# CF Member Charged With Child Porn-Aug 6th- 2008



## NCRCrow (7 Aug 2008)

Military officer in N.B. charged with child pornography offences
6 hours ago

FREDERICTON — An officer based at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown in New Brunswick has been charged with child pornography offences.

Second Lt. Joel Robert Charlebois has been charged by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service with three offences under the Criminal Code relating to making available, possessing and accessing child pornography.

A Defence Department release states that although Charlebois is a serving member of the Canadian Forces, the alleged offences were committed when he was off duty and did not involve the use of any military computers.

Capt. Paule Poulin of military public affairs says Charlebois' case will be handled by a civilian court.

The offences are alleged to have occurred between August 2007 and February 2008.

Maj. Brian Frei of the investigation service says military police investigate any allegations of child pornography related to Canadian Forces' members, defence department employees and defence establishments.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Aug 2008)

You really ought to make the thread title a wee bit more descriptive.  



> A Defence Department release states that although Charlebois is a serving member of the Canadian Forces, *the alleged offences were committed when he was off duty* and did not involve the use of any military computers.



So what?  That makes it okay??


----------



## Snafu-Bar (7 Aug 2008)

That's called damage control on the part of the CF. Distancing itself from WHERE it happened is all it accompishes.

 The fact he's got child porn on his systems at home does nothing to help the military though.


----------



## fire_guy686 (7 Aug 2008)

Pretty disgusting. That about sums up my thoughts about it all.


----------



## GAP (7 Aug 2008)

In the grand scheme of things....there going to be the same percentage of all types of people both in and out of the CF.

Unless it is a really big bust or just local, you seldom hear about most of the civilians charged, but you sure hear about CF members.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
> The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.



Don't quite see what that has to do with it at all actually.  The only excusable case of someone looking up pornography of a 15-17 year old person, *might* be if the suspect was that age as well.  Even then, its not right, and the line is drawn, at an early age in my opinion(ever since I turned 18 and still look at all my 18 year old friends as "kids"), and this man crossed it.  Good, I'm glad to see the proficiency we appear to have in catching these people.

Cheers, Kyle

EDIT:  Sheerin, that first sentence sounds a little antagonistic I apologize.  It is meant to read "I don't think it should make a difference what age the underage kids are"

Cheers!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Now I wonder if this was child porn in the sense it was little kids, or if it was "child" porn of 17 year olds.
> The former is inexcusable, the later, I don't know.



He broke the law, plain and simple.  Its one of those black and white issues.  NO grey.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Don't quite see what that has to do with it at all actually.  The only excusable case of someone looking up pornography of a 15-17 year old person, *might* be if the suspect was that age as well.  Even then, its not right, and the line is drawn, at an early age in my opinion(ever since I turned 18 and still look at all my 18 year old friends as "kids"), and this man crossed it.  Good, I'm glad to see the proficiency we appear to have in catching these people.
> 
> Cheers, Kyle



Actually my point was that it is quite easy to come across porn of 17 year olds on the internet, which is where the excusable part comes in.  Now of course if he had something like 5000 images of girls who clearly looked below the age of 18 then yeah that's a different story.  Another would be if he knowly talked to those teenagers and had them take photos of themselves and give it to him.  
But given the fact he was arrested, would tend to indicate that a reasonable person would have assumed the individuals were <18 years old.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> He broke the law, plain and simple.  Its one of those black and white issues.  NO grey.



I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who has seen internet porn has at one point or another has unknowingly stumbled across images of what could be classified as child porn (ie: models who weren't quite 18), does that make everyone a criminal?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

Maybe thats enough speculation and 'what ifs'.  A commissioned officer was charged with an offence under the CC and is being dealt with accordingly.

No grey area.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Actually my point was that it is quite easy to come across porn of 17 year olds on the internet



No I don't think so.  Most reputable pornography sites are very professional and advertise in plain sight that all their "models" or "actors" are of age.



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> Now of course if he had something like 5000 images of girls who clearly looked below the age of 18 then yeah that's a different story.



I don't think the quantity of pictures should matter.  It certainly doesn't to the law.



