GUILTY MO - Martin Cordry indicted for child *advertiser censored* 'bondage cartoons', Sugar Creek

I've got a few questions about this case. First, why did it take so long to indict this man if they arrested him in December 2008? And what exactly does the reporter mean when they use the word "cartoons of children being sexually assaulted and in bondage"? Once again, a major child *advertiser censored* bust in a suburb of Kansas City/Independence.

http://www.examiner.net/news/law/x1...-man-indicted-for-child-*advertiser censored*


"A federal grand jury has indicted a Sugar Creek man on charges of storing images and videos of child *advertiser censored* on computer equipment, with more than 1,000 that depicted cartoons of children being sexually assaulted and in bondage.

Martin A. Cordry, 47, was indicted on three felony counts that were unsealed following his initial court appearance. He remains in federal custody pending a detention hearing on Monday.

The three-count indictment alleges Cordry attempted to distribute child *advertiser censored* over the Internet, attempted to receive child *advertiser censored* and possessed child *advertiser censored*.



more at link

http://http://www.kctv5.com/news/22750818/detail.html

(BBM)

For the past three years, Zans said she and her three children have lived in fear. Registered sex offender Marty Cordry lives next to them on Appleton and Kentucky streets in Sugar Creek, Mo. In 1994, Cordry was convicted of raping a 7-year-old girl in Grandview, Mo., and spent 10 years in prison. After being released he began group therapy to curb his addiction, but the fact he was back out in society still scared Zans.

"I've never seen one who's recovered or been rehabilitated, so I knew there was the possibility he could do it again. That's why I always watched my girls very carefully," Zans said.

Federal investigators said the therapy didn't help. They said they found child *advertiser censored* on the computer in his home and confiscated it. During the investigation, officials said Cordry bought another computer and continued to download child *advertiser censored*.

Click to expand...

It's time to lock this creep up and throw away the key!!
MOO~

Nomoresorrow--Could you check your link, please. I can't get it to work. I'm very interested in what the neighbors have to say. One of the Mohlers lived very close to this guy too. Scary!!

I'm very interested in knowing if this guy lived alone or with his family.

Here ya go, MissIzzy .... don't know if this means relatives lived there or were visiting.

KCTV5's Matt Stewart spoke to Cordry's relatives at his house Thursday, but they declined to comment on the situation.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/22750818/detail.html

here's an obit for a brother

http://www.mogenweb.org/stclair/obits3/obitRandyACordry.htm

group therapy?

is that where all the freaking pervs get together and tell each other there cured?

You know, TM, I saw that obit and thought of one thing. The man was only 38. You don't suppose he was caught with child *advertiser censored* and ended his own life, do you?

that would indicate he had a concsious.

so i'd say, no

Still no ideas as to what the cartoon thing is all about?

Slightly O/T, I note that we still don't have a name of the man arrested nearby in Blue Springs. His house was called a "hub" of distribution. How long can they hold someone before they formally charge him? Wouldn't they then release his name?

I'm wondering if it's a repeat of this story--an arrest in late '08 and no indictment until this month. How can they do that? Surely, they are using the time to investigate but what about a person's rights? Can this hold up on appeal if they pull things like this? I realize that many seem to be pleading once they have the evidence plunked down in front of them but just sitting......for months. I'd think an appeals attorney would be all over that.

So, somebody please fill me in on the cartoon angle.

kbl8201 said:

group therapy?

is that where all the freaking pervs get together and tell each other there cured?

Click to expand...

No, it's where they get together and teach eachother new tricks and better ways not to get caught.

Izz, I don't know about the cartoon angle, but I am guessing it's like anime? I'll look it up.

You know not this guy but in your other Missouri link I recognized a name from when poor Kelsey Smith was murdered by whatshisname. I recall we all looked up the sex offenders in the area.

Lemme check out and see if I see anything.

BTW, his brother maybe took his own life knowing he had a sibling pulling that crap.

Filly said:

No, it's where they get together and teach eachother new tricks and better ways not to get caught.

Izz, I don't know about the cartoon angle, but I am guessing it's like anime? I'll look it up.

