New York Times reporter "poses" as a member of underage porn site
.
claims he was only "posing as online predator"
By DEBBIE NATHAN
September 14, 2007
A New York Times reporter not only gave money to a child pornographer, but
did business with him and even signed on to an illegal porn website as a
member and administrator, documents unsealed yesterday in a federal criminal
proceeding in Nashville reveal. He claims in one court document, he only
"posed" as a pedophile.
The reporter is Kurt Eichenwald, who quit the Times in October, 2006. He
already had a lot of explaining to do earlier this year about his conduct
while working on the Justin Berry story when it was revealed in March that,
without telling his editors, he gave $2,000 to Berry -- an 18-year-old who'd
spent five years making child porn of himself, when Eichenwald first
contacted him in 2005. By then, Berry was an adult recruiting minors to
perform sexually on webcams. After discovering this, Eichenwald found Berry
a lawyer, who took him to the Department of Justice and got him immunity
from prosecution in exchange for turning state's evidence against four
mostly gay and young men. All were eventually charged and convicted of
making and distributing porn depicting underage teen boys. After Eichenwald
wrote a blockbuster story about Berry for the Times, his journalism
techniques aroused controversy in press circles. Even so, no one knew about
the $2,000 check, and most of the media feted him.
Press adulation evaporated in March of this year however, when revelations
of the $2,000 check emerged at a criminal trial in Michigan for one of the
four accused men. Testifying there, Eichenwald said he was not acting as a
reporter when he gave Berry the money, but was trying to save him from
sexual exploitation and later demanded the money back before he started
doing a Times piece.
This summer, a court hearing in the Nashville case revealed that Eichenwald
gave yet more money to Berry, again without telling his editors.
CounterPunch was the first to report this, and days later, the Times picked
up the story. The Times didn't say what the money -- $1,184 -- bought, and
Eichenwald demurred that he had no independent recollection of having spent
it. Two days after the Times report, he resigned from the Conde Nast
financial magazine Portfolio without explanation.
The Nashville court documents unsealed yesterday reveal the following:
. Using a fake name, Eichenwald spent $1,184 to buy digital photos from
Berry. It is not clear whether they were pornographic, or if they were made
when Berry was under age 18 or older. But PayPal allows purchasers to send
memos with their money, and Eichenwald sent Berry several messages
discussing the quality of the pictures he bought. "I found a pretty good one
but the lighting sucks. still worth 100." "There are just 20 in the file,
and most of them are nothing (shots of beds and driveways, or you rolling a
joint)." "I found 3 so far that I either didn't already have and were good."
"100.we gotta talk about what the really good ones are." (The ellipses are
in the court document.)
. Eichenwald encouraged Berry in his business endeavors while Berry was
making child porn. In one PayPal message from June 2005, cited in the
Nashville documents, Eichenwald writes Berry that "I'll be online today.
Find me and lemme know what to do. And I have other proposals for you that
would get you even more money."
. During this same period, Eichenwald sent Berry the $2,000 check. In the
Michigan trial, he testified that he assumed when he sent it that Berry was
broke. Documents just unsealed in Nashville reveal that hours after
receiving the money, Berry videotaped a 14-year-old boy masturbating. A few
days later, he uploaded the illegal tape to JustinsFriends.com, his gay porn
website that had lain dormant for months. Soon JustinFriends.com was up and
running again, with new content, including masturbatory images of the
14-year old.
. Under the pseudonym "Roy Rogers," Eichenwald was signed on as a member
of the revivified JustinsFriends.com. But he was no ordinary member: He had
administrative privileges, meaning he could enter areas of the internet open
only to site managers with an administrative password. He used this
privilege to enter an area where one could monitor new subscriptions to the
illegal porn site. He visited this area over 20 times in late June, 2005.
All this information has come out in Tennessee federal court because one of
the four convicted men, Timothy Richards, is trying to convince a judge that
Eichenwald and Berry engaged in a conspiracy to entrap him into Berry's
criminal activities with underage pornography. In extensive filings which
Eichenwald and his lawyers tried for weeks to keep sealed, Richards'
allegations are vigorously contested. Rather than conspiring, Eichenwald
says in one filing, he was just trying to learn more about Berry. After
consultation with his wife, he adopted the tactic of "posing as an online
predator." In 1999, National Public Radio freelancer Larry Matthews was
successfully prosecuted by the Department of Justice after working on a
story about child porn in which he impersonated a pedophile online by using
a pseudonym and downloading illegal material.
