Death penalty? Inmate suicide precedes child porn indictment
-
Willis E. Coley, 26, appears to have killed himself 15 days before an indictment on child pornography charges.Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Jail -
In uniform: Army SPC Willis E. Coley in a photo posted on his MySpace account.MySpace
An inmate, a soldier who allegedly trafficked in violent child pornography, has been found dead in the solitary ward at the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail. Officials say that Willis E. Coley of Alexandria apparently committed suicide August 2, nearly nine months after his arrest and two weeks away from a federal indictment.
A 27-year-old U.S. Army Specialist, Coley was a military photographer and reporter whose work is featured on numerous websites. But it was his use of another online application that brought the charge that preceded his death.
According to the November 17 complaint filed in U.S. DIstrict Court, a Charlottesville police detective doing undercover work discovered Coley online on a peer-to-peer file sharing service and then convinced him to provide a password to his locked files. According to the complaint, Detective Nicholas Rudman uncovered a video chamber of horrors including one file entitled "6Yo Girl Kidnaped and Raped in Woods.mpg" and another called "9Yo Jenny Blows Dad & Dog.mpg."
The complaint reveals that "Jenny," according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has been identified. Since 2002, a team of analysts at the Center has, with the aid of law enforcement, identified 3,700 children in such images, according to Center official John Shehan.
"Peer-to-peer file-sharing is a major challenge for law enforcement," says Shehan. "This is a global effort."
During a search of his apartment, Coley allegedly admitted to possessing the gruesome images and directed FBI agents and police officers to an external computer hard drive that contained additional horrors, including one video of a prepubescent girl getting anally raped.
"The child appears to be crying," states the complaint.
According to the Jail's Lt. Col. Roland Beauford, inmates on the four-cell "segregation" unit which housed Coley– along with accused UVA lacrosse killer George Huguely– spend almost all their time, including mealtime, in the cells, which contain a bed, sink, and toilet. Beauford says the inmates are checked every 30 minutes, and a guard observed that Coley was "fine" during one check, but on the next trip discovered him hanging from a torn bedsheet. Beauford says that revival efforts, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of an automated external defibrillator, were to no avail.
"Our goal is to keep everyone safe," says Beauford, who notes that Coley was not on suicide watch and had previously been "nondisruptive."
Charged with a single count of transporting child pornography, Coley could have faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted. An investigation into his death, conducted by Albemarle County police, is ongoing.
The last time someone died in the local jail was December 2010 when a 60-year-old man– serving a 30-day marijuana sentence– was found unresponsive in his cell.
37 comments
Another victim of moral panic inspired "thought crime" laws..
What in the frack goes wrong in somebody's upbringing that they could ever even look at this sort of material. Soulless. I can't even imagine. Just reading the descriptions and my hand shot up and covered my mouth and my eyes bugged out.
Clearly a sick individual, but anyone housed in this manner, at this age, would seem to be a suicide risk, and isn't treatment a better answer than this ?
inmates on the four-cell "segregation" unit which housed Coley-- ... spend almost all their time, including mealtime, in the cells, which contain a bed, sink, and toilet.
I think nine months in an 8' by 5' cell would be enough to cause anybody to commit suicide. That, combined with the prospect of doing 19 more years and 3 months of it.
And I have to wonder with all the dirt cheap technology out here now, why are the cells not monitored by video cameras linked into the main control room? Having been in the main control room myself on occasions too numerous to recall, I don't think I would have trouble adding the observation of a few more video monitors to my list of duties.
The guy in the control room still has to stay awake to watch video monitors.
Having just woke up from my afternoon nap, that sounds like a job I definately wouldn't have. Are you sure the control room employees have to stay awake the entire 40 hours they work each week? That would kill me for sure. I couldn't do it. Back when I had gubment job it was all I could do to give them a good 20 hours a week of work. Come to think of it, it's all that was really expected from all of us. The sheriffs had it much better than any of us had it though. You could never find any of them between 10:00 a.m. and noon, and never after 1:00 p.m. One particular sheriff couldn't fool us though.... whenever we needed him all we had to do was ride around to his rental properties one by one until we finally found him.
This is indeed a vulgar, vile and despicable crime. All images of violence against children are grotesque, no matter how deviant. Law enforcement arrests online traders at a staggering rate. When are we going to stop pointing the finger and realize that we have a huge population of people surrounding us that need serious mental help? Incarceration will not stop this crime.
