# Military Officer charged with child pornography



## GIJANE (24 Mar 2005)

Military officer charged with possession of child pornography
    



OTTAWA (CP) - A military officer has been charged with possession of child pornography, following an investigation by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. 

Capt. Marc-Antoine Saint-Jacques, who is based in Ottawa, was charged after investigators and Defence computer analysts found a large number of child-porn images on a military laptop and personal computer, the department said in a news release Thursday. 

"These charges are a direct result of the investigative efforts of the NIS to prevent and deter this criminal behaviour within the military community," said Col. Dorothy Cooper, the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the military chief of police. 

Saint-Jacques is to go before a court martial in Gatineau, Que., starting June 27. 



Disgusting pig!

Jane


----------



## Gunner (24 Mar 2005)

:gunner:    





> Military officer charged with possession of child pornography


----------



## mbhabfan (24 Mar 2005)

should be shot to death with a ball of his own s%$t!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ark (24 Mar 2005)

If those allegations are in fact correct, I can only hope he gets a lengthy posting to club Ed.


----------



## CallOfDuty (24 Mar 2005)

What a sick f**k.   I just dont understand people like that.  ???


----------



## Big Foot (24 Mar 2005)

Absolutely disgraceful. I hope he gets dishonorably discharged and sent to general population in a civvy prison. (If guilty of course)


----------



## Bin-Rat (25 Mar 2005)

Just doing some checking, and looked at the Calendar for court martials.. And he is listed but why do they only have he down for 1 charge.. Is it because he is a officer ???? Like his sheet say this...

CHARGE   1. S. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).

Now somewhere is history there was a private who got charged as well basiclly for the same thing, and this is what his sheet said..

CHARGE 1. (alternate to charge 2) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            2. (alternate to charge 1) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).
            3. (alternate to charge 4) s. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
            4. (alternate to charge 3) s. 130 NDA, accessed child pornography (s. 163.1(4.1) CCC).

Is Mr Captain not going to get the Accessed one added as well ???????????????????
To Be in Possession you must of accessed it Right...
Hope they don't find a legal loop hole and get this Dweeb off....


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Mar 2005)

I'm still amazed that the majority of pornography offences within the service tend to be officers....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2005)

Point??????

MOD NOTE:
Lets not make this a pissing contest.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Mar 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Point??????
> 
> MOD NOTE:
> Lets not make this a pissing contest.



No please I would enjoy reading the facts to back that one up.


----------



## WATCHDOG-81 (25 Mar 2005)

"Is Mr Captain not going to get the Accessed one added as well ?
To Be in Possession you must of accessed it Right..."


No, for the purposes of subsection (4.1), a person accesses child pornography who knowingly causes child pornography to be viewed by, or transmitted to, himself or herself.   Also, charges will differ from even similar-fact cases depending on numerous factors including the ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of individual offences.   Accordingly, if the prosecutor does not feel that he/she can achieve that threshold, they cannot, rather, should not, prosecute for that offence.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Mar 2005)

Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> Just doing some checking, and looked at the Calendar for court martials.. And he is listed but why do they only have he down for 1 charge.. Is it because he is a officer ???? Like his sheet say this...
> 
> CHARGE     1. S. 130 NDA, possession of child pornography (s. 163.1(4) CCC).
> 
> ...



Yes they must be cutting him some slack because he is an officer.


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Mar 2005)

I can see that this is going to be a hot topic....

Hope everyone keeps their stick on the ice!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Mar 2005)

I think you gave the first slash,
 Kincanucks asked a reasonable question, do you have any facts to back up that statement?               
...or is it a two-minute penalty?


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Mar 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> do you have any facts to back up that statement?
> ...or is it a two-minute penalty?



In 2002 - 2004 I worked in the IT field during a posting. Any incidents within the CF were brought to our attention. The first example would be of the senior officer out west who couldn't court martial an NCM as he stated he was guilty of the same offence. That was a huge media event. I've not heard any other make the national news media since then.

[Moderator edit:  The example cited is misleadng - it did not involve child pornography]


----------



## kincanucks (25 Mar 2005)

If he is convicted then he is a piece of shit that deserves to publicly castrated and branded with a P on his forehead.   It doesn't matter whether he is an officer or NCM.   Unfortunately, he is a member of the CF.


