Two child pornography investigations result in arrestsWednesday, January 15, 2014 by: SooToday.com Staff
Beginning in November 2013, officers from the Technological Crime Unit began monitoring the internet activity of a computer system suspected of making child pornography available on the internet.
During an online investigation, officers connected directly to the suspect computer system and downloaded several images that met the definition of child pornography according to the Criminal Code of Canada.
On the 13th of January, 2014, officers from the Technological Crime Unit and Patrol Officers from the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service attended a residence and executed a search warrant for computers and other digital media.
As a result of the investigation 37-year-old Gregory Albert Fletcher of Gladstone Avenue was arrested and charged with one count of make child pornography available, one count of possession of child pornography and one count of access child pornography.
He appeared in bail court on January 14, 2014.
Between September and December 2013, members of the Sault Ste Marie Police Technological Crime Unit were involved in an investigation where they monitored the internet activity of a computer system in the Sault Ste Marie area.
During this investigation, officers on several occasions were successful in connecting to the suspect computer and downloading images and videos of child pornography directly from the suspect computer.
On the 14th of January, 2014, officers from the Sault Ste Marie Police Service Technological Crime Unit, Batchewana First Nation Police Service and the Ontario Provincial Police Crime Unit executed a search warrant on a Rankin Reserve address.
As a result of the investigation 18-year-old Daniel William Day of Sandy Lake First Nations Reserve was arrested and charged with one count of make child pornography available, possession of child pornography and one count of access child pornography.
He will appear in bail court on January 15.
The Sault Ste. Marie Police Service is a member of the Provincial Strategy to Protect Children From Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of the Internet. These investigations are possible because of a funding grant from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.
lambkins 1/15/2014 9:06:06 AM Report
Good Work! Catch them all!
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 9:21:44 AM Report
Hilarious that the eighteen yr old's sex tape with his seventeen yr old girlfriend puts him at risk for up to twenty years in prison.
If that's not justice, I don't know what is.
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 9:23:34 AM Report
And IF I had a cartoon representation of said sex tape, would put me at risk for twenty years as well.
JediMindTrick 1/15/2014 9:52:45 AM Report
Maybe you should take the advice from your user name. These types of charges are serious, and so are the police when looking into them.
Kudos to all departments involved!
Big Deal 1/15/2014 9:59:03 AM Report
Anyone who could even STAND looking at young children in that way without throwing up are pretty demented and sick in the head. They are a piece of garbage and should be throw out like the trash they are!!! They are all repeat offenders and will NEVER be rehabilitated unless they got a labotamy...our justice system is a joke!!!
derek 1/15/2014 10:07:43 AM Report
How dumb are these guys!
Everyone should just assume that police/government officials track everything you do online...or at least have the ability too..
Happy web surfing folks!
k9teeth 1/15/2014 10:31:22 AM Report
...and that is why I prefer my smut in good old magazine form, and mostly for the articles. :-)
Pakadeva 1/15/2014 10:34:57 AM Report
Guess you missed this part? ((make child pornography available)). IF this was a girlfriend, who in their right mind makes it "available" for others to see? Who wants to see my necked girlfriend? Sick! Those officers have done great work!!! Get the sickos out of circulation.
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 11:16:58 AM Report
No, I didn't miss that, Paka
Simply by recording the event on any piece of fairly modern electrical equipment you are 'making' those recordings available (in this case, officers remotely accessing your PC) be they on a password protected 'smart' phone or other ridiculously unsecure device.
I was not suggesting there are not sick phoques out there in need of urgent help, simply that (with an added example of my own I've previously described) not everything is black and white as you enjoy making it out to be.
Wicket 1/15/2014 11:27:31 AM Report
So, are the police just randomly checking computer usage for child porn or do you think, that maybe, just maybe, someone is giving them information about distributors!
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 11:38:13 AM Report
I do not work for and don't know anyone working for the 'Technological Crime Unit' so I can hardly say for sure, Wicket.
If you'd have me speculate I'd bet most of the time ISPs are tracking flagged files and torrents and recording which IPs download them and sending off a list of the likely physical address off to the our Infallible Forces for further investigation.
I have hard time believing, however, that some high school kid loves child porn and has a nice collection of it, so I'd suspect there is something else going on...but how 'bout for now we just assume he's a total scumbag until we know for sure he's not!
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
Rachel01 1/15/2014 11:53:15 AM Report
I have no sympathy for these pigs...the last thing they should see is the end of a smoking gun !!!
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 11:56:11 AM Report
Rachel, our police work diligently to protect you and the rest of us from these sickos so please don't call them names or threaten them with violence.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
Silverstein 1/15/2014 1:05:49 PM Report
HowAboutSomeLogic.... You could use some if you think 'possession of' and 'make available' are the same thing. If it is as you claim to know (maybe its you for all we know) his under aged girlfriend then he was distributing it ie: sending it to people and was lacking the logic to know that this is against the law. But to be flagged and recognized as child porn I doubt that this is the case here. Unless you have the facts you know as much as anyone else however, maybe a 17yr old (still illegal) maybe much younger.
