The businessman does not appear to have been arrested at this point, so his name and the address of the business, which was the subject of the search, will not be provided in this post.
The businessman came on the Sheriff's Office radar after his wife told a deputy she had seen 221 images in her husband's deleted photo folder featuring girls age approximately 13 to 15 years old, but when she looked again the next morning she saw 40 photos with girls age 5 to 8.
"(She) said she saw child victims who were posed nude and partially nude, adult males having sex with minor aged children" and photos of the young girls performing oral sex on the men.
Deputies interviewed the man at his place of business August 31, according to the search warrant affidavit. told him what they had discovered and read him his Miranda rights.
The businessman told the deputies he visited pornography websites regularly and had been visiting them earlier that day. "(He) stated during the interview he had seen young teens engaged in sexual acts and admitted there was a strong possibility his cell phone possessed images of child pornography from him viewing the images on pornography websites."
He consented to have his phone searched, but couldn't find out. After the interview, however, he texted his wife several times, according to the affidavit.
The businessman contacted the sheriff's office later and said he had searched everywhere but he could not find his phone.
After the wife found the phone and turned it over to the sheriff's office, a search warrant was obtained and 1,076 child pornography images were found on the phone, including one of an adult man having sex with an infant.
The phone also contained normal photos of his family, according to the affidavit.
11 comments:
It's obvious he was hacked....
They never give the name when its a "businessman"
The "they" you are referring to is me. This post came directly from court records, but it has been my policy not to name someone until an arrest is made. This is not a decision being made by anyone in law enforcement or in the courts. When I receive confirmation that an arrest has been made, I will post the name. As an example of this policy, I ran a post in 2015 about a similar search warrant being executed on a Neosho businessman, but I did not post the name. The minute that Bruce Altman's arrest was confirmed, I posted it. I come across many of these search warrants in federal and state court records. I do not write about all of them, but when there is a particular note of interest, such as the search of being someone who is prominent in the community, or someone being involved in a job that puts him or her in direct contact with children, I will generally write a post. It also means that a search warrant concerning someone who is not a businessman, someone prominent, or a teacher/minister, etc. will probably not be mentioned in any post at all until the arrest is made.
You're so ethical...
Well it didn't take me long to find out exactly who it was which isn't the point thank you Randy for not putting names out on your post so I really appreciate that that you keep the names Anonymous and just report what's going on thank you
Is this a businessman or preacher?
I think it is a preacher...something sex related happened at 633 n peal which is the first baptist church.
Thank you for explaining your policy. It now makes sense and is a fair process.
633 n Pearl is not first Baptist
Yeah, his soul was hacked to do such evil stuff as collect these pictures!! :o(
Not a preacher, truly a business man and doesn't typically work with children thank God.
Post a Comment