----------



## WATCHDOG-81 (25 Mar 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> I'm still amazed that the majority of pornography offences within the service tend to be officers....



Even if you are statistically correct, you would be referring to pornography offences identified and/or prosecuted, not actual pornography offences committed.   Furthermore, you would also have to look at the reasons why officers would tend to get caught more often.   Could it be that they generally have more access to DND computers than NCMs?   I am not offering excuses or a theory, just food for thought as statistics can be easily manipulated.

Also, just because a RDP has been published with one charge, that does not mean that more charges will not be added.   This happens quite often, especially in a complex or technical investigation where it could take longer to obtain evidence of another included or lesser offence.   Eg. A warrant to obtain connection information from an ISP and processing the data obtained through the warrant...evidence that you would need to prove "accessed pornography".


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Mar 2005)

This pissing match is just plain perverted.

Who the EFF cares if he was an officer, it makes no difference!  The worm has committed the most Despicable offense to mankind and we are sitting here debating officers vs NCM's.

Give yer heads a bucking shake man.

tess


----------



## Navalsnpr (25 Mar 2005)

WATCHDOG-81 said:
			
		

> you would also have to look at the reasons why officers would tend to get caught more often.   Could it be that they generally have more access to DND computers than NCMs?



I do beleive that the majority of the offences were committed using laptops. Most NCM's have a hard time getting issued laptops, whereas Officers have an easier time getting them. That could probably the reason for the higher rate. Additionally, the firewall blocks quite a few sites for us, preventing that type of material to reach our desktops.

On another note, regardless if the person is an Officer or an NCM, they should be charged with the same offense(s) and dealt with harshly.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Actually, not wanting to stir the shit pot, but I was struck with the same question when I read it. 

In his defence, he said "I'm amazed" and not "See, I told you so...".

However, when I thought on it, I figured it was the access to DND IT, which is most likely the reason why.

Now, can we get back to describing the punishment for this pervert?  :threat:


----------



## Korus (25 Mar 2005)

Hang him by the nuts..


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Mar 2005)

I think sickening is too good of a word.

I find people are people whether an Officer, Priest, Judge, Teacher or Constable, the only difference between some is positions of authority and trust, and as far as I am concerend they should be made an example of.

Throw away the key, or better yet, let the victims families have their way with them.

 :rage:

Wes


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I find people are people whether an Officer, Priest, Judge, Teacher or Constable, the only difference between some is positions of authority and trust, and as far as I am concerend they should be made an example of.



I've always been convinced that public servants, politicians, military and police officers, judges, etc, etc should be tagged with an additional "Public Accountability Statute" clause if charged with something - essentially giving them a bigger sentence because they were in a position of authority which entailed extra responsibility to the public good.


----------



## Freddy Chef (25 Mar 2005)

If this suspect is convicted, forget Club Ed; he will get a roof over his head, 3 meals a day, and medical care, all from DND's pocket.

If convicted, release him from the CF (dishonourably), have him registered as a sex-offender with the civie police, and let the citizens sort him out. Mobs of people will try to throw him out of every town he tries to move into.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Mar 2005)

Come on, you don't believe that?  He would just blend into society.  I say send him to prison, and let the characters there sort out this reprobate.

tess


----------



## Freddy Chef (25 Mar 2005)

That's right, it's the convicted child molesters that the angry mobs throw out of town, when they get released to a half-way-house in their community. This guy is just a wanna-be with the internet kiddie porn.

OK, civie prison,(no financial burden on DND) and let the bikers and drug-dealer-pimps sort him out.


----------



## camochick (25 Mar 2005)

What about public hangings , charging admission and making money to help the victims. Anyone who watches, buys, or engages in anything to do with child porn or the expoitation of children in anyway should be forced to suffer. Hey, we could publicly torture them and sell tickets, whatever works.  >


----------



## TCBF (25 Mar 2005)

Fourteen is the age of consent in Canada, yet if a fourteen year old girl put a nude picture of herself on the internet and this clown downloaded it, he can be charged with downloading kiddie porn.  Lets wait and see what the specifics are, before we sentence him to "Death with Severe Reprimand."

