Bath Time Photos Prompt Child *advertiser censored* Allegations

[kgeaux]

I think there is more to this story.
'Dr Laura' had a commentary on this story on her show today. According to her, the pics everyone is seeing on the news articles weren't the ones that the Walmart people saw as objectionable. According to her- and this is not confirmed- some of them were with the children's privates exposed and posing provocatively.
Makes you wonder- can't they afford a digital camera?
Anyone else hear this?

No respect from this corner for Dr. Laura. WHY would she spread inflammatory rumors? Because with no confirmation, that is what she did. Shame on her.

 

[kgeaux]

I did think it odd that Dr Laura said this stuff today. I can tell you this- I hope these people are on real firm ground. If they sue Walmart they better not have anything hinky in their closet because it's gonna come out.
Am not one of Dr L's camp followers but sometimes find her interesting.

Don't you think that after being intensely investigated for over a year, any skeletons thay may have in the closet are already known?

There was no child *advertiser censored* on their computers, no child *advertiser censored* found in the house and absolutely no evidence of what they were accused of. The judge who looked at ALL the pictures said they were innocent photos.

I don't think these people need to be afraid of Walmart. Walmart's actions apparently were unjustified and caused them and their three daughters irreparable harm.

 

[Snick1946]

I do find it of interest that a national talk show host would put this out apparently without foundation. I today emailed her producer asking for followup and information as to what she based this comment on.

 

[oh_gal]

I think there is more to this story.
'Dr Laura' had a commentary on this story on her show today. According to her, the pics everyone is seeing on the news articles weren't the ones that the Walmart people saw as objectionable. According to her- and this is not confirmed- some of them were with the children's privates exposed and posing provocatively.
Makes you wonder- can't they afford a digital camera?
Anyone else hear this?

Well, that puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it?

I don't understand parents who would do that (pose their children provocatively)...just as I don't understand parents who think it's such a hoot to hear their child say a bad word -- so much so that they even teach them, or cajole them to say it). You know the kinds of words I'm talking about.

My sister's ex-husband's mother once tried to get me to read a sticker in her son's car (I was only like 9, 8 years younger than my sister). The sticker said "Happiness is a wet _ussy." Even at 9, I knew this was something bad to say (don't ask me how I knew), and, even at that age, I puzzled over why this 40-something woman would want me to say it. I've also seen parents laugh uproariously when their child says the "b" word, the "f" word, etc.

I don't get it.

 

[justthinkin]

Taking the typical naked infant and toddler photos in the bathtub or bearskin rug type pictures are one thing.

Taking nude pictures of older children is a different story, and in my opinion very questionable behavior on the part of a parent.

I have to ask if these parents were encouraging their girls acceptance of their bodies were the parents also parading around the house nude in front of them? That would be totally unacceptable behavior in my mind given the society we live in.

This is not the Amazon Jungle.

 

[LadyL]

I do find it of interest that a national talk show host would put this out apparently without foundation. I today emailed her producer asking for followup and information as to what she based this comment on.

good job! now let's hope you get an answer that isn't politicized

 

[LadyL]

Yeah - no nekkid pics of us, either. Only photos were formal or on holidays, etc.

I tried to multi-quote but it ain't workin' for me

in the post you replied to, I said my parents did take nekkied pics of us (but I'll qualify now to say not very many)

but there are others - in one pic, I'm a half-nekkid toddler in a kiddy pool - it's blasphemous! lol

 

[WhyaDuck?]

I tried to multi-quote but it ain't workin' for me

in the post you replied to, I said my parents did take nekkied pics of us (but I'll qualify now to say not very many)

but there are others - in one pic, I'm a half-nekkid toddler in a kiddy pool - it's blasphemous! lol

Whoops. I saw "repressed" and got excited that maybe I wasn't the only one.

Dang - too late to delete. Darn you, 24 hour edit window!!! *shakes fist*

 

[snakeeyes]

If the photo on page 2 of the article is representative of the types of photos this Mom and Dad took, then it boggles my mind that anyone could think *advertiser censored*. Even the photo the mom mentions that has the three little girls hugging each other right after their bath--not dressed yet--can't possibly suggest *advertiser censored* to a reasonable person.

It is completely insane that a Walmart employee would think such photos are sexual in nature, completely insane that it took LE a YEAR to determine this! That it actually had to be decided by a judge! That those little girls were removed from their home with no proof of abuse at all.....completely insane that the parents had to register as sex offenders for a time.

These parents deserve a HUGE apology on the parts of Walmart, LE and Children's Services.

I totally agree with you how can anyone looking at these pics suggest such things, omg I got loads of pics of my kids in the bath. The world is going mad where I live your not allowed to take photos of your children in parks or swimming pools sad!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Trino]

I don't know how much Walmart is to blame. All Walmart did was to contact authorities. It was up to the authorities to decided to remove the children and charge them.

 

[STEADFAST]

". . . The police, too, deemed the photos suspicious, and an investigation was opened.
Of the 144 photographs, police said eight of them could be seen as "child erotica" and five of those could be considered "child *advertiser censored*." Among them were images of the Demaree’s three daughters, 5, 4, and 1½ at the time, naked on the floor of the couple’s bedroom after a bath. Police who conducted the investigation wrote that the children appeared to be posed, as there seemed to be "no other reason for them to be in that position."
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/articles/city-8748-investigating-abuse.html

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think there is more to this story.
'Dr Laura' had a commentary on this story on her show today. According to her, the pics everyone is seeing on the news articles weren't the ones that the Walmart people saw as objectionable. According to her- and this is not confirmed- some of them were with the children's privates exposed and posing provocatively.
Makes you wonder- can't they afford a digital camera?
Anyone else hear this?