You know not this guy but in your other Missouri link I recognized a name from when poor Kelsey Smith was murdered by whatshisname. I recall we all looked up the sex offenders in the area.

Lemme check out and see if I see anything.

BTW, his brother maybe took his own life knowing he had a sibling pulling that crap.

Click to expand...

obviously my comment was sarcastic lol

Izz, here ya go. It's illegal even if it's drawn pictures of children being forced to have sex. Da*n right should be.

That perv Worley in Virginia who received live children *advertiser censored* as well as comics/anime fought in court saying it was against his constitutional rights as the pictures/anime were just that............depictions.

I bet he's out already.

So, I am just guessing it's a huge Japanese thing because that anime is. Plus recall us discussing on threads how some of these seemingly lovely, I help out at the local youth program people have all that anime on their Myspaces and all. ****Note I am not saying people into anime are pervs. I am saying in these cases********* Last thing I need is the anime people beating me up.


http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=21040

I hate Anime!! I despise it. How often does anybody hear me being so negative about anything? Anime makes my skin crawl and I think it is really freaky that middle school and high school libraries have it on their shelves. One of my sons brought home a stack from school about two years ago and I sat down and flagged the pages that showed out and out rape, molestation, horrific humiliation, bondage, cutting, etc. I could not believe it. I rarely get worked up about something but I got worked up. The school's response was that it drew in struggling readers. Well, no doubt Hustler would too but I did not approve and I'm pretty open with what literature kids read. I just have a wee problem with drawings of groups of guys holding down a girl in a restroom and "tickling her"......oh yuck. A lot of it is simply *advertiser censored*. Never mind.

Back to the cartoons and bondage. I want to understand this. Does this charge mean that this man was drawing something like Anime which showed cartoon children in pornographic situations? I find it very interesting that I've found this man living with a person with and Asian name. And so close to Burrell Mohler Sr. who also has a person with an Asian name listed at his house. What's all this about?

I also don't want any Anime lovers upset at me but it's not for kids.

This case touches on a subject that I have been trying to sort out in my mind for some time now.

When I first became an adult, I remember going into an adult bookstore in San Francisco (late 1970's) where child *advertiser censored* was openly for sale. I was, needless to say, shocked beyond belief. At the time, no laws existed to ban it. Thankfully, shortly after this encounter, all states passed laws banning the production, sale or possession of such filth.

One of the arguements used by consumers of this trash was that they were only pictures and that owning the pictures did not constitute actual abuse. Opponents of child *advertiser censored* sensibly countered that abuse did occur at the production level and that by eliminating the *advertiser censored* at the consumer level, it would prevent the abuse by producers. Decency won out and all possession was banned.

But with that arguement in mind, what do we make of cartoons, drawings, paintings or computer-generated images of child *advertiser censored*? The position that viewing these images promotes actual abuse does not work when the images are "fake". Of course, people who view these images are more likely to commit abuse against children, but no abuse has occured in the production of these images themselves.

Please do not misinterpet this post as any sort of a defense of ANY child *advertiser censored* - all child *advertiser censored* is an affront to moral decency. But does confounding moral decency alone constitute a crime? There are other extremely disgusting forms of *advertiser censored* that do not involve children but certainly offend society that are not illegal - if drawings of child *advertiser censored* does not involve real abuse, what is the legal basis for banning it?

Offhand, I can think of two reasons: the *advertiser censored* can be used to intice children into sexual acts by portraying the acts as "normal", and it adds to the too-frequent early sexualization of children in general. And I can certainly see how people who have been convicted of child sexual abuse should not be allowed to view such material - they have already shown that they will "cross the line" between fantasy and reality.

But does viewing this material make someone a pedophile any more than viewing violent cartoons makes one a murderer? As a young man, I used to read "graphic novels" about Conan the Barbarian which involved an odd collection of violent action and large busted women, yet somehow I never grew up to run around chopping off people's heads with a broadsword.

Again, do not think that I am defending any sort of kiddy *advertiser censored*. I am glad that it ALL is illegal. I just am curious as to what others see as the legal basis of such a ban.