Sunshine_banks 1/15/2014 1:26:26 PM Report
@HowAboutSomeLogic no where in the news release does it say he created child pornography? If it is pics of the Girlfriend and took them would he not be charged with producing Child Porn? That being said if that is the case of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship and taking photos/videos it is something that should stay private and not be distributed to anyone at all...Young people now send these types of photos to the opposite sex and with social media, text messaging etc. it is getting out of hand...These kids need to think before they do something like this as once it gets out there is no getting it back and thats scary! If it is a case of we broke up and now I am going to get you well thats another story.. If he is guilty then by all means he should go to jail for a long time it is unacceptable to be doing this! We need to crack down on the people who produce, distribute and access this! I think we should give kudos to the police for cracking down and laying charges against these people...it can't be easy work looking at these graphic images that they have to see!
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 1:50:55 PM Report
Silver, I wasn't arguing the various charges target synonymous intentions, rather, that they don't target intention at all and that everything isn't the black and white we pretend it to be.
If I access a site that contains pornographic material of anyone under the age of eighteen I am guilty of 'accessing', whether I intended to or not. My ISP would likely send a report of the accessed site(s) to the police of the jurisdiction of the IP in question for further investigation.
If I downloaded any of that material I would be guilty of 'possession'.
(As an aside I once downloaded a collection of what I thought to be 'cookbooks' which turned out to be a collection of child porn - real child porn - not some 16yr old boy 'possessing child pornography' of, say, a 17yr old girl.)
If the police remote hacked my iPhone or PC, browsed through it and downloaded the files in question I would be guilty of 'making available' the material, again, whether or not that was my intention.
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 1:57:47 PM Report
**I should note that I am not a criminal lawyer, nor am I a member of our most esteemed police force**
Hey, Sunshine...no, they don't charge him with production but that doesn't mean that's not what happened. It could be they didn't want to expose him to another ten years in addition to the ten plus he could serve if found guilty of the laid charges or perhaps they confirmed all parties involved were consenting, for which a specific exception has been made by the supreme court, as I understand it.
More likely, I am not the party in question and am merely speculating like everyone else...except I'd like to see these men get some (or alot of) help and eventually show their mental health to be of a standard that would allow them to contribute meaningfully to the community.
Eighteen is kind of young to lock someone up and throw away the key, dontcha think?
Sunshine_banks 1/15/2014 2:09:25 PM Report
@HowAboutSomeLogic I agree 18 is a little young to lock up and throw away the key...Especially if in the 18 yr old kid's case it is photos of a girlfriend....It would be horrible for this kid to go to jail if these were consensual pictures that were taken or even just sent to him. The people who are guilty of these crimes do need help but will they get it? WIll it prevent another charge in the future? Will it prevent more abuse of children? I don't know....As a Mom my heart hurts for victims of these crimes. All we can hope as a society is that the Police continue to do their job and get the guilty ones off the street.
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 2:26:03 PM Report
Sunshine, as a human being my heart hurts for the child victims of sexual exploitation.
The problem I have is that these 'child pornography' charges make an obviously unconsenting 3yr old equivalent to a confirmed consented 17yr old. It's apples to oranges to which the latter is hardly descriptive of what people think of when they hear 'child pornography'.
Additionally, I see no evidence that such charges protect any children from sexual exploitation, or that the guilty parties receive the therapy and rehab they desperately require, instead its more of a "You are clearly less than a human being and should thus spend as much of your remaining life as possible behind bars" mentality....and we cheer it on.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, GUYS! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
right wing 1/15/2014 2:47:44 PM Report
What you are describing is the rarity.
The reality is the vast majority of those charged are child pornographers.
The usual is hundreds and into the thousands of photos and videos of young children, at time infants, being sexually abused stored on their computers.
Most plead guilty as when they are caught the evidence is overwhelming.
The real world of child pornography is made up of sick and twisted individuals from those that provide the material to those that support it by collecting it.
I know a law enforcement person that specializes in catching these creeps.
They don't usually charge or waste their time on the follies of what you describe...in short they are experts at what they do and recognize the difference.
Please spare us the rare scenario (if it is in fact true) story when child pornography is a very real societal problem.
damzull1 1/15/2014 3:00:40 PM Report
All these pedafile's should have there pic's put on the new's here so poeple will know who to watch for then let the parents have some time with them in a wooded area
Sunshine_banks 1/15/2014 3:05:06 PM Report
If this is a confirmed, consented 17 year old then I agree! But if it isn't well there we do disagree, there are 17 year olds both male and female who have been sexually exploited and the people who do this should be charged and punished for the offense. Just because the victim is 17 and not 3 does it make it better?