I'm sorry,but anyone that gets their gratification by watching the pain and torture of a small child gets no sympathy from me.These people that have a thing for children are never cured.It is a sickness for the rest of their wretched lives.I wish people would stop acting like this guy is the victim.He was a nasty pervert and we're better off without him.Good riddance.
RePost from Another:
These guys who get caught chatting online with a detective posing as a minor are not a huge national problem like the police want you to think they are. How many 14 year old girls really meet a 50 year old? They don't. It is just a fantasy, plain and simple. These guys NEVER reoffend after getting caught. They literally have a ZERO percent recidivism rate. We should be spending more on our kids education than on tens of thousands of police officers to play around on the internet pretending to be a minor.
I personally know some of these detectives and their cases are drying up so they just get creative and use very attractive older teens over 15 to lure more men so that they can keep fresh cases coming. This is not about protecting any children, this is simply political. These agencies just jumped on the bandwagon after that popular tv show we all know about. They have already ruined thousands of mens lives over this fictitious crime. These guys don't need to be labeled molesters, these guys never even victimized a real victim. It is all overhyped and overblown. We should be focusing on the real molesters we catch and kidnappers, rapists and murderers. Not even former murderers or former terrorists have to register on any sort of registry. That is just ridiculous.
.
Good, glad he is dead. He finally did the right thing. Saves the taxpayers money.
Too Common, a lot of what you say in your last paragraph is true.
And they are also doing it to keep the federal grants rolling in.
Well, now, "this crime is too common" has found another anonymous internet comment alleging that these perpetrators never reoffend. Case closed!
Apparently this person didn't read the hook a few weeks ago?
These criminals have a nearly %100 recidivism rate. Whether or not you believe incarceration is the answer, removal from society DEFINITELY is. There is no treatment for their pedophilia and, frankly, society does not owe them "treatment".
Frankly, some people deserve to die. There, I said it. I don't give a rat's patuty about this @-hole and I don't care what he did before he got off on watching children suffer in this unspeakable way
But I am disturbed by the hook's headline. It certainly seems to be an attempt to provoke sympathy for this alleged child sex-abuse perpetrator. It definitely wouldn't be the first time that the hook published a story that appeared to have sympathy for alleged child sex abuse perpetrators. In fact, I believe it's the exact same reporter.
What's up with that?
I kinda like the fact that The Hook was the first local source to uncover this story. I see both TV stations and the Daily Progress have picked up on it thanks to Courteney's hard work. Why was this suicide covered up for a week?
@meanwhile, you're full of it, if there is a 100% recidivism rate, why is it you can go on a sex offender registry and see hundreds of little red dots of people who have lived for years without being arrested again?
Also how does this registry "protect the children" when most child molestation cases are perpetrated by immediate family members? Most people on these registries are NOT child molesters but men who sought out adult prostitutes, wizzed behind a bush, slept with their 16yo girlfriend when they were 18 or 19 etc.
Also if you have ever downloaded a jihad video like Daniel Parl getting his head sawed off, well guess what, yoh're a sick SOB too.
Wow! I had no idea that there were people out there that had an opinion on this subject that was other than what "meanwhile" expressed! I really thought everyone had jumped on the bandwagon to lynch anyone that ended up on the sex offender list!! This will definitely be a thread I will continue to watch!
@ This Crime is too Common -
Unfortunately "this crime" that you speak of is not applicable in this situation. You're talking about detectives baiting men over the internet with promises of teens. This guy was knowingly in possession of, and was knowingly involved in the trading of, very hardcore nasty child pornography of the worst kind. Apples and oranges. Try to keep up.
Anybody who would possess or promote the swapping of this kind of material is in a way, almost as guilty as the guys who make it because they're encouraging it. They're acting as the demand, thus encouraging more supply. Granted, the pedos would continue to make this stuff regardless, but still, anybody who downloads and swaps this stuff around is playing their part too.
Mike, where did I say that all people on the sex offender registry list have %100 recidivism rate?
You're employing a logical fallacy. I didn't say what you're saying I said.
For ANYONE who is in denial that a young child comes in routine contact with a 50 yrs old is so out of touch!!! Yes I mean you "This Crime is to Common" and your stupid remark! Anyone who even remotely sticks up for this man for his pervesion against children is probably hiding something! Who gives a rats @$$ if there were cameras in the cell area or not, people like this are MORE than welcome to hang themselves if they want. There is NO CURE for this type of individual. Once you are striken with the desire, uncontrollable or otherwise to watch someone sexually molest another human being, much less a child then I'll happily agree to let them knot the rope!!!