In addition to two civil attorneys, Eichenwald recently retained a criminal
defense lawyer. He is Stephen Ryan, whom Eichenwald often cited in financial
stories when he worked for the New York Times. Ryan is also the defense
attorney for Justin Berry.
Not only Eichenwald but also the Times has a lot more explaining to do. In
March the paper's public editor, Byron Calame, savaged Eichenwald over the
$2,000 check, while giving Eichenwald's editor, Larry Ingrassia, a pass. But
now it seems more and more extraordinary that New York Times editors did not
conclude that Eichenwald's dealings with Berry had far transcended anything
that could be regarded as appropriate for an objective reporter. Even so,
the Times was happy to publish a hyped story which led to a hysterical
circus of congressional hearings and fueled witch-hunting legislation
against not just sex offenders, but even teen networking sites such as
MySpace.
After the documents were unsealed this reporter contacted the New York Times
asking whether they were previously aware of Eichenwald's actions as now
revealed in the court documents in Nashville. The Times was asked
specifically about five points:
1. Eichenwald used the $1,184 PayPal payments he paid Justin Berry to buy
photos from Justin. Was Eichenwald's editor or anyone else at the Times
aware that Eichenwald was engaged in business transactions with Justin in
2005 around the time of the buying of photos?
2. Eichenwald told Berry during this time that he could help him with ideas
to make more money. Is this something the Times was aware of?
3. Hours after Eichenwald paid Justin Berry $2,000 on June 8, 2005, Berry
produced a video of a 14-year-old boy masturbating. Was the Times aware of
this?
4. Images of the 14-year old masturbating were uploaded a few days later to
a heretofore dormant gay porn website run by Berry. During this period,
Eichenwald became a member of the same website. Was the Times aware he was a
member?
5. Eichenwald was not merely a member of the illegal site mentioned above.
He also had administrative privileges to enter it, involving a special
password available only to those managing the site. He used the password
more than 20 times in late June, 2005 to sign onto the site. Was the Times
aware of this?
The Times responded that it is "in the process of independently reviewing"
the documents unsealed in Nashville
http://www.counterpunch.org/nathan09142007.html
suz...@myinternetsafetycoach.com
Ms. Nathan,
I recently spoke with Justin Berry. While it is accurate that Mr.
Berry acted as an
online predator during the latter part of the 5 years he was involved
in porn related
online activities, it is vital to remember that first and foremost, he
was a victim who
was lured and seduced at the young and impressionable age of 13. As a
result of
this victimization, he was not only cleverly brainwashed by the
perpetrators, but also
by his father with whom he came to live in Mexico with after
graduating from high
school at 16. As other children of divorce, whose biological parent
is no longer in their
life, Justin wanted to establish a relationship with his biological
father, since he had
not seen him since he was 3 years old. Little did Justin know that
when his father
found out about his son's online activities not only would he further
entrap him
by becoming an integral part in the promotion of these activities, but
he would go one
step further, by taking Justin's virtual online activities into the
real world by pimp him
out! As a result, as is often the case with many abuse victims,
Justin got into drugs
to "numb out". He became a prisoner in this sleazy underbelly of
existence --
continuing to live a double life -- when it came to his mom and
siblings back in suburbia.
In the meantime, Mr. Eichenwald learned about Justin Berry and his
dark, online
activities. In the course of following a story, he befriended him --
realizing that Justin
was just a kid who needed a responsible adult to mentor him out of
this underworld.
According to Justin, Mr. Eichenwald is a hero. He credits him as
being solely
responsible for saving his life. He helped him quit his drug habit;
encouraged
him to "come clean" with his family about his activities for the last
5 years to
the extent that he flew in from New York so he wouldn't have to be
alone as
he faced his mother and step-father to reveal all the gruesome
details. And
finally, encouraged him to to contact the Department of Justice.
I believe Mr. Eichenwald when he says he was not a member of an
illegal underage
porn site, but rather he was only "posing as online predator".
Typically, that kind of
defense proves to be untrue, but in this case and because I spent many
hours with
both Justin Berry and his mother and saw, first hand, how grateful
they are to
this man, that it's worth delving deeper into the actual evidence.
