividends.”

Yet most men caught in these raids pose a low risk to the public, according to Dr. Richard Packard, a past president of the Washington State chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and Dr. Michael O’Connell, a member of the state’s sex-offender policy board, who have examined about three dozen men arrested in cyberstings around the state. They say that relatively few — maybe 15 percent of men they saw — pose a moderate to high risk. Many have addiction problems, suffer from depression or anxiety, are autistic or are, as O’Connell described them to me, simply “pathetic, lonely people.” He went on: “Some are in marriages where things aren’t going great. They’re socially inept, but this is the way of having sex and having a relationship. They’re just stupid and making not very well thought out decisions. They weren’t looking for kids, but there was this one ad that caught their attention.” And a sizable percentage of those arrested are themselves in their late teens and early 20s and may, according to current scientific research, exercise poor judgment because the regions of the brain that control risk taking are not yet fully developed.

Unfortunately for Wright, there was no victim in his case, or in any of these cases. In Washington, a man could be caught fondling his niece and potentially qualify for an alternative sentence, but if he sends lewd texts to an undercover detective, he does not. The judge in Wright’s case noted that while the law might be problematic, it was up to the Legislature to change it.

Among the 271 Net Nanny arrests I was able to verify, however, none involved physical contact with a real child. Martina Vandenberg, the president of the Human Trafficking Legal Center, a national organization that trains lawyers to provide pro bono services to victims of real-life traffickers, is critical of operations like Net Nanny. “These stings are tricking guys into showing up,” she says. “Law enforcement can get dozens like a conveyor belt, and when you see who’s arrested, it’s kind of pathetic. In states where prosecution numbers are low for actual human trafficking, what a godsend! But you have not helped release one victim or child. My feeling is they should be doing real cases with real children.”

Shut the sites down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t she only entitled to a public defender is she cannot afford an attorney of her own?

She’s looking at spending a long time in prison. If I were her, I’d want the best attorney money could buy. I’m shocked her family hasn’t hired some well connected, well skilled criminal defense attorney.

This may very well be intentional.

Her father PERSONALLY got her 2019 sex crime conviction thrown out on appeal.

A high priced lawyer will take over closer to the hearing date, mark my words.

Entirely possible. But 2019 was four years ago. I can see the point of view of the family if they have done everything they feel they can to help her and aren't going to do any more. From the little I have read/seen she is either suffering from a horrific mental illness or she is an evil person. They may think prison isn't a bad place for her to be at this point.

Uh, no. The father who got her off in 2019 offered to be her pretrial custodian! They are narcs who may well have abused or enabled abuse of her as a kid, so she thinks it's "normal." 2019 was a missed opportunity. Could have been compelled to get treatment by the court.

I’m not sure you know what a narc is.

NARCISSISTS, dumbass. The kind like the HUNTONS who care more about family reputation than her getting compelled treatment. NARCISSISTS or narcs in COMMON PARLANCE have a higher rate of incest and child sexual abuse because they do not feel rules apply to them. See also, elite deviance.

Some people, so hell bent on showing others how dumb they are try to make threads about horrific abuse of kids all about how smart they are. Like a narcissist would. Oh, wait...

Different poster from who you are replying to, but I have never heard of narc used to refer to a narcissist.

+1 a narc is a narcotics officer


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narc

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narc#:~:text=Noun-,narc%20(plural%20narcs),colloquial%2C%20informal)%20A%20narcissist.

Etymology 4
Clipping of narcissist.

Noun
narc (plural narcs)

(colloquial, informal) A narcissist.

Live and learn something new on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please please stop with the "oh she's an abuser well she must've been abused herself". If this sort of thinking were true, there would be an impossibly large number of abusers. While it's certainly true that some abusers were abused themselves, the vast majority were not.

In this study, just 4.6% of abused children were found to become abusers as adults.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2086458


Another 2019 study finds similarly

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/development-and-psychopathology/article/testing-the-cycle-of-maltreatment-hypothesis-metaanalytic-evidence-of-the-intergenerational-transmission-of-child-maltreatment/C3D3168C2C8B5240075A48F3F074C1A8

Most victims do not become victimizers, but some do.

Even for a victimizer this behavior was so extreme, from the hypersexualtiy when younger, sex in a park to this. Her being a victim herself has not been ruled out and is entirely possible. It's not an excuse but a partial explainating. Hypersexuality is linked to csa, bipolar mania and MS can cause mania too, something I had not known. Posters who say they know the family on other platforms have said she was diagnosed with bipolar and depression, treatment with SSRIs can also trigger mania in some. None of that excuses anything she has done and I am glad she was caught and not let out.

Where is the evidence that she was hypersexual when younger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shut down porn sites. Quit viewing as free speech, etc.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shut down porn sites. Quit viewing as free speech, etc.

+100

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a fetish website? Why aren’t these monitored for postings about children?

That’s exactly how she got caught…

But it was a sting operation. A kind of entrapment. Not monitoring actual details between two people without fake police involvement.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. They go to the sites where people like her go and find them on the message boards. What more do you want?

I think they should focus on the cases they have where people report and stop the sting operations. Now there are two children and a husband hurt by this plus her for a fake person and what exactly did she do? She was going to watch? It wasn’t even like she proposed the act. The police did. I mean it’s creepy but I don’t really understand the crime exactly. There are thousands of actual sex abuse cases that don’t get the attention they deserve. Where people call up and the police don’t have time for them or the judge rules that it was a lesser crime or no crime. Why are they making up cases rather than doubling down on the reported ones?

She absolutely did independently propose crimes. She also brought items to use in the criminal conduct she proposed. AND she possessed and shared sex abuse images.