			
				Sheerin said:
			
		

> But given the fact he was arrested, would tend to indicate that a reasonable person would have assumed the individuals were <18 years old.



Absolutely, more often than not, the people who get caught doing this get caught because they go to great length to find the images, talk to the wrong people, and get busted.  You're average fella who might type in "underage woman" into the Google Images bar is most likely not gonna get docked like this guy.

Cheers


EDIT:  In regards to your comment about accidentally stumbling upon underage girls.  Its actually the *opposite* thats reality.  Sites or adds that post images of woman who appear to be a lot younger then they are.  Its a marketing tool they use.  So in actuality its a lot more likely to stumble across a picture with the age "17" on it when the woman in question is actually older.  As I said, child pornography is a crime ring just like any other, with a lot of money to be made in it.  You *have* to look for it to find it in that amounts we see on these suspects computers.  And some of them just get caught, thank god.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> No I don't think so.  Most reputable pornography sites are very professional and advertise in plain site that all their "models" or "actors" are of age.



While they may advertise that, doesn't mean that all porn on the internet came from professional "Studios", just look at a place like xtube, I've never posted anything on there so I can't say for certain, but I highly doubt the owners of that site go to your home and make sure they have a look at all birth certificates and IDs to make sure all the "models" are of age.  



			
				MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> I don't think the quantity of pictures should matter.  It certainly doesn't to the law.



While you have a point there, it wasn't exactly what I was going for.  there may in fact be a difference when it comes to quantity.  If he had 5000+ photos of girls who all looked under age then yes, it's a clear cut case.  now if he had say 1 then it could be aruged it was downloaded by accident.  Particularly if he had multiple thousands of images/movies of people who were of age.




			
				MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> Absolutely, more often than not, the people who get caught doing this get caught because they go to great length to find the images, talk to the wrong people, and get busted.  You're average fella who might type in "underage woman" into the Google Images bar is most likely not gonna get docked like this guy.



A lot of people get caught that way, also a lot of people get caught when they send their computer off for servicing and someone just happens to find the file that is most likely titled "misc".  





> EDIT
> :  In regards to your comment about accidentally stumbling upon underage girls.  Its actually the opposite thats reality.  Sites or adds that post images of woman who appear to be a lot younger then they are.  Its a marketing tool they use.  So in actuality its a lot more likely to stumble across a picture with the age "17" on it when the woman in question is actually older.  As I said, child pornography is a crime ring just like any other, with a lot of money to be made in it.  You have to look for it to find it in that amounts we see on these suspects computers.  And some of them just get caught, thank god.



Again you're thinking of professional websites, but there are a huge number of amateur websites that feature models who take photos of themselves, or whatever.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Aug 2008)

I mean you do have some good points, I'm just trying to stress that in my opinion the people who get caught are most always guilty.  They have usually been tracked for quite a while, and then they slip up and get busted.  And also, most of these cases are linked to "child porn" and I mean like really vulgar age 6-10 stuff.  Its a good thing he can't plead ignorance and say that she "looked 18."  Either way I'm just glad its one more off the web.

Cheers


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

MedTechStudent said:
			
		

> I mean you do have some good points, I'm just trying to stress that in my opinion the people who get caught are most always guilty.  They have usually been tracked for quite a while, and then they slip up and get busted.  And also, most of these cases are linked to "child porn" and I mean like really vulgar age 6-10 stuff.  Its a good thing he can't plead ignorance and say that she "looked 18."  Either way I'm just glad its one more off the web.
> 
> Cheers



You're most likely right, and it will come down to whether or not a reasonable person would say the models are of age.  And chances are he was looking at kids, but we don't know.  If it was little kids then good riddence.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> You're most likely right, and it will come down to whether or not a reasonable person would say the models are of age.  And chances are he was looking at kids, but we don't know.  If it was little kids then good riddence.