Regarding the 5 points at issue to the New York Times from the court
documents
in Nashville:
1. Eichenwald used the $1,184 PayPal payments he paid Justin Berry
to buy
> photos from Justin:
While not addressing whether or not the Times editor knew of this or
not, it is not
beyond the scope of a reporter's job to ask for and obtain photos
corroborating
information that is to be used in the developing story.
2. Eichenwald told Berry during this time that he could help him with
ideas
> to make more money. Is this something the Times was aware of?
If Eichenwald was referring to talking to Justin about a potential
book, movie deal, or
speaking tour, then the Times editor doesn't need to be briefed. Keep
in mind, that
part of the lure that Justin at this point was being held captive by
was the great deal
of money that was being generated by these online activities that had
become a
business. It's makes sense that Mr. Eichenwald would be speaking to
him about
legitimate means of making money by telling his story.
> 3. Hours after Eichenwald paid Justin Berry $2,000 on June 8, 2005, Berry
> produced a video of a 14-year-old boy masturbating. Was the Times aware of
> this?
It's possible that Mr. Eichenwald wasn't even aware that Justin was in
the process of
producing that video and this is just a coincidence. Aren't these "so
called videos"
produced with owned and operated equipment anyway?
> 4. Images of the 14-year old masturbating were uploaded a few days later to
> a heretofore dormant gay porn website run by Berry. During this period,
> Eichenwald became a member of the same website. Was the Times aware he was a
> member?
If, at this time, Mr. Eichenwald was still working of his story, it's
not beyond reason
that he'd want to check out this site and the only way to do that is
to be a member.
Additionally, if he was in the process of trying to rescue Justin from
this, he would
want to check up to see what Justin is doing. Keep in mind that Mr.
Eichenwald,
given his altruistic intentions clearly was aware that Justin may be
beyond saving and
thus, wouldn't want to further engage himself in this relationship
that could possibly
incriminate him in the process - which, as it turns out, is exactly
what is happening.
> 5. Eichenwald was not merely a member of the illegal site mentioned above.
> He also had administrative privileges to enter it, involving a special
> password available only to those managing the site. He used the password
> more than 20 times in late June, 2005 to sign onto the site. Was the Times
> aware of this?
There are several reason "why" Mr. Eichenwald would want
administrative
Privileges on this site, however, rather than speculating, I'd be very
interested in
knowing what Mr. Eichenwald said were his reasons.
That said, although Mr. Eichenwald is being presented as someone who
took part
in those illegal activities that Justin Berry found himself ensnared,
and while I do
not have any evidence pertaining to any activities between Mr.
Eichenwald and
Justin Berry, what I do have is a first person account from Justin and
his mother that
Mr. Eichenwald is a man of moral integrity and honesty. Justin says
that his courage
to go "beyond the story" has literally, "saved his life" and for that
matter, the
potential lives of others who like him, were either in the process of,
or regarding new
children, would have fallen prey to those individuals who lured him
had not
Mr. Eichenwald encouraged him to not only break free from that world,
but come
forward to law enforcement to expose his predators and their methods.
And for that
alone, I think there should be pause before rushing to any judgement
against
Mr. Eichenwald.
I also think it's important to note how Justin Berry is doing today --
3 years later at
age 21. While this experience has robbed him of care-free and
innocent teen years and
instead, has left him with profound psychological scars, he is --
despite all odds,
courageously using those dark and regrettable experiences to help
prevent other kids
from falling prey to online dangers by championing Internet safety,
supporting the
proposed federal legislation -- "Parents Against Predators
Act" (www.supportpapa.com),
being an outspoken advocate against child pornography and by helping
victims of abuse
get help.
Who would have thought that a little geeky boy of 13 wearing braces,
who was a bright
student, a member of the school band, living an upper middle class
life in a lovely suburban
neighborhood in a stable home entrenched in school activities and
surrounded by
siblings and a mom whose work involves abused children, would fall
prey, undetected,
while his life was being changed forever. It started out so
innocently... He installed the free
webcam he got in the mail from Earthlink and naively clicked "into the
net" -
just make friends.
If you have any questions or remarks, please contact me at:
suz...@myinternetsafetycoach.com
September 18, 2007