I think this topic is worthy of discussion in a humane and solution oriented manner. Children are being harmed and the efforts to protect them are not working. To think that we can round up and kill/imprison the violators against children (with contact or no contact) is ignorant.
Maybe talking with a sex offender to hear what they have to say would enlighten the readers. Would the Hook be willing to interview an incarcerated offender who has no charges of touching, but instead viewing/trading online?
A topic like this really brings out the low brow reactionary bigots among the readership. Truly critical thinking doesn't come naturally to people and it is seldom taught in today's educational system.
Among the popular sophistries is the moral equivalency argument that says the casual online dabbler is as guilty as the producers. This of course is the same thinking that fuels the handing out of draconian sentences to casual users in the "drug war". In their case, during the rule of the smirking chimp, we even had ads equating recreational drug use with support for terrorism.
re:"Among the popular sophistries is the moral equivalency argument that says the casual online dabbler is as guilty as the producers."
This guy is (sorry, "WAS") not a casual online dabbler, clearly.
Among your sophistries is morally equating child rape with recreational drug use.
I hope he suffered before he died
"This of course is the same thinking that fuels the handing out of draconian sentences to casual users in the "drug war"."
To compare sexual deviant behavior and anti-establishment behavior minimizes the crime against humanity. Draconian justice should be bestowed on the "casual pedeophile" as well as the people that produce it.
There are organizations all around the world trying to bring this type of behavior to the mainstream as normal and they use naive adults to help their cause. Free thinkers who look down upon us small folk are the worst for entertaining their deviant thoughts.
Low brow mentality? Probably. Should child rape mean certain death? Definitely.
@ Angel Eyes
While I myself don't care for the hysterical mob mentality one tends to find online and have spoken out against it, at the same time I find your glib defense of somebody who dabbles in hardcore child pornography to be.....curious.
"This of course is the same thinking that fuels the handing out of draconian sentences to casual users in the "drug war". In their case, during the rule of the smirking chimp, we even had ads equating recreational drug use with support for terrorism."
I'm in agreement with you about draconian drug sentences being handed down to casual users, however, pointing out the authorities' over-the-top level of response to one type of crime does not somehow justify an argument about the response given to another, completely unrelated and very different level of crime.
The fact that you can't seem to differentiate between "drug crimes" and "raping helpless children on video crimes" and think that one is a good example to compare the other one to means you're not the superior, sophisticated intellect you try to posture yourself as.
People who engage in the trade of child pornography are not merely engaging in a "thought crime" as you like to try to portray things. They're helping to create demand for the product. If you've paid attention to some of the cases going on out there, there are pedos who get into chats with cops who are posing as other pedos, and they will offer up streaming vids of themselves molesting kids, live. In one case I read about the cop had to actually watch as this live time video of a child being raped came up on his computer. But it goes to show, people who merely "watch" are in many cases creating a demand, sometimes a live-time demand, for a crime that is one of *the* worst ones possible. The viewer may never have ever laid a hand on the victimized child........but they sat there and watched somebody else did, created a demand for the product, and in a number of cases encouraged live-time rapings to happen, egging things on.
If this were a murder case, that person would be considered an accomplice or an accessory.
Not sure why you don't seem to grasp that. Unless of course, you've got something to defend? And Willis Coley's situation hits a little too close to home for you?
*In one case I read about the...
should be:
In one case I read about how the....
and then
*but they sat there and watched somebody else did...
should be:
but they sat there and watched as somebody else did...
Wish we could edit our comments....!
So much for innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. You read something in the paper and now you see a convict not an inmate, someone who is no longer around to defend himself. How do you folks know he wasn't framed and murdered? Happens to soldiers quite often. Maybe this guy knew something and planned to go public with it. You wouldn't read a report from Courteney Stuart about that if it was the case, I guarantee you. You'd read the official story.
I am glad this guy is dead. He crossed the line. However I think too common and angel eyes make some good points.
There is a huge difference between someone watching porn and someone watching real rape of a minor. There is also a difference between a 18 year old who has consensual sex with as 16 year old and gets labeled as a sex offender and a 40 year old who stalks a 15 year old online and tries to hook up. We need to fix that, even if it is by labeling the types of sex offense clearly on the registry.
They gave that UVA kid jail for viewing kiddie porn in the privacy of his own home, where he found it for free, showed it to no one, and never contacted another human being about it. That to me is the government going too far. It is thought police. Yes he shoud have been given probation and had his internet histaory avialable to police for 10 years but to send him to jail was too much.
