I feel the need to clarify some of my personal beliefs. Many people assume their children are in danger of unknown subjects lurking on the Internet in an effort to lure their child in to meeting them. It has been my experience, depending on the age of the child, that most kids willingly enter into a relationship or friendship with an unknown Internet “friend” in an effort to fit in or fill some kind of need in their life.

 
I believe most of the teenage victims are the result of the child putting themselves in a position to become victims. This is not to say I devalue them as victims, but I have noticed a lot of teenage victims were in a chat room or communicating with an unknown subject and over time they become involved with the person emotionally. Sometimes the relationship is very strong as the communication starts out via the Internet, then progressing to the use of cell phones and eventually face to face meeting(s).

 
Often times by the time the relationship is discovered, the child is in love with the subject and the bond between the two is very difficult to break. Of course all of this depends on many factors including the location of the victim and the suspect. If the suspect is out of state or otherwise geographically out of the area it is easier to control the relationship.

 
My daughter was resistant to using a RADAR phone, and I soon discovered it was because she was spending many hours on the phone late at night talking with her boyfriend. Something we never suspected. It was not a big deal, however, it was easy to address once we knew about it.

 
Inv. Jeff Brown

James N. Brown, J.D.

Detective - Retired

In See How They Chat – Part 1, I presented an actual online chat that I had with a potential predator during a training session.  The entire conversation lasted only seven minutes.  In that short time, the predator learned that the “child” did not wear panties and liked to swim naked.  He also knew that the “child’s” mother was at work.  Although I was posing as a child, this was a real conversation with a possible predator, who very quickly learned significant information about the “child.”

In this blog, I will present a similar chat that occurred also during a training session.  This chat is a bit longer, approximately 18 minutes, but it illustrates an additional danger of Internet chatting; lewd pictures being sent to a child.  Once again, I use “Predator” in place of the actual screen name and “Child” in place of my undercover name.  The chat is exactly as it occurred.  I have included the times in order to show how quickly the predator moved the conversation along.  There are a few of my comments in parentheses.

[10:46] Predator: hello

[10:46] Child: hi

[10:47] Predator: how are you doing?

[10:47] Child: fine and u

[10:48] Predator: doing fine…downloading some pics at the moment (he has already introduced pictures into the conversation)

[10:49] Child: kewl, u share?????

[10:49] Predator: sure

[10:50] Child: kewl

[10:50] Predator: what you like to see?

[10:51] Predator: girl/guy-pics? or you like girl-pics too? (he has no problem letting the child know he has all kinds of pictures)

[10:52] Child: i like it all

[10:52] Predator: good

[10:53] Predator: do you have a picture of you? (he already wants to know what the child looks like)

[10:56] Predator: you like the pics? (he has sent pornography to the child)

[10:56] Child: kewl pics, was that you? (child is responding to the pornography pictures)

[10:57] Child: no, no camera (child is responding to the question regarding a picture of her)

[10:57] Predator: ok (he is responding to the child not having a camera)

[10:58] Predator: no, I am on different pics (he is responding to the child’s question as to whether he was in the pornographic pictures)

[10:58] Child: kewl

[10:59] Predator: do you have some pics for me?

[10:59] Predator: pics of girls your age?

[10:59] Child: yes please (a bit of confusion here…it happens in chatting…child is politely responding to what she believes is a request to send her more pictures)

[10:59] Predator: do you have them for me? (he has straightened out the confusion by again asking the child for pictures of her or girls her age)

[11:00] Child: no pics

[11:00] Predator: :(

[11:00] Child: ddad doesn’t klet me have any

[11:00] Predator: ok

[11:01] Predator: this is me with a girl…(the photograph showed oral copulation)

[11:02] Child: kewl

[11:03] Predator: have you done this kind of thing?

[11:04] Child: no

[11:04] Predator: what is the most exciting thing you have done? (he is trying really hard to engage the child in a conversation about sex acts)

At this point I terminated the conversation by logging off.  During this 18-minute conversation, the “child” was subjected to images of pornography, including one with the predator, and an attempt to engage the “child” in a sexually graphic conversation.  Predators are that aggressive…it can happen that fast.

