Hampton Roads, VA - 02/09/2010
Clear34°Clear
Forecasts | Doppler Radar
Traffic Cameras & VDOT Alerts

Victim of child porn seeks damages from viewers

Posted to: News Norfolk

The case
Amy, now 20, was filmed performing sex acts that became part of one of the most popular kiddie porn videos on the Internet. She and her lawyer are petitioning courts for restitution from those who have downloaded and viewed the videos under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

NORFOLK

Misty is all grown up now.

She goes by Amy these days, but even that's not her real name. So fearful of being outed as the "star" of the Misty child pornography series, she keeps her true identity a closely guarded secret.

The Misty series is one of the most popular and readily available kiddie porn videos on the Internet. It's considered a collector's item among pedophiles. Downloading it is a felony.

Amy, now 20, remains traumatized by the crimes but became devastated upon learning they have been distributed worldwide. Officials have identified 750 individuals who possess the Misty series, but they believe tens of thousands of copies are out there.

In a novel approach to getting help, she and an attorney have begun petitioning federal courts for restitution against anyone convicted of possessing the Misty series.

Raymond Highsmith, a former Shriner from Virginia Beach convicted of downloading the videos, is one such defendant.

 

The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 includes a section requiring restitution for victims of sex crimes. Whether that extends to defendants convicted of downloading and viewing child pornography remains a hotly contested question across the country. Some judges have awarded Amy millions; others have given her nothing.

Amy, who lives in the Northeast, seeks restitution for physical, psychiatric and psychological care, occupational therapy, transportation, housing, child care, lost income, attorneys' fees and other losses that might result from the crimes that have occurred.

She has described her horror in a letter to courts where she is seeking restitution.

A trusted uncle who was left to watch Amy began raping her when she was 8. He told her she was special, that he loved her and that they had their own special secrets.

He would buy her favorite snack, beef jerky, and give her rides on his motorcycle. Today, she can't eat beef jerky without feeling panic, guilt and humiliation, and she'll never ride a motorcycle again.

For more than a year, the uncle videotaped varied sex acts. He forced the girl to perform sex telephone calls and Internet chats with other men, and he even took her to a secluded wooded area to meet with other pedophiles.

When her parents discovered what was happening, the uncle was arrested and Amy was put in therapy. She had repeated nightmares, waking up crying and in cold sweats. She would dream her uncle was getting out of jail and coming to get her.

Amy seemed to respond well to the therapy, but as she grew into a teenager, she hid an "underlying fragility" with feelings of mistrust, anger and guilt under a "seemingly strong facade," Joyanna Silberg, her adult psychologist, wrote in a detailed report on Amy's condition.

At 16, Amy began drinking heavily and that grew worse when, at 17, she learned that the "Misty" images had been sent around the world over the Internet. She sought help, got herself under control and headed off to college.

But she had trouble paying attention and making it to class. She had a breakdown after seeing a movie on abused children in a psychology class and dropped out of school.

Today, she suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Victims of child sexual abuse are more resistant to treatment than victims of other types of PTSD, Silberg wrote. Amy is trapped in feelings of being dirty and shamed.

"Amy faces a long and difficult course of treatment," Silberg wrote in her report.

"Feelings of shame and humiliation are multiplied exponentially for victims of Internet child pornography," she continued. And knowing the images are out there "interferes significantly with the therapeutic resolution of these problems."

She lives in fear that if one of her friends "Googles" her name, the pictures might pop up. She knows that those abusive images will always be on the Internet.

"I don't want to be there, but I have to be there and it's never going away, and that's a scary thought," she said in a letter filed with several courts where she sought restitution.

"It is hard to describe what it feels like to know that at any moment, anywhere, someone is looking at pictures of me as a little girl being abused by my uncle and is getting some kind of sick enjoyment from it," she wrote.

"It's like I am being abused over and over and over again."

 

Even though the restitution law has been on the books for 15 years, no one tried to collect from defendants who downloaded and viewed the videos until this year. Those who produced the videos, such as Amy's uncle, have long been held accountable for payments to the victims.

Only recently has the Department of Justice begun notifying victims such as Amy by letter that they could be entitled to restitution. More than 2,600 child victims have been positively identified.

Amy and another victim who was brutalized on film, in what's known as the "Vicky" series, began filing requests for restitution earlier this year.

In 20 cases, they have had mixed results. A federal judge in Florida ordered a defendant to pay Amy $3.2 million, nearly the full amount she sought based on estimates for lost wages and mental health treatment for the rest of her life, but that case is on appeal. Even if she wins, the defendant, James Freeman, is serving a 50-year prison term and has few assets.

Some child pornography defendants, such as Freeman and Norfolk's Shon Walter, who is serving 23 years in federal prison for looking at kiddie porn, are serving more time than Amy's uncle. The uncle, convicted of repeatedly raping Amy, filming the attacks and selling the videos, is eligible for parole in 2011 after serving a minimum of 12 years.

Another judge in Florida awarded Amy her full $3.6 million request, but that case is also on appeal. Most judges awarded Amy and Vicky minimal damages of between $1,000 and $3,000.

Federal judges in Oregon, California, Hawaii and Arkansas and in the Alexandria federal court denied restitution awards for Amy and the Vicky series victim. The Arkansas judge found that there was no reasonable way to assess a restitution amount, that the victim was not identifiable and that there was no proof of a "causal link" between viewing the images and specific injury to Amy.

The government has appealed that case, which could set up a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