"Btw, the adults were naked?"

There was a photo of everyone peeing on the fire. If that is written correctly, then that would include the adults as well. To pee on an object, would require a degree of nakedness. To take a photo of that, along with children peeing (the daughter too) would raise red flags.

And no one was extradited.

So many opinions about photos that nobody has seen.

So many people dealing in absolutes. Context and culture are everything, as far as nudity is concerned.

The guy took some photos that may or may not be questionable. I believe they were innocent enough, but again, I haven't seen them. He was investigated by a system that prefers to err on the side of caution (and why not? what's the alternative?) and no charges brought (hooray!). He felt threatened and afraid (who wouldn't?). The system worked. This time.

Anybody who thinks that an innocent person has nothing to worry about has way too much confidence in the authorities and would feel right at home in a banana republic.

There's bound to be some scrutiny,

You should understand,

When pics of your kids show you

With your penis in your hand.

Oh so now it's a degree of nakedness...okay. Also, I never said he was extradited but seeing as how you state that is was only "probably" innocent, perhaps he should be cause you never know, huh?

BS detector -

Certainly not everything that's done for the childern is bs but before you leave people at the mercy of others judgements and, more importantly, subsequent mandatory trails and tribulations it might help if you read or re-read the article.

For example: "When we returned on Sunday, I forgot the throwaway camera and Rusty found it in his car. He gave it to his wife, whom I'll call Janet, to get developed, and she dropped it off the next day with two other rolls of film at a local Eckerd drugstore. On Tuesday, when she returned to pick up the film, she was approached by two officers from the Savannah Police Department. They told her they had been called by Eckerd due to "questionable photos."

One officer told Janet "there were pictures of little kids running around with no clothes on, pictures of minors drinking alcohol," she recounted for me in an e-mail. "I asked to see the pictures and was told I couldn't. I explained there must be a mistake. I was kind of laughing, you know, 'Come on guys. There must be an explanation. This is crazy. Let me see the pictures.' The officer told me that he personally did not find [the photos] offensive and that he had camped himself as a kid and knows what goes on." But the officer also told Janet that "because Eckerd's had called them and that because there were pictures of children naked, genitalia and alcohol, they would have to investigate."

Janet asked the photo lab clerk what was on the photos and the clerk "replied very seriously that they were bad, that there was one that looked like a child's head had been cut off, one with children drinking beer and pictures of naked kids."

So, we have the judgement of the store clerk superceeding the judgement of the trained police officer and we have the same clerk claimimg that one of the pictures looked like a child had been beheaded. Better safe than sorry is not a bad idea in general but there has to be some balance involved in the analysis.

how many people do you personally know who have been falsely imprisoned for child molestation?

I don't know of any. But I do know of more than one person (myself included) that has had dealings/exposure to pedophiles.

Sorry, but the supposed injustice that this man supposedly suffered (i.e., him being questioned) not an issue that keeps me awake at night.

That you feel your personal "dealings/exposure" with peodphiles trumphs his experience, or anybody else's, of being falsely accused (though not in the strict legal sense) of being a pedophile is just a sign of your conceit and lack of empathy. So, because there are real pedophiles out there, people who are falsely accused of molesting their own children should be what? - okay with it because other people have molested kids? Strange.

no, but I am ok with someone who is under suspicion of child molestation being questioned... and that's exactly what happened here.

Of course it's not ok for the innocent to be jailed. But that's not what we're talking about...are we???

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. And how would you handle the issue of questionable photos being seen by a store clerk any differently?

"So, we have the judgment of the store clerk superseding the judgment of the trained police officer and we have the same clerk claiming that one of the pictures looked like a child had been beheaded. Better safe than sorry is not a bad idea in general but there has to be some balance involved in the analysis."

---KStone

Really, so, Barney Fyfe with his advanced degree in child psychology looked at the photos, and said well this looks no different than when Uncle Cletus would take me into the woods and show me his happy place. Case Dismissed!

O.k. That is a highly unfair representation of the Savannah Police Department, but it is meant to illustrate a point. The fact that a cop looked at the photos and didn't feel they were out of the ordinary isn't at issue here.

A cop could have just as easily looked at the same pictures and agreed whole heartedly with clerk. The cop was bound by the law to turn over the photos, and so he did. Likewise, a lawyer reviewing the photos would have (and probably did) proceeded in accordance with the law, and processed the questionable photos up the ladder.

The social workers then, being trained in this area, looked at the photos, made their own determination, interviewed the subjects as per procedure, and closed the investigation. What am I missing?

Let's not forget that there was a time, not that long ago, when a man could beat his wife, kids, and mother with impunity, and was often given a pass by understanding police officers, who didn't see anything wrong.

Now we live in a world with must arrests, and zero tolerance, which for good or ill is the result of codified legal rules, and not the judgment calls of untrained persons in authority.

Fortunately the system in Savannah, allows for Family Services to make the final determination in such cases, which prevents the wrongful arrest and public accusation of citizens.