Well put and thought provoking. I'd like to sleep on that one. Thank you for posting your thoughts, Dr. Doogie. I'd actually like to learn more about this particular form of child *advertiser censored*. And FWIW, I don't think that animated child *advertiser censored* was the only type found.

I'm still wondering about the length of time this man waited for indictment. Does that strike anyone else as very strange?

Dr. Doogie said:

This case touches on a subject that I have been trying to sort out in my mind for some time now.

When I first became an adult, I remember going into an adult bookstore in San Francisco (late 1970's) where child *advertiser censored* was openly for sale. I was, needless to say, shocked beyond belief. At the time, no laws existed to ban it. Thankfully, shortly after this encounter, all states passed laws banning the production, sale or possession of such filth.

One of the arguements used by consumers of this trash was that they were only pictures and that owning the pictures did not constitute actual abuse. Opponents of child *advertiser censored* sensibly countered that abuse did occur at the production level and that by eliminating the *advertiser censored* at the consumer level, it would prevent the abuse by producers. Decency won out and all possession was banned.

But with that arguement in mind, what do we make of cartoons, drawings, paintings or computer-generated images of child *advertiser censored*? The position that viewing these images promotes actual abuse does not work when the images are "fake". Of course, people who view these images are more likely to commit abuse against children, but no abuse has occured in the production of these images themselves.

Please do not misinterpet this post as any sort of a defense of ANY child *advertiser censored* - all child *advertiser censored* is an affront to moral decency. But does confounding moral decency alone constitute a crime? There are other extremely disgusting forms of *advertiser censored* that do not involve children but certainly offend society that are not illegal - if drawings of child *advertiser censored* does not involve real abuse, what is the legal basis for banning it?

Offhand, I can think of two reasons: the *advertiser censored* can be used to intice children into sexual acts by portraying the acts as "normal", and it adds to the too-frequent early sexualization of children in general. And I can certainly see how people who have been convicted of child sexual abuse should not be allowed to view such material - they have already shown that they will "cross the line" between fantasy and reality.

But does viewing this material make someone a pedophile any more than viewing violent cartoons makes one a murderer? As a young man, I used to read "graphic novels" about Conan the Barbarian which involved an odd collection of violent action and large busted women, yet somehow I never grew up to run around chopping off people's heads with a broadsword.

Again, do not think that I am defending any sort of kiddy *advertiser censored*. I am glad that it ALL is illegal. I just am curious as to what others see as the legal basis of such a ban.

Click to expand...

I have had these same thoughts, Dr. Doggie, about cartoon or drawn child *advertiser censored*. Especially as it relates to other types of graphic novels. Your point about Conan is well taken. I have young boys who love Batman, Spiderman, etc... comics and some of that stuff can be fairly dark. Most normal people are able to look at fantasy violence without following its thread into real life.

Obviously, the law's stance on the subject of drawn kiddie *advertiser censored* is clear. And even though I'm all for it, I can't say that I understand it. I don't think we know enough about child *advertiser censored* users in general and pedophile habits in particular to really say that people who look at cartoonish kiddie *advertiser censored* will act on it.

Can we all spend a little time researching any new studies or theories on this type of child *advertiser censored*? I truly want to grasp the intent as I feel it must be to arouse. When I looked carefully at the anime books from the high school library, I was taken aback by the blatant sexism. Girls were shown to be wickedly mean to other girls. Bullying was a constant theme. I hesitated to write out the story line but maybe it will open the eyes of other parents who might find this "literature" in their kids' backpacks.

Just like Superman has a formula, the teen anime, seems to also. A new girl shows up in school, dressed in the super short pleated school uniform. Many of the drawings are done in an up-shot fashion, where the girls' panties are shown. All the girls, even though assumably middle school or high school age, are extremely busty and bursting out of their buttoned shirts. The girl would always fall for the cool guy, who would be kind of thuggy and rude. Much drama would ensue and inevitably the new girl would be held down in restrooms, with toilets and sinks shown, and humiliated. Often when a girl was beaten or tickled or held down, the drawings would show her skirt hiked up and her panties wet. She often would be shown cutting herself afterwards--or at least--considering cutting.