+1

Good thing we have a legal system that will get to the bottom of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

FFS  :

*NOTHING* was mentioned about him looking at models.  BUT you two have now 'suggested' that enough that it is becoming part of this thread to the point people will forget only YOU two (MedTechStudent and Sheerin) have debated it even though it has no relevance and isn't even mentioned in the article!  At MacDonalds, its called "suggestive selling" and while it may work to move more Apple Pies per month, this thread isn't the place for it IMO.

Arguing/debating the age, context, etc as you are is *USELESS* and *IRRELEVANT* to the FACTS; he was investigated for breaking a law, is being charged, and it relates to child pornography.

Period.  Thats it.  Full stop.

Enough of the blind, drunk and dizzy "pin the tail on the donkey" speculation please.


----------



## MedTechStudent (8 Aug 2008)

EDIT: Fine, toodles


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> FFS  :
> 
> *NOTHING* was mentioned about him looking at models.  BUT you two have now 'suggested' that enough that it is becoming part of this thread to the point people will forget only YOU two (MedTechStudent and Sheerin) have debated it even though it has no relevance and isn't even mentioned in the article!  At MacDonalds, its called "suggestive selling" and while it may work to move more Apple Pies per month, this thread isn't the place for it *IMO*.
> 
> ...



Well we don't know all the facts now do we?  and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a little discussion, in my personal opinion. 

I've also taken the liberty of highlighting the most important portion of your rant...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

Its not discussion its speculation and to the point where you've thrown the term 'models' into the issue and made it appear to be part of the equation.

I disagree with your highlighted word and would suggest the word *FACTS *  is the key word in my post, something none of your posts were centered around.

What it is is what it is.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Its not discussion its speculation and to the point where you've thrown the term 'models' into the issue and made it appear to be part of the equation.
> 
> I disagree with your highlighted word and would suggest the word FACTS is the key word in my post, something none of your posts were centered around.
> 
> What it is is what it is.



Well the term model has many uses, and I have yet to see how it was misused in this particular thread.    
As for facts.  Well we don't have very many facts, now do we?  All we know is that an individual has been arrested and chaged (not convicted mind you) of possession of child porn, accessing  pornography, and making it available.  That could have multple meanings, he could have had unwittingly accessing porn that featured models who were underage and saved it to his computer, and he could have had a program like kazaa running which could explain the maxing available charge.  
It could also mean he had a tonne of images showing little kids saved to his harddrive and that he was actively engaged in trading images with other perverts across the web.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

*sigh*


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Well the term model has many uses, and I have yet to see how it was misused in this particular thread.



With respect to this particular thread, I have yet to find a definition for "model" that suitable includes the definition of "victim".  Semantic wordplay does not change the fact that your digression adds misleading factors to the discussion that were not provided in the original report.

Gentlemen, if you wish to continue, take this sidebar discussion to PMs.


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> With respect to this particular thread, I have yet to find a definition for "model" that suitable includes the definition of "victim".  Semantic wordplay does not change the fact that your digression adds misleading factors to the discussion that were not provided in the original report.
> 
> Gentlemen, if you wish to continue, take this sidebar discussion to PMs.



Well i figured it would have been clear that my use of the term model was not meant to be used to describe little kids who are forced into child pornography.  Rather it was used for those who were of age (or thereabouts like 17 year olds) and were consenting.  

I also figured, perhaps erroneously, that people on this board here would be able to tell the difference between speculation and reported facts.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Well i figured it would have been clear that my use of the term model was not meant to be used to describe little kids who are forced into child pornography.  Rather it was used for those who were of age (or thereabouts like 17 year olds) and were consenting.
> 
> I also figured, perhaps erroneously, that people on this board here would be able to tell the difference between speculation and reported facts.



When you post, start by assuming that if something might be interpreted differently than you intended, then it will be by some or all readers.  Unless you specifically add context, the fault for any misinterpretation is your's, the poster's, not the reader's.  Stop trying to deflect the error unto others, I am about one post away from removing all mention of "models" from this thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

Sheerin,

I ask you to remember that 1) an Officer of the CF is at the center of this 2) there are hundreds of guests that frequent this site 3) the debate was leading to what is/isn't acceptable, discussed by members of this forum and people can misinterpret our words.  I know where  you were going but others would use your words, albeit discussion and speculation, against the CF as a whole, the mbr in question and any of us, as we, unofficially, represent a cross section of the CF on this forum.

