Below-belt trend stymies porn case?
Write a letter to the editor
The 20 charges of child pornography possession against former Peace Lutheran associate pastor Gregory Briehl (shown here) are now down to 16 counts. Albemarle Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Jon Zug asked that four counts be dropped today because a doctor who’d examined the photos was pretty sure those women were not under 18 years old.
Zug also asked for a continuance because he forgot to subpoena witnesses he says are experts: Dr. Nancy McLaren and Dyan Aretakis from UVA’s Teen Health Center.
The hearing in front of Judge Paul Peatross was to determine whether testimony from those witnesses would be admissible at trial. Peatross granted a continuance.
No trial date has been set for Briehl, who was arrested July 18, 2006, and has already been found guilty of two counts of surreptitious videotaping in his home and sentenced to 60 days in jail.
The defense contends that it’s not obvious that the females depicted in the images are under age, and objects to the testimony of Dr. McLaren, who has examined the pictures. Her determination of age would be based on foot, hip, and breast size, says Briehl’s attorney, Rhonda Quagliana.
“You can’t see any pubic hair,” Quagliana said. It was not clear in court whether that was because the models were clothed or because, like many 21st century women, they favored the popular [warning: graphic nudity in this link] Brazilian look.
Zug contended that the witnesses may not be able to say whether a female is under 18, but can testify about developmental stages.
Zug forgot to subpoena witnesses? This sure makes Denise Lunsford look good in her first few months in office as our new Commonwealth Attorney.
Denise, get your office cleaned up. Don’t let these assistants pull a Camblos on you!
Gross.
I just watched a story on our local news about a 24-year-old school teacher in South Carolina who had sex with 14 and 15 year old students. The teacher doesn’t look a day over 16 years old in my opinion. How does one tell how old a girl really is?
See link… look at her baby face picture….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331239,00.html
I was shocked when I went to the “Brazilian” link you provided in this article. If that’s not pornographic, what is?
Please, please, please remove that link!
Hmm, interesting point. However, when I think of pornography (which isn’t tooooo often), I typically think of the interaction between bodies. But, for the sake of folks who expect Wikipedia to be a bastion less of images than of informative words, I have added the following text before the link: [warning: graphic nudity in this link]. Hope that helps. (And I also hope the Hook doesn’t get arrested like those naughty merchants in Staunton, and I hope I don’t get interrogated by the General Assembly, and… and…)
Glad that there are people cracking down on this kind of crap. It gives the industry a bad name~