The very fact that Eckard's has devoted pages and pages of their employee handbook to this very topic of low-level employees using bad judgement and making wrongful accusations is constructive evidence in writing that they were aware of a problem with their staff making mistakes on this issue for a long, long time before this incident and that they knowingly and recklessly failed to properly supervise this particular photo clerk.

When someone slips and the management puts up a "caution: wet floor" sign the courts recognize that to be prudent, not actionable. Look it up. (not wikipedia, try an actual factual wensite) The fact that an Eckerd's employee manual goes to any efforts to exercise caution is not the 'ipso facto' smoking gun you want it to be, dickhead. "Trust, but verify." The only thing Ronald Reagan said that made any sense.

Jody "fucktard" Jenkins already established for us photos of adult males (no adult women), nudity at all age levels, and evidence of alcohol in a secluded space. I'm going to start taking my photographs to Eckerd's for processing. I have nothing to fear.

"nudity at all age levels, and evidence of alcohol in a secluded space. I'm going to start taking my photographs to Eckerd's for processing. I have nothing to fear."

Hey genius, you've successfully avoided any of the relevant points and issues of both the article and the message board. Go back, read, formulate your thoughts, and then see if something more intelligent comes out. Here's hoping.

Suspect photos discovered. Were they obvious family friendly nude shots of an eight year old boy's penis (presumably, the boy holding his underwear over the fire was visible from the waist down, otherwise how would you know he was nude?) and three year olds alone naked in the woods that the author implies, or where they possibly maybe just a little bit questionable? There's no way to know without actually seeing the photos, and since the author hasn't provided them (tastfully digitized to protect the innocent)we can't really judge their merit.

So let's look at the optimal timeline proposed by Kendra:

**’1) preliminary investigation=

A. a trained expert assesses whether the report is valid (e.g, a single photo of a baby whose diaper is slipping off their rump would be considered insufficient evidence to make a formal, full-blown investigation)"**

Hmm...well, yes, again, when the photos were received, they were passed on to DCFS, those would be the trained experts, and apparently, they felt the investigation was warranted.

**"B. if the expert deems necessary, contact and interview all parties involved"**

O.k..that is exactly what happened. The author describes this as a procedural hoop, but then again, I don't think his judgment of the situation is the best to go on, even if it is all we have to go on.

**"2) full-blown investigation (or whatever the hell you want to call it)= after careful assessment through the prelim investigation, the next stage could proceed with contacting employers, teachers, etc., and home search."**

O.k...since the author does clearly state that employers names and contact information was requested after the initial interview, let's go with that and say that again is exactly what happened. Oh, and for the record, you suggested that there was a difference between an investigation and a "full blown" investigation, not I.

Now I can't remember which one of you had a friend who lost his job as teacher because of a false accusation. That's horrible, but then again, it's not a fact in evidence. What I am discussing is this man's case specifically, and he has had absolutely NO NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES (beyond temporary mental stress) because of this. His wife did not lose her job, he did not lost his job, and in fact writing his self serving little story got him a nice pay check from Salon. Neither they nor their children were prevented from leaving the country. Both parents retained custody of their children throughout this entire story.

What you have is questionable photos. Given his descriptions, and the reactions of some on the board, it could be said that a reasonable non expert could consider these photos questionable. Could others see the same photos and not think they are questionable, of course. Any two people can look at the same thing, and come up with different assessments. That's why the case was referred to DCFS. Because they are experts, because they are the ones who made both the determination that the photos were suspect, and the eventual determination that no abuse was found. NO WARRANTLESS SEARCH OCCURRED, because after the interviews, there were no grounds for one.

O.k...Salon has already taken this topic down, but I just had to get my last stupid words in as well. We shall all disagree, and I hope I am never falsely accused by an over zealous system, and I hope that a more stringent rule of investigation never leaves you or your children without recourse in the face of a predator.

As two why this story is riling so many people, myself included.

I would think it’s related to two competing interests of the innocent and their respective defenders. That of innocent people, and innocent children who have suffered abuse.

Being even tangentially involved in any abuse allegation is gut wrenching on a personal level, on both sides. If you are an innocent, being accused, can lead to horrific personal and social consequences. If you are a child, the parent of a child, or even just a disinterested third party, being a part of the saga of abuse is horrific.

From my own side, I see people defending an indictment of a system that in this instance seemed to have worked. A case was brought, and dismissed due to lack of evidence. Those of us who have in some way or another had our lives touched by abuse, or even just fear of abuse, feel that having a case dropped is proof that the system works, not that the system failed. still other's whose experience with abuse is not doubt more personal and more visceral, respond as such, not convinced that the author is providing his full story suspicious that perhaps he got off too easy.

Although I wouldn't speak for the other side, I would presume they are projecting other interests onto the story than the facts at hand. They see Whig Democratic rhetoric about our loss of personal freedoms, and vindictive crusades against the innocent. They also, more legitimately, see the cases of other men accused of similar crimes whose outcomes where not as benign as the authors.

As with any story that inspires this much debate, it is because people feel connected to the issue, and do not want to let someone else get the last word, and have it implied by their silence that they were convinced.

So we go in circles and circles, repeating, and escalating our rhetoric. Which in the end, probably is good for the issue as a whole, to have all that debate, and is definitely good for salon, to get all those hits.