EITS


----------



## Sheerin (8 Aug 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sheerin,
> 
> I ask you to remember that 1) an Officer of the CF is at the center of this 2) there are hundreds of guests that frequent this site 3) the debate was leading to what is/isn't acceptable, discussed by members of this forum and people can misinterpret our words.  I know where  you were going but others would use your words, albeit discussion and speculation, against the CF as a whole, the mbr in question and any of us, as we, unofficially, represent a cross section of the CF on this forum.
> 
> EITS



You make some excellent points there.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

I'm starting to get old and feeble.  I have to make sense some of the time, or I will get left on an ice flow next winter...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2008)

The facts that stand are the military investigation had reasonable and probable grounds to indicate an offence has been committed. DJAG had enough evidence, from the investigation, to lay charges of offence, as stated.

Anything else, unless you're involved is speculation, not discussion, of an ongoing investigation and prosecution.

This thread is about this case and the facts that are known, as decimated by the media. Nothing else.

Sheerin, 

If you want to open another thread and defend child porn, it's purveyors and users, go ahead. Prepare to defend your stance. I'm sure there are plenty here to tear down your word game arguments.

As to this case, it is open and real, and not related to your semantic dissertations on a disgusting subject.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2008)

Thread subject could have used more work.

Sounded as if you implied "Yet ANOTHER member of the Canadian Forces is a pedophile"

It sucks that what this CF member does on his own time ends up reflecting poorly on the CF. Leading subject titles don't help IMO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Aug 2008)

You are right,..and so it has been changed.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Aug 2008)

Thank you.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Aug 2008)

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDavJqANKUk-YQD4fITBedDSLExw
> 
> 
> The offences are alleged to have occurred between August 2007 and February 2008.



Given 1) the timelines of the alleged offences and 2) the rank of the accused it is somewhat possible that the mbr MAY have been just entering, or had not of been sworn in yet, into the CF, yet now is.  


Regardless, what we do have is the facts as presented.  Personally, it doesn't matter to me when the mbr committed the alleged offence(s), what does matter is that they are sick and distasteful at best, and I would add to this that I have a 7 year old child.  When she is 17 I will hold the same opinion as a Canadian citizen, and as a then 29 year mbr of the CF.

Aside from the facts as presented that we know at this time, I would suggest that it is a fact that this does not reflect positively on the CF.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The facts that stand are the military investigation had reasonable and probable grounds to indicate an offence has been committed. DJAG had enough evidence, from the investigation, to lay charges of offence, as stated.
> 
> Anything else, unless you're involved is speculation, not discussion, of an ongoing investigation and prosecution.
> 
> ...



At no point did i ever defend child porn, or it's purveyors and users.  The fact that you worded it that way and in the public forum rather than through PM suggests to me that you want to sully my name on this forum.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2008)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> At no point did i ever defend child porn, or it's purveyors and users.  The fact that you worded it that way and in the public forum rather than through PM suggests to me that you want to sully my name on this forum.



As you've posted yourself in the open forum, I'll respond here instead of to your PM.

You're reading too much into it. You decided to derail the discussion with semantics and word games. I simply allowed you the opportunity to start a thread in defence of your stance, and to let this thread remain on topic.

Nothing personal.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Aug 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As you've posted yourself in the open forum, I'll respond here instead of to your PM.
> 
> You're reading too much into it. You decided to derail the discussion with semantics and word games. I simply allowed you the opportunity to start a thread in defence of your stance, and to let this thread remain on topic.
> 
> Nothing personal.



Well before my post this thread didn't really have much substance to it other than "eww that disgusting" posts.  It was a train wreck to begin with, so I don't see how it could have been derailed, but that's beside the point.  
Like I said in my PM my only concern is that someone who only read your post and didn't read the rest of the thread could easily come away with the impression that I was for child pornography, which I clearly am not.  However, if you say that wasn't your intention, I'll take your word for as you seem to be an honourable individual.


----------

