OH - Parents Sue Expert Witness Who Made Fake Child-🤬🤬🤬🤬 of Their Kids

[Missizzy]

An odd story. What was he thinking?


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/morphed-child-🤬🤬🤬🤬/

Parents Sue Expert Witness Who Made Fake Child- of Their Kids

"An Ohio lawyer who serves as an expert witness in child cases might be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil damages for Photoshopping courtroom exhibits of children having sex.

Attorney Dean Boland purchased innocent pictures of four juvenile girls from a Canadian stock-image website, and then digitally modified them to make it appear as if the children were engaged in sexual conduct. Boland was an expert witness for the defense in half-a-dozen child cases, and he made the mock-ups to punctuate his argument that child laws are unconstitutionally overbroad because they could be applied to faked photos...."

and

"....The parents learned of the photo morphing from the FBI, according to the girls’ attorney. They’re suing over Boland transforming a picture of a 5-year-old girl eating a doghnut into one of her having oral sex. Another photo was of a 6-year-old girl’s face placed on the body of an adult woman having sex with two men...."

more at link

 

[tlcya]

Oh for the love of all things holy what was that man thinking??

He victimized these children (albeit thru photoshop) and then showed the images off to a courtroom?? All to try to prove a point? What a jerk.

 

[Rayemonde]

October 2012:

Dean Boland, a Lakewood, Ohio, lawyer who was once ordered to pay $300,000 to two minors for using their pictures in making a digitally crafted image of child .

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/dea...nd-lawyers-eager-to-make-some-money/?referer=

October 2015:

This resulted in a $300,000 judgment against Boland as the result of a lawsuit brought by the two people whose images were used to create the mocked-up child . Scott Greenfield offered his commentary on the issue, using the above quotes from a Wired article. He also added additional commentary based on the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court ruling, noting that Boland had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.

Boland is now objecting to both of these quotes from Greenfield's 2012 article. In an email sent to the lawyer, Boland is demanding the removal of facts under the theory that they're somehow defamatory.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ded-with-facts-isnt-removed-immediately.shtml

 

[Rayemonde]

“This $300,000 award undoubtedly amounts to tough medicine for Boland,” the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (.pdf) Friday. “When he created morphed images, he intended to help criminal defendants, not harm innocent children. Yet his actions did harm children, and Congress has shown that it ‘means business’ in addressing this problem by creating sizeable damages awards for victims of this conduct.”

The parents of the children, who were not named in the case, lodged the complaint (.pdf) against him in 2007 after learning of the photo morphing from the FBI. Under the 1986 Child Abuse Victims Rights Act, each victim is entitled to a minimum $150,000 in damages.

http://www.wired.com/2012/11/morphed-kiddie-🤬🤬🤬🤬/