Another I saw, which really concerned me, contained a plot to "frame" a male teacher. There was an elaborate conspiracy to lure him into the girls' restroom where he was shoved into a stall with a girl with her panties down. Of course, the principal was spirited in at that exact moment and no explanation was accepted. The girls won again. He was led away in handcuffs when all he'd done was take away a girl's cell phone.

Another was about a timid girl who liked a popular boy and there was the typical set up where he invited her on a walk, only to be grabbed by a group of bad boys in the bushes. The popular boy just stood by and smirked while a group of girls laughed and pointed.

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get it. Because these are cartoons, the pictures tell the story and the Asian artists are amazing at their art. The stories get told, far more effectively, IMO, than the Archie comics!! I guess the most disturbing thing for me is that while these are all recurring themes in much of teen literature, anime seems so much more lurid as it exaggerates the sexuality angle. I also despise the bullying and humiliation factor. I remember sitting down with these little flags with a book of about 100 pages. I found I was flagging every page!! When I returned them to the school library, the librarian seemed genuinely surprised and pulled them. And I live in a very liberal town.

After looking at those books, I can now not tolerate anime. Even harmless anime sets my teeth on edge. I know it's just a visceral reaction but I can't seem to get past it. Some of the artwork is incredible and I know that millions of people enjoy it. I just don't accept the melding of literature geared for 12-16 year olds with what I consider the sexualization of children with the intent to titillate. JMO

ETA: I probably should be using the term Manga to describe the teen cartoons I'm describing. I going to see if I can find some links.

I agree. I also think TV shows like Toddlers in Tiaras should be banned.

An interesting discussion among librarians:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/6572

"...I believe that while, yes all of those titles do have some nudity, they should be be perfectly fine in a high school library. If I can read "classics" with rape, incest, and abuse in high school, I should also be able to pick up a manga, that might imply that someone was naked. You are probably going to get some parents that will complain no matter what you pick..."

Yeah, some parents are disturbed by sexual themes of a non-consensual manner for the 7th-12th grade reader--especially when the moral of the story does not seem clear. You get your clothes pulled off, wet your pants (or are sexually aroused, who knows?), have people bullying you, so you decide to cut....end of story. Not getting it, over here.



http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2004/07/28/girl_power/

A good description of why American teen girls are drawn to Manga/anime--it's the drama. They seem to totally accept the overt sexual overtones. But who, besides these girls are buying this stuff and does it make it OK to have nudity and sex scenes with a middle school or high school backdrop? Note that Manga is rated (just like video games by age appropriateness). I've found that no one pays attention to those ratings, though. Once again, I'm not merely talking about keeping what I consider "soft *advertiser censored*" with questionable themes out of the hands of teens. I'm talking about adults who draw these and the general public becoming numb to these images. I'm old enough to remember when MTV wouldn't have been too worrisome for a 12 year old to watch for a short period of time. I can't say that anymore.



http://www.otakuusamagazine.com/BonusContent/News1/Tales_of_Teen_Love_Manga_Style_1216.aspx

"....Finally, in Sensei to, Watashi to, Hajimete from Watanabe Shiho, Hinami-san has her latest first experience with adult love with teacher. And it takes place not only in school, but in the teacher's office during school hours. Their love is so strong that when other teachers walk in on their lesson, the teachers apologize for interrupting and leave them to continue their work. Oh how lucky is Hinami to be the one of hundreds of girls Sensei chose to be with..."

Yuck!! So, two things. Do we really want to desensitize our youth concerning gratuitous sex in comics? And who, besides the kids are reading this stuff and becoming aroused?

The 7 year old girl was his daughter. He lived in the home with his mom. His brother Randy died of throat cancer. He is my EX-brother in law and a very sick person. They should of never let him out.

mrogers8365 said:

The 7 year old girl was his daughter. He lived in the home with his mom. His brother Randy died of throat cancer. He is my EX-brother in law and a very sick person. They should of never let him out.

Click to expand...

Hope justice provails for his daughter now.