I hope that this short series See How They Chat has illustrated how aggressive predators can be, and how quickly they are willing to find out information about a child, send pornography, and engage in a sexual conversation.  Although this occurred in a training session, it is the same in actual cases.  And, most importantly, these same predators have now moved to cell phones in search of their victims.

This is why it is imperative that parents understand the potential dangers of children having cell phones.  Armed with this knowledge, parents can take appropriate steps to put safeguards in place…this is what RADAR is all about.

I have given many talks on the benefits of monitoring your children and have discussed, often time at length, the reasons for monitoring your kids. Usually the parent will start out with something along the lines of….well my kids are not like that, or… we have a very open relationship and my child would always come to me with something of that nature.

I always offer that as a parent you may very well trust your child, and many times you are correct with your assessment of your child not falling prey to an adult. However, many of the cases I have investigated have resulted in a parent that does in fact monitor their child and their child discusses with another child some inappropriate behavior or relationship. The parents of the child that is not being monitored does not have any idea of the relationship.

So, even as a parent of a child that you trust completely, it is not a bad idea to monitor your child.

In fact, I have discovered several incidents by monitoring my kids that I have had to report as a mandated reporter. (In California select occupations require you to report suspected child abuse, actually it is a crime if you do not report the acts. Occupations such as doctors, counselors, fireman, and police officers to name a few require you to report suspected child abuse.)

The incidents were not directly involving my children; rather it was friends they were communicating with. This is important to realize that you might discover something inappropriate while monitoring your kid’s cell phone or computer usage.

If the communication between your child and the suspect is strictly via the Internet or through a cell phone then it is easier to control then if the subject is a teacher or otherwise close to the victim on a daily basis. Depending how the relationship was discovered usually will give you an idea of how to control or stop the relationship. Many times an unsuspecting parent stumbles upon sexually graphic writings or photos. In this case it is probably safe to assume you have discovered the relationship rather late, or depending how you look at it, just in time.

In a case like I just described, I would instruct the parent(s) to install monitoring software on their computers and closely monitor any activity. A problem we encounter in law enforcement is the subject of jurisdiction. Basically, and to be brief, the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over where the suspect lives usually, depending what occurred, has the responsibility of charging the crime in their area. You can see the complexity of having two subjects communicate over the Internet, engage in illegal, minor verses adult, behavior and then try and sort out who did what and what agency will handle the prosecution.

Not really a big deal if they live in the same city or county, however, if the behavior crosses across the country it changes the playing field. Again describing the above incident, hypothetically the victim in the case is a teenage girl and the suspect is a forty to fifty year old male. The teen in these cases more often than not will profess their love for the suspect. Many times the teen will lie or go to great lengths to keep the relationship a secret from their parents. This is the hardest type of case to resolve, as you generally have a teenage girl that has spent many hours communicating with the subject and he has totally ingrained himself into her life. She will often times, at the early stages of the investigation, lie or hide the truth.

And again more to follow!

Inv. Jeff Brown 

James N. Brown, J.D.
Detective - Retired

In my last blog I discussed the case of Joelle Ogletree, a Texas high school teacher who was accused by three of her students of having sexual misconduct with them. Ogletree was indicted by a grand jury in 2003. In 2004, after turning down a plea deal, her trial began. Only two of the boys, Matt and Chayce, were to testify against her because the third boy, Sam, admitted he had fabricated his allegations against Ogletree. Matt’s testimony did not go well as details of the alleged conduct were altered, forgotten, or added. The case against Ogletree ended in a mistrial, and all charges against Ogletree were dropped.

Despite the end of the criminal case in her favor, the Texas Education Agency still tried to revoke Ogletree’s teaching license. A hearing on the matter was held in June 2006, after which the judge ordered Ogletree’s teaching license to be “granted without delay.” After an unsuccessful appeal by the Texas Education Agency, Ogletree was issued a new teaching license in November 2006. She is now suing the school district for wrongful termination.

A few weeks ago, the case was featured in a two-part Dr. Phil Show. Ogletree appeared in both episodes and adamantly denied any sexual misconduct with any of her students. In the first episode, Dr. Phil interviewed Chayce and his mother by telephone. Chayce stated that he and Ogletree had been involved in sexual misconduct. Dr. Phil offered Chayce a polygraph. Chayce accepted and a nationally respected operator administered the examination. Chayce showed deceptive on all questions related to his allegations against Ogletree.