Yes the people charged with these crimes need and should get help, it should be mandatory for anyone charged and found guilty of a sex crime ...some don't want help and some do. It is a very disgusting crime and I understand the feeling to want to make the people suffer for what they do to children.We all feel helpless when we hear of this sort of crime and find it unfathomable that someone would do this to a child.It would be fair to say that anyone reading this article is disgusted with the crimes and has their own thoughts on what should happen to the guilty party but as human beings we know that...cutting off their head is not a feasible idea lol. I for one am glad that they are taking a tougher stance on these types of crimes. And maybe they should not be publishing names until the person is found guilty and they can release the details of the crimes. By the way just to clarify never once did I say OFF WITH HIS HEAD.
HowAbooutSomeLogic 1/15/2014 3:20:50 PM Report
rightwing you spew so much crazy sh!t on these pages on the daily I have a hard time believing your words, and they run contrary to the officers I've spoken with and most cases I've looked into myself.
Sunshine, I mentioned the ages as an example. The relevant portion of that post was obviously 'consenting' vs 'not consenting' and how the charges fail to differentiate between the two, which is a pretty big deal, imo.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue w rightwing...I'm out!
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!
mrmoon 1/15/2014 3:27:10 PM Report
As a father of two kids im glad to see ppl like this are being caught. But I must admit im confused about how the laws work. If a person takes photos of his gf and then distributes them its consider "making porn available". yet in Nova Scotia boys sexually assaulted a young girl, put the pictures on the internet and as a result she committed suicide. Charges were never laid in this case, same for the case in B.C. If there is a person of law that is reading these articles it would be nice to have a response to clarify
Working Man 1/15/2014 5:15:42 PM Report
There is a huge difference between a 3 yr old in porn and a 17yr old in porn!!!!
Using your logic there must be a HUGE difference between a legal 18yr old pornstar and an illegal 17yr old pornstar!!! Should I mention that Jenna Jameson started illegally at 17!!!
Sunshine_banks 1/15/2014 6:04:43 PM Report
@working man maybe use your logic I said "sexually exploited" 17 year old. We are not talking about porn stars that choose that life.
Child sexual abuse is abuse no matter if they are 3 or 17, it is illegal. In your logic is it only bad if they are young children? What is the cut off age in your thinking? 12? 16? It is mentally and morally degrading to a child no matter what the age of them is. While I will agree that it will probably damage a 3 year old more physically and internally than it would a 17 year old. The mental damage done will be the same in both children. The law states that a child is anyone under the age of 18. If the said child was 17 and forced into doing porn does that make it ok because they are 17? I think not!
Bad Dawg 1/15/2014 8:41:39 PM Report
this 18 yr old has no respect for anyone, not himself, not his family, not her or her family.... hopefully they nail this lil creep to the wall....
a close geek squad friend says when your pc enters a "monitored by police" xxx site that has child porn it is flagged and then you are investigated....
jojo12345 1/16/2014 1:48:17 AM Report
sick sick peoples in this town
right wing 1/16/2014 10:11:37 AM Report
some logic....ran with his tail between his legs.
superstar75 1/16/2014 1:58:51 PM Report
Fyi... the 18 yr old was not caught with pics of his gf... they were real child porn files... mountains of it in fact... of children 4-8yrs old.. I wont describe what was in the videos out of respect for readers who wouldnt be able to handle it...
Working Man 1/16/2014 10:08:07 PM Report
Maybe they were acting??? And yes there is a difference between the sexual exploitation of a child still in development, than a 17yr old who is turning 18 the next day. What if it was of a 40 yr old woman getting sexually expoited? What would happen then? And yes, still there would be a huge difference between a 3yr old and a 40yr old getting exploited. It's always assumed that it's porn of a tiny little infant. It probably was of little kids, but i'm just considering different perspectives.
Perhaps you should use more logic?
And how would you know that?
IN FACT, they were actually pictures of legal 18yr old girls who looked younger and dressed up as little schoolgirls!!!! LOL.. I'm just jokin...
What I'd like to know is, WHY AREN'T ANY OFFICERS CHARGED WITH DOWNLOADING CHILD PORN?!?!?!?!? Two wrongs don't make a right!
GuitarHero99 1/17/2014 11:15:32 AM Report
Hang them both. especially greg he's a loser
superstar75 1/17/2014 3:09:43 PM Report
I know because it was my residence!! He was a boarding student that I took in to allow him the opportunity for a decent education that he wasnt able to get in his own community... it was my name on the search warrant, my shaw account that was used and monitored by the special task force... it was my door that was banged on at 7am tuesday morning and my family that has been referred to as collateral damage... thats how I know.. a better question would have been to ask those saying he was charged for taking pics of his 17yr old gf (which btw he didnt have) I think if u want to kno, attend court... its a serious offence with real victims!! Stop assuming you know ANYTHING!!
superstar75 1/17/2014 3:11:52 PM Report
Btw working man, ur jokes arent funny... u should assume that good people who have been negatively affected by incidents in ssm read ur "jokes"
Working Man 1/17/2014 11:09:54 PM Report
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Then more people would have believed you.
I have the right as a human being to have a sense of humour!! Thank you very much for your clarification.