I'm really sorry to read your story, and I'm glad you made it through until here. Being cleared of all charges is does not eliminate all the problems you had during this time, and only time can do that, but I'm glad you still have your children and that's what gives me hope, that there might be some justice deep down in this difficult world...

. . . a discussion about an article that drips with emotion and Mr. Jenkins’ tears. An article in which facts and reason won out in the end and nobody’s constitutional rights were violated.

What would be child pornographer in the year 2006 has their film developed at the local drugstore? What would be child pornographer in the year 2006 even uses film? While we all can agree that child exploitation is indeed repugnant and deserving of the full force of the law it seems to me we all should be able to agree that with todays technology, suspect drugstore developed kiddie porn needs to be viewed very cautiously to prohibit these types of unfounded damning accusations from being made in the first place.

> How about not interview the FAMILIES and EMPLOYERS and
> TEACHERS until there was a shred of evident

But there WAS evidence. There were naked pictures of little kids. The system determined, per the rules of the system (and somewhat to my surprise) that these did not constitute a problem.

The standards of evidence are not particularly good here, to be sure, and should be improved. I cannot, off the top of my head, construct a paragraph that I think could be usefully given to police and lab technicians to neatly describe the sorts of things I think should be reported, though.

Can you?

This was not a good article. It gives us 3 pages of emotional response and, basically 'I got caught up in the system and, while it worked, it stressed me out a lot' with perhaps a half to one page summarizing the state of the law, with one example of someone who actually had to fight ('for weeks') to get their kids back. There are much more unpleasant stories out there which the writer was apparently too lazy to dig up.

Were I the editor, I would have told the writer to cut most of the emotional fluff out -- put that in your personal blog, please -- and give me more facts, more data. Give us some of the objective reality we can use to promote change. It's sad that you were stressed out, but that's not journalism.

Our personal fears of what could happen are not journalism. An article on how I was scared of dying in an accident on the crowded freeway this weekend, but didn't, and in fact arrived home safely, is not journalism.

I *do* sympathize with the author, truly. It must have been very upsetting, and I would have been upset and freaked out too. But, it's not news.

Maybe I missed something, but this sentence is puzzling:

"Finally, I took a photo of everyone, as was our camping tradition, peeing on the ashes of the fire to put it out for the last time."

OK, the author takes a photo of the following people peeing on the fire: his adult buddy (aka Rusty); the author's son, Noah, age 8; Noah's twin sister; the author's younger daughter, age 3; perhaps himself (using a timer and a tripod, though that is doubtful if it was a disposable camera); and Rusty's two kids.

Question 1: What are the ages and gender(s) of Rusty's two kids?

Question 2: Apparently the girls were not left out of this ritual (the author photographed "everyone"), so how did they manage to pee on the fire without exposing more than the men/boy(s) did (photo or no photo), and how did they feel about their greater exposure, and about being exposed to at least one adult male's genitals? And if the girls were left out, what kind of message did their exclusion convey to them, and how do they feel now, knowing that their presence is not to be inferred from the word "everyone"?

Question 3: If the author didn't photograph himself peeing on the fire, did his absence from the photo lead him to be careless about where the camera ended up, and in whose hands?

Just asking.

Trivial questions, maybe, to a pseudosophisticated adult, but maybe not so trivial to a little girl as young as 8--or 3.

I am the poster who witnessed the pervert at the kids' summer camp in the park.

When I was a girl of the age of 10 or so, I had a complete stranger expose himself to me and start masturbating. Luckily I got away and nothing bad happened.

I also had an obscene phone caller call the home when I was a little girl and ask me questions about my "private parts."

Many people say this is a witchhunt. But I am just one indivudual who has had more than one exposure to pedophiles. What are the odds? In my experience, this is absolutely something to be vigilant against. Maybe there are more pedophiles out there than we really know.

Just an unofficial poll... how many Salon readers out there have had personal experience with pedophiles, either personally or through their children?

Again, while I find most of the article compelling, the author uncritically promotes a notorious Men's Rights activist crackpot Dean Tong on the last page of the story.

This is no small issue as the questionable statistics and politics of Dean Tong and his co-horts were the subject of a Salon article back in 2002.

See http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2002/05/22/molestation/index.html

The article did say Tong was raising an important issue, but also pointed out his dishonest science, dubious qualifications and unsavory alliance with misogynist "men's rights" groups. It concluded: To the extent that Tong and his colleagues add more hysteria to the molestation equation, they bury precedent under hostility and ignorance -- elements that they purport to despise in the so-called child molestation industry...to the extent that reformers use distorted statistics to disguise a regressive, reactionary agenda, they only prolong any resolution of the child abuse problem in America."

Now, three years later, Salon allows an uncritical use of Tong as a source.

But Tong hasn't exactly gotten more valid with time. In fact, he's been involved in the notorious Darren Mack case. When Darren didn't get everything he wanted in a bitter divorce, he stabbed his wife to death, shot the judge and clerk on his case with a high powered rifle and went on the lam. Before he surrendered in Mexico, authorities had found evidence he was planning a bomb attack.

Dean Tong consulted with Mack in his divorce case. He provided "expert" testimony that Mack was not a violent man, despite repeated complaints about abusive behavior from his wife, including a restraining order.

After Mack became a murderer, Tong attempted to justify himself with all sorts of lame spin, including comments which attempted to blame his victims for creating the stress which made him snap - "You know, this was a situation where he—he wasn‘t going to take justice delayed is justice denied. He felt like the fox was guarding the henhouse. And—and he wanted justice now."

More details can be found here:

http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/darren_mack_hir.html

I wonder if the author and Salon were unaware of these issues when this article was being edited. It doesn't take much to discover Tong has credibility problems - all Salon had to do was google itself.

Usually Salon is quite good about spotting and exposing the crackpots. But Salon also has had a long running fascination with the issue of false allegations. Here, I think they screwed up and it undermines an otherwise compelling story. If it's true - I haven't been able to find any evidence the author exists. If the author is using a pseudonym, shouldn't Salon tell us?