In the second episode, Matt appeared on the Dr. Phil show and confronted Ogletree. He was unyielding in his allegations that he and Ogletree had been involved in substantial sexual conduct. However, details of his allegations were challenged by Ogletree, and she pointed out that his statements on the show differed from his earlier statements and his sworn testimony. Matt was offered a polygraph. He accepted. A highly respected polygraph examiner, who was once the head of the Los Angeles Police Department’s polygraph unit, gave the test. Matt showed deceptive on all questions related to his allegations against Ogletree. Even in the face of the polygraph results, Matt continued to allege that he and Ogletree had been involved in sexual misconduct.

Ogletree appears to have done everything in her power to clear her name and reputation. All criminal allegations against her were dropped. She has won back her teaching license. She is suing for wrongful termination. One of the boys recanted his allegations, and the other two showed deceptive on polygraphs administered by respected and skilled examiners. Despite all these favorable results, when polled by Dr. Phil, a few people in his audience indicated they believed there had been some inappropriate sexual conduct between Ogletree and her students.

So, did she or didn’t she? What do you think? If you would like to discuss this further, please post your comments or questions in my Ask The Expert forum.

This is to help any parent with the realization their child is now a potential victim. I unfortunately can only speak of California law and the related investigation; however, I can suggest some good common sense approaches to address the issue.

As a police officer, I have several immediate issues that I have to address upon learning of a possible child exploitation case. First and foremost is my concern for the safety of the child. Is the child in a position to be victimized again? Basically, is the child safe? Is the child protected? Are the parents or caregivers in a position to protect the child or children?

If there is not some sort of safety for the children, there has to be some sort of intervention in an effort to protect the children. This is a priority for police officers and usually a job for the Social Services Organization.

Secondarily, we try to protect the evidence of any criminal activity. Again, saving or preserving any communication between the suspect and the child. This is often completed using one of several capturing processes, either via computer or cell phone. This is an extremely important process, as it is often a vital piece of evidence and will help to prove the case.

Many time sex cases are referred to as a one on one. They are in need of corroboration. This is usually determined with the help of captured communication between the suspect and victim.

More to follow!

James N. Brown, J.D.
Detective - Retired

It is estimated there are 25 million to 30 million children, ages 10-17, using the Internet today. To a predator, this is a target rich environment. No longer does a predator need to leave his home and venture forth into the public to target potential victims. No longer is his pool of potential victims a small group. He can now stay in the isolation of his home and prowl the Internet and its chat rooms to find unsuspecting children.

In addition to sheer numbers, there are certain false perceptions that encourage risky behavior on the Internet. First, the predator feels they cannot be identified or caught. This is not the case. Most people using the Internet can be identified and located. This is done first through public records and then through court-ordered release of information. Despite this reality, most predators are very aggressive on the Internet because they do feel anonymous, and if a potential child rebukes him, there are millions more to target.

The second perception involves children and families. We all like to feel that we are safe, secure, and isolated from the outside world when we are in our own homes. This perception is fairly accurate if there is no Internet-connected computer in the home. However, through an Internet connection, a home becomes vulnerable to unsuspecting families. This is because the wonderful world of the Internet is not a one-way street. When a home is connected to the Internet, the world is connected to the home. Through the Internet, predators have immediate access to children, even in their homes.

The last perception is that everyone feels they are anonymous when they are on the Internet. The predator will do their best to keep their true identity from discovery. However, most children are not so cautious. This is why Internet safety presentations are adamant that children never post any real information about themselves on the Internet. This is also why we encourage families to never put an Internet-connected computer in a child’s bedroom. The analogy that I use for parents is to tell them that doing so is the same as allowing a total stranger to enter their home, go to their child’s room, and have an unsupervised conversation with the child; a conversation that could last hours and can include the exchange of adult and child pornography.

This three-part series has demonstrated how the personal computer and the Internet have become very important to child predators. They have allowed them a huge target rich environment. They have allowed them to search for victims from the confines of their own homes. And, they have opened up a portal to children and families who believe they are safe in their homes.

If anyone has a specific question regarding the information presented in my A Target-Rich Environment series, please post your question to my Ask The Expert forum on the RADAR website.