Even militia Captains deserve a fair trial.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Just curious as to what, legally, constitutes Child Porn?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2005)

I'm no IT expert, and am not sticking up for anyone. If you hit the wrong site, whether on your own, or by automatic computer misdirection, it can drop .jpg's into your hard drive without you knowing it. If you surf alot, hit the "Find" command on your home computer and type in *.jpg or *.bmp and see what you've got that you've never dowloaded intentionally.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Internet can be a scary place - especially with the simplicity of Google.... 

I just tried to Google "Legal Definition of Child Pornography" to answer my previous question and I couldn't really find it - the links brought up (which I never followed) led to "user-groups" which disputed the laws around the whole topic.  I can only imagine what the links contained.... :threat:


----------



## MissHardie (25 Mar 2005)

Infanteer,

I, too, was curious as to what exactly constitutes child porn under Canada's Criminal Code, so I looked it up.  This is what I got from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/41422.html#section-163.1 :

Part V, section 163.1 (1)

 In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or
(b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act.


I guess I was lucky; I found this link innocuously enough on cbc.ca.  

Miss Hardie


----------



## Slim (25 Mar 2005)

Probably a good idea that you didn't follow that to its logical conclusion...Remember Pete Townsend of The Who got done for child porn. He claimed that he was doing research because of his own troubled past...

There seems to be little tolerance for this sort of thing, which is good, unless the person is not guilty and still "convicted" in public opinion...

Scary subject.

Slim


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2005)

Not that I'm disputing it (hey, my Girlfriend is older then me), but I could see the grey area around "Child" causing some unintended problems.   Consider that my Grandparents were 25 and 17 when they married.

Technically, someone could get dinged for having pictures of their young girl/boyfriend.

If the letter of the law may have a "gray area", the spirit most certainly does not - I am pretty sure that most cases of Child Porn prosecution involve some form of exploitation in them; these are the cases where a hanging is justified, figuratively or literally.

As well:



> 163(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.
> 
> Definition of "crime comic"
> (7) In this section, "crime comic" means a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
> ...



I guess my Grand Theft Auto III game and my copy of Heat is up for grabs here....


----------



## Gunner (25 Mar 2005)

The Edmonton Journal brought up an interesting point this morning while describing  a trial for a 40 year old man on charges of child pornography.   He paid money to a 14 year old girl to take photographs of her.  They met in a hotel room, he took pictures of her, and posted them to the internet.  The statement was made that it is legal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 14 year old but he/she can't take pictures of them.

This has come up before on the radio talk show circuit with liberals wanting to decrease the age of consent to 12 and conservatives wanted to raise it to 16.  Whether its 12 or 16 I don't think it is right for a 40 year old to be having sex with them (much less taking pictures of them).  Am I getting prudish in my old age?


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Mar 2005)

A fitting punishment would be as follows:  Lock him up in a room with the fathers of all the kids he had pictures of for 30 mins.  They can then discharge with disgrace from the CF whatever is left...

CHIMO,  Kat
PS... IF he's found guilty of course...


----------



## PeterLT (26 Mar 2005)

> If convicted, release him from the CF (dishonourably), have him registered as a sex-offender with the civie police, and let the citizens sort him out. Mobs of people will try to throw him out of every town he tries to move into.



I agree, but if convicted he should do time in the CFDB first then toss him. At the risk of sounding "out of touch", what the heck is the world coming to? 



Peter


----------



## pcain (26 Mar 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Absolutely disgraceful. I hope he gets dishonorably discharged and sent to general population in a civvy prison.



*March the guilty b*stard in! * 

You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.

If I were a mod on this board, I'd look very carefully - _very _ carefully   - at posts presuming the guilt of a defendant before conviction, if only as a CYA issue. Among other things, the officers who will end up trying this wretch in June are drawn from the pool of potential readers of this board. 

There are a couple of issues here that nobody here wants to get entangled with (or if they do, I'll stand back and watch) - one is defamation, the other is the potential contamination of a jury pool. 

CP's story is carefully worded for a reason.


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> *March the guilty b*stard in! *
> 
> You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.
> 
> ...




Look at the wording of the offence reproduced by Miss Hardie below. This is a "Strict Liability" offence - not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is advanced he didn't have possession or any of the other actus requirements of the offence. This wipes out your tainted pool of jurors theory. As for defamation, don't get me started...