Should we arrest anyone who watches children getting slaughtered in afghanastan by the taliban?
I am all for capitol punishment for pedophiles but wew need to have an adult conversation about it.
I have heard about wives who download this crap on their husbands laptop and then call the cops to get custody.
A very slippery slope.
@ John Guiliano and bill marshall
Actually you both make very good points, about how people can be framed for stuff. And it's true that a lot of women know no limit in how low they will stoop when going after an ex in divorce court. It's off topic, but this has been discussed in the comments section of another Hook story awhile back, and how for instance a lot of women will accuse their exes of molesting their kids to gain the upperhand in divorce proceedings. So yes, one always has to keep that in mind, and you're right in that it's not fair to just assume he was guilty. There is always the chance that he wasn't. None of us were the arresting officers, we weren't there that day when they showed up at his apartment, nobody here can verify that he admitted to any of what the arresting officers claim that he admitted to, so we'll never really know. We're all just having to take the authorities' word for it, unfortunately.
We use to call them servants of the public way back when.
bill marshall: stiff penalties for this crime represent the will of the people. You may disagree, but society has deemed this crime to be deserving of such a harsh sentence.
The fact is that some people WILL be deterred from pursuing child porn because of the harsh sentence.
Imagine if probation was offered for child porn offenses. Police would not investigate the crime. They aren't going to bother to investigate if the perpetrators aren't removed from society. It would be a waste of their resources. Thee idly curious would not fear to pursue child porn. The stigma would be diminished. The fear of being caught would be diminished. The fear of punishment, if you were caught, would be diminished.
This would lead to a greater ubiquity for this filth and, ultimately, a greater demand for its production. In other words, reducing the penalty for child porn will lead DIRECTLY to more children being raped.
I think if you thought it through and were honest, you'd see this. This is PRECISELY why the punishment is so severe. The people that lobbied for and passed the legislation that required stiff penalties for this crime new exactly what they were doing.
You can claim it's a "thought crime", but you cannot deny that it is a crime that requires that a child gets raped. Snuffing out this crime (or at least attempting to) is a priority for society, hence the harsh penalties.
It's a little disingenuous to use the fact that there are so many pedophiles as an argument against punishment for this crime. It is in no way a victimless crime. These chumps deserve what they get.
As if it isn't hard enough on the family already having their son, brother, grandson, etc. die, you guys are only punishing the family more by your hurtful comments. Please keep them to yourselves.
thank you worm!
I hpe he suffered before he died
gsoe- for moment there I thought you were an air traffic controller.............
Truly, the more important point of this article would be is why were the correction's officers derelict of their duties? Per their policy they are to make rounds every 15 minutes - not 30 minutes. Now, this particular guy and his crimes, I feel the same as many here - perhaps this was justice BUT his family now has a wrongful death claim against not just the Jail, the officers involved, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville.
The reason the HOOK reported this first is because they are not in the "back pocket" of Matthews who is ultimately the one responsible for the fact that his officers did not follow policy. And this isn't the first instance under Matthew's reign. There have been several because this man should not be in the position.
This is the "man" who when inmates took his officers hostage told others, "Don't let them see me!" As he hid behind his officers? What a leader! This is the "leader" who told the Charlottesville/Albemarle SWAT that they couldn't go in to rescue two of his officers with guns? What do you think SWAT is? John Isom was a much better leader. They hired Matthews because he took the job at a rate under the offering salary - now it will cost them more - already has.
The bigger issue is we have this dip in charge of the Charlottesville/Albemarle County Regional Jail. It will not be long before something even bigger happens if they don't get rid of him over this incident. (This will cost us all and has been - in taxes that will pay for these suits.)
These were electronic images transmitted over the internet, downloadable or simply viewable by anyone with a computer along with a plethora of other ugly stuff. making it into a capital crime by rationalizing that it strikes at the core of our "civilization" is simply 21st. century equivalency of Torquemada's campaign against heresy. There was a time when possession of "homo-erotica" such as pictures of men buggering each other was viewed the same way and punished with stiff jail sentences, and a time when practicing homosexuality was dealt with harshly, and these things were rationalized the same way...maybe some of you think they still should be.
Looking at dirty pictures doesn't equate to doing the things depicted, but now under law, the punishments being the same, they are viewed as the same. What sort of penalties should we have for having snuff films on the hard drive?
And just in case...I am not gay, OK? And furthermore I am personally grossed out by porn of all types and have no personal dog in the fight. This is all about justice and proportionality.