Quantcast

Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 1 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Hawaii island man pleads not guilty in child porn case

By Audrey McAvoy / Associated Press

POSTED:



A Hawaii island bed-and-breakfast operator pleaded not guilty Friday in federal court to six counts of producing child pornography.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Kevin Chang said John Ridgely Tucker's trial will begin Feb. 12.

Tucker is being held at the federal detention center without bail.

An indictment filed earlier this week alleged the 56-year-old from Pahoa enticed two children to produce six images of child pornography in 2008. Prosecutors say each count carries a minimum penalty of 15 years in prison and up to 30 years in prison.

Tucker's attorney, Brian De Lima, told reporters after the hearing that the government has yet to pre­sent its evidence to the defense. He said the defense will respond appropriately after prosecutors provide them with their evidence.

Tucker was arrested and charged earlier this month after the FBI distributed a photo of an unknown suspect believed to be on Hawaii island and asked the public for help in finding him. Several people called the FBI within hours of the agency's news release, identifying Tucker as the man in the photo.

The FBI connected the man in the photo to Hawaii island because they could see a 2008-09 Hawaii island telephone book issued by Hawaiian Telcom in the background of one of the images.

An affidavit submitted with the criminal complaint against Tucker said Hawaii state authorities interviewed two children who identified themselves and Tucker in the pornographic images. The children say the acts depicted occurred at Tucker's home.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children initiated the investigation after receiving several pornographic images featuring the suspect and two minors, the affidavit said.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 1 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(1)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
daniwitz13 wrote:
It is only an Opinion but I think that the High Court erred to make Child Pornography Possession a Crime. It is the only event NOT considered freedom of speech and expression or freedom of Possession. The Image itself does NOT hurt another person. It is inanimate. Where it came from or how it was made or produced is NOT the concern of the beholder. The Law is so ridiculous in that even if it is NOT viewed but in possession somewhere, it is a punishable Crime. Does the reproduction of an Image reproduces the the injury of the first participants? I think NOT. The Justices at the Time, could not foretell that a million Images could be transferred at he click of a mouse in seconds. That one day Hundreds of Millions of curious people might just click on a spot and have Child Pornography in their Computer. How do one arrest a hundred million possessors? What if a young Child clicks on a site and down loads Images? The Parents go to jail for possession of Images? As I've said, this is a ridiculous Law. Pity.
on October 27,2012 | 12:25PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Deedy back on the stand  - 08:51 a.m.