----------



## pcain (26 Mar 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Look at the wording of the offence reproduced by Miss Hardie below. This is a "Strict Liability" offence - not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is advanced he didn't have possession or any of the other actus requirements of the offence.



It's not a question of innocence, just the degree of guilt unless an argument is made establishing innocence, which could potentially lead to acquittal? That gets us back to where we started.


----------



## kincanucks (26 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> *March the guilty b*stard in! *
> 
> You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.
> 
> ...



I do think you should get an re-education (just read somewhere you were once in the military, for shame) in the military justice system before you go off spouting potential contamination of the jury pool.   We don't use juries in the military.


----------



## Kunu (27 Mar 2005)

> Just curious as to what, legally, constitutes Child Porn?



Admittedly, this isn't concrete, but from reading descriptions of child porn in the news whenever a pedophile is arrested/convicted/etc., I'm pretty sure that in order for something to be considered child porn, it must involve some rather disgusting sexual exploitation of children.   For this reason, pictures of babies splashing around in the bathtub aren't considered child porn.   Although, if someone besides the baby's parents owns them, then things might be different.


----------



## Big Foot (27 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> *March the guilty b*stard in! *
> You'd be a great juror, Big Foot. Just outstanding. None of this presumption of innocence crap - string 'im up and come home in time for lunch.


pcain, look at yourself before looking at others. Thanks for singling me out of a group of people who are sharing a similar view. If you look now, I edited my post to clarify my stance on this issue so before you go calling me a fascist looking to have no pressumption of innocence, try to look at the context of the issue. Would you as a parent want your children being exploited by child pornographers? Didn't think so. I'm certain you would want swift justice. I am neither a parent, nor do I have any experience with issues like this, however don't start spouting crap about how impartial I am. Look at your own bit about defamation. By saying what you did, how do you know you haven't impacted my career because a large number of my peers are members on this site? Officers are held to a higher standard, and even an accusation in a matter like this tarnishes officers on a whole.


----------



## pcain (27 Mar 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> We don't use juries in the military.



You're playing with semantics: the point, as I said,  is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board. As a private citizen, I'd prefer that the people who are making a decision about guilt v. innocence aren't exposed to morbid speculation about what the penalty should be after conviction in the period before the trial actually begins. 

*Big Foot*: full points to you for standing up and admitting and correcting a mistake, which is far more important AFAIC than making it in the first place: I'm sure you'll make an excellent officer. As for the rest of it, I think you need to come back and take a careful look at your post - you come close to arguing that some crimes are so serious that we shouldn't be disciplined in the effort to figure out whether people accused of them actually committed them. This is how Guy-Paul Morin got nailed: 'Look at that awful crime - and that evil b*stard!'


----------



## kincanucks (27 Mar 2005)

_is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board._

BS and give it a rest.


----------



## camochick (27 Mar 2005)

pcain said:
			
		

> You're playing with semantics: the point, as I said,   is that the officers who will try this case are drawn from potential readers of the board. As a private citizen, I'd prefer that the people who are making a decision about guilt v. innocence aren't exposed to morbid speculation about what the penalty should be after conviction in the period before the trial actually begins.
> 
> *Big Foot*: full points to you for standing up and admitting and correcting a mistake, which is far more important AFAIC than making it in the first place: I'm sure you'll make an excellent officer. As for the rest of it, I think you need to come back and take a careful look at your post - you come close to arguing that some crimes are so serious that we shouldn't be disciplined in the effort to figure out whether people accused of them actually committed them. This is how Guy-Paul Morin got nailed: 'Look at that awful crime - and that evil b*stard!'




I doubt very much that anyone working on this case, or who will be involved in the trial is going to listen to the rantings of a few posters on a msg board. Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty but people also have the right to express an opinion. I dont see how this site is going to affect this persons trial in any way.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Mar 2005)

Have to agree with you Camochick.

If being "exposed to morbid comments on army.ca" is going to derail the case and fill the juries heads with horrible things thus ruining the trial, well come on. Are these people adults or children. If they are so brainwashed as to let these kinda comments influence them, well they shouldn't be allowed in a court room.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

"people also have the right to express an opinion. I dont see how this site is going to affect this persons trial in any way."

Unless, of course, we start stocking courts-martial from the Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corps. ;D

After the last one in Wainwright, we might as well be.

Tom


----------

