October 2008 (Woburn, MA)
Update
Little has changed in the last 6 months and the case is not likely to go to trial anytime soon. The authorities have held Mr. Frank's computer for over 950 days and Mr. Frank has been on pretrial probation for over 20 months.
March 2008 (Cambridge, MA)
The Prosecutor
Middlesex County Assistant District Attorney Deb Bercovitch is prosecuting one of the most unusual child pornography cases you will ever come across. Bercovitch is internationally known for her infamous trespassing convictions against two schoolkids who were caught building a snow fort in Framingham, MA while on school property. Now Bercovitch is pressing felony child pornography charges against a New Hampshire man, in an improbable case pitting the alleged "victim" against the prosecution. The defendant, Mr. Frank, faces a May 1st jury trial in Cambridge Superior Court. The defendant faces up to 5 years in prison if convicted.
(click for larger image)
The "Victim"
Unlike the typical story involving real victims or hundreds of downloaded images, this case is about overzealous prosecution and a police investigation gone wrong. The defendant, Mr. Frank, is accused of posessing pornographic images of one person, a then 17-year old female. According to court documents, the then 17-year old "victim" first contacted the defendant when she responded to an online advertisement for adult models. According to grand jury testimony, the two signed an adult modeling contract and the "victim" provided Mr. Frank with false identification showing her to be 18 years old. According to police testimony, the identification provided to the defendant was "a good fake."
(click for larger image)
Questionable Prosecution
Despite a sworn affidavit by the now 20-year old "victim" expressing her use of false identification, the prosecutor is continuing to try the case. With the now 20-year old "victim" scheduled to testify for the defense, the prosecution has filed a motion to allow the use of anonymized message board postings as "evidence of bad acts" against the defendant. Stop and think about this for a minute. If anonymized online postings from message boards or blogs are taken seriously by the courts as "probable cause" or "evidence of bad acts", there is little that could stop police and prosecutors from anonymously posting their own "evidence."
There is a brand new law in Massachusetts that brings the admissibility of duplicated computer files into question. According to the law, duplicate computer files are not admissible in evidence if "a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original". The highly anonymized nature of the internet makes it virtually impossible to verify the original source or the authenticity of any computer file. Even casual users of the intenet know that online messages can be copied, edited, or republished at any time. To complicate matters, the anonymized, duplicated computer files submitted by the prosecution appear to have been copied and forwarded to the police by a confidential informant.
(click for larger image)
The Informant and the Detective
Under Massachusetts law, strict rules regulate how prosecutors and police can use confidential informants. Apparently, the informant in this case is not very confidential. The supposed informant, known as "jonathanev" or jonathanev@comcast.net", can be found on the internet chatting about prostitution and detailing his obsession with paying for sex. Interestingly, the detective involved in this case, Laurie Isnor, terminated her employment with the Bedford, MA police department soon after the 2006 incident.
(click for larger image)
Wet Towels and Bogus Search
According to court documents, wet towels and a bottle of personal lubricant found during the warrantless search of a dwelling were involved in determining probable cause to seach the defendant's computer. The original search warrant and supporting affidavit remain impounded by court order and are not available to the public. The defendant wonders why Concord District Court continues to impound documents that would otherwise be available to the public.
(click for larger image)
PLEASE HELP --- I AM BEING NIFONGED
The defendant asserts that the prosecutor continues to ignore glaring evidence that tends to prove the defendant's innocence.
The defendant asserts that the prosecutor'f office mailed his indictment to an address belonging to relatives of the "victim" in an effort to intimidate her.
The defendant has been on pretrial probation for 15 months.
The defendant's legal expenses are in excess of $30,000.
Please contribute to Mr. Frank's legal defense with Paypal or mail check to: The Law Office of R. Fairbrothers P.C. 1313 Washington St, Boston, MA 02118
Donate $50
Donate $500
Donate $1,000
Donate $10,000
(click for larger image)