I saw this couple on tv and I do believe they could afford a digital camera. Some still prefer the 35 mm cameras.

That makes me think since the photos were sent out, where they knew they would be seen, they took these photos as cute innocent photos of their children. If they were as the police officer thought they were then the children would not have been returned to the parents. So it seems if anything was sexual it was in the mind of the officer upon seeing these photos and not in the minds of the parents.

IMO we have become a society that seems to be fixated on sexuality and if a young child is unclothed then to most it seems to mean it has to have an immediate sexual intent.

I know many who have taken photos of their small children while they are in the buff. One of the cutest photos I have of my son is when he was around two is him riding on his Chip motorcycle going down the hall with his back side showing toward me and I clicked the photo. He was naked except he had his helmet on. lol Nothing there but the wonderful innocence of a child.

Anything done in extreme is bad imo and on somethings it goes way beyond being reasonable.

imo

 

[VespaElf]

". . . The police, too, deemed the photos suspicious, and an investigation was opened.
Of the 144 photographs, police said eight of them could be seen as "child erotica" and five of those could be considered "child *advertiser censored*." Among them were images of the Demaree’s three daughters, 5, 4, and 1½ at the time, naked on the floor of the couple’s bedroom after a bath. Police who conducted the investigation wrote that the children appeared to be posed, as there seemed to be "no other reason for them to be in that position."
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/articles/city-8748-investigating-abuse.html

Read the article:The Mothers own words seem damning as she says they were pics of the girls,supposedly after a bath"........wrestling & drawing"! WTF?
I have 4 kids & plenty of photos of them IN THE BATH & "nakkey"(as we say) HOWEVER I was never compelled to allow them to draw or wrestle in the nude nor ,if they had done such activities naked,would have photographed it!
I think theres a fine line &,call me naive,but I feel LE is all too painfully aware of what that "line" is & what child "erotica" or *advertiser censored* is & believe they felt they acted appropriately.Wal-Mart should NOT be party to this suit.
I really hope all this couple is guilty of is bad judgement!!!!!!!!!

 

[kgeaux]

Read the article:The Mothers own words seem damning as she says they were pics of the girls,supposedly after a bath"........wrestling & drawing"! WTF?
I have 4 kids & plenty of photos of them IN THE BATH & "nakkey"(as we say) HOWEVER I was never compelled to allow them to draw or wrestle in the nude nor ,if they had done such activities naked,would have photographed it!
I think theres a fine line &,call me naive,but I feel LE is all too painfully aware of what that "line" is & what child "erotica" or *advertiser censored* is & believe they felt they acted appropriately.Wal-Mart should NOT be party to this suit.
I really hope all this couple is guilty of is bad judgement!!!!!!!!!

I believe that the parents have said the girls were not wrestling in an earlier article?This is the first time I've heard that term, I think! I thought they said the girls were out of the tub, mom or dad had dried them up, and the three girls were hugging each other before they were dressed. I wonder if the girls were rolling around hugging, and that is why the parents are now using the term "wrestling?" The police "thought" the pics were child erotica but the judge has ruled that not even one of the pics met that standard.

There is a line between child erotica and innocent pictures, and I think perhaps the police read way too much into these pictures. I have pictures of my 2nd son in the nude up until he was probably three years old. He could strip his clothes off faster than I could dress him. Even as an infant, I'd put him to bed in jammies and a diaper and he'd wake up in the morning without a stitch on. Basically, he lived nude! We would have NO pics of him if we'd have waited until he kept his clothes on. We have pictures of him nude in a tree, nude entertaining about 50 people for his 1st birthday; honestly, we thought it was cute and it never occurred to us that some stranger might look at them and imagine there was anything dirty about our baby's precious body.

 

[Soulmagent]

We would have NO pics of him if we'd have waited until he kept his clothes on. We have pictures of him nude in a tree, nude entertaining about 50 people for his 1st birthday; honestly, we thought it was cute and it never occurred to us that some stranger might look at them and imagine there was anything dirty about our baby's precious body.

I had to laugh at the birthday party in the birthday suit.

 

[STEADFAST]

How many people have nude pictures of their five-year-old?
I can see taking cute nekkid pics of a toddler -- but older than three? I don't think so.

 

[VespaElf]

Clearly LE felt the need to act.........just because a Judge ruled contrary doesnt sway me .
As we all know Judges arent renowned for wisdom or good judgments as many of the cases we discuss here tell us.As I said above THE MOTHERS OWN STATEMENTS ARE QUITE DAMNING if the last linked article is to be believed.She had her children,the oldest being a kindergartner, "wrestling" NAKED and it was photographed! They were also "drawing"?! I thought these pictures were taken immediately AFTER a bath?Who lets their wet kids run around wrestling & drawing etc? Sorry but this is hinky as heck to me.

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

My son loves to stay naked after his bath. I let him for a bit before putting clothes on him. He could be playing with toys, drawing, watching tv, anything. I don't find that odd.

 

[VespaElf]

My son loves to stay naked after his bath. I let him for a bit before putting clothes on him. He could be playing with toys, drawing, watching tv, anything. I don't find that odd.

How old is he? Do you photograph it? Are other children involved?
Are you consistent in your statements?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY-Has LE ever pursued charges against you??
What you described IMO is totally different from this case!

 

[Miss_Scarlett]

No other children involed, but I remember taking baths with other kids when I was young. Never was a big deal to play in the tub. The only "nude" photos I have of him since he was an infant are last year him playing in a tiny swimming pool on the patio, basically taking a bubble bath outdoors, but you couldn't see that he was nude really.

My statements are consistent!

As far as LE and photo places, I did develop a nude photo of him when he was an infant and no one called LE on us.