renata
15th May 2003, 01:47 PM
Warning- this article and post contain information about an accused child molester, and reading it may be upsetting to some.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toes15may15002427,1,2785680.story?coll=la%2Dheadli nes%2Dcalifornia
In a trial that tests the definition of deviant behavior, the lawyer for a former Newport Beach youth recreational leader accused of molesting several preteen boys hopes to convince a jury that his client's behavior is not criminal, just strange.
Trenton Veches is charged with 25 felony counts of lewd acts with minors. Almost all the charges stem from incidents in which the 32-year-old after-school program supervisor sucked the toes of two dozen boys ages 8 to 11.
...
"This is a sex crime without sex," said lawyer John Dolan outside court. "It's weird, it's quirky, and in hindsight it's inappropriate, but it's not criminal, because it completely lacks in the element of sexual gratification."
....
According to the testimony of several alleged victims, Veches didn't fondle their sexual organs or hurt them.
...
But prosecutors portray Veches, who was arrested in April 2002, as a predatory child molester who abused his position and violated the children's trust. Deputy Dist. Atty. Sheila Hanson has argued that by videotaping the encounters and collecting child pornography, Veches has shown that his interest in the boys was indeed sexual.
Dolan maintains there is no connection between the child pornography and the behavior with boys, however bizarre. His client's methodically categorized collection of computer files and photographs of young boys in sexually explicit poses was kept far from his workplace, he said.
...
I am not sure I understand the defense's arguments. This guy
1. Posessed child pornography which is illegal anyway
2. Videotaped his encounters with the boys- why would he videotape it if it did not provide it with gratification?
And yet, I have kissed my nieces and nephews when they were babies on their tummies, on their feet, etc. I did it because they giggled at it, and because it was an expression of affection, so I understand the notion of wanting to hug and kiss and cuddle little kids. But in this case, these were older boys, and he was not family. I think it is all in the intent- and how can one prove it?
I am not sure how molestation is legally defined. However, sexual acts are not necessarily with the "defined" sex organs.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-toes15may15002427,1,2785680.story?coll=la%2Dheadli nes%2Dcalifornia
In a trial that tests the definition of deviant behavior, the lawyer for a former Newport Beach youth recreational leader accused of molesting several preteen boys hopes to convince a jury that his client's behavior is not criminal, just strange.
Trenton Veches is charged with 25 felony counts of lewd acts with minors. Almost all the charges stem from incidents in which the 32-year-old after-school program supervisor sucked the toes of two dozen boys ages 8 to 11.
...
"This is a sex crime without sex," said lawyer John Dolan outside court. "It's weird, it's quirky, and in hindsight it's inappropriate, but it's not criminal, because it completely lacks in the element of sexual gratification."
....
According to the testimony of several alleged victims, Veches didn't fondle their sexual organs or hurt them.
...
But prosecutors portray Veches, who was arrested in April 2002, as a predatory child molester who abused his position and violated the children's trust. Deputy Dist. Atty. Sheila Hanson has argued that by videotaping the encounters and collecting child pornography, Veches has shown that his interest in the boys was indeed sexual.
Dolan maintains there is no connection between the child pornography and the behavior with boys, however bizarre. His client's methodically categorized collection of computer files and photographs of young boys in sexually explicit poses was kept far from his workplace, he said.
...
I am not sure I understand the defense's arguments. This guy
1. Posessed child pornography which is illegal anyway
2. Videotaped his encounters with the boys- why would he videotape it if it did not provide it with gratification?
And yet, I have kissed my nieces and nephews when they were babies on their tummies, on their feet, etc. I did it because they giggled at it, and because it was an expression of affection, so I understand the notion of wanting to hug and kiss and cuddle little kids. But in this case, these were older boys, and he was not family. I think it is all in the intent- and how can one prove it?
I am not sure how molestation is legally defined. However, sexual acts are not necessarily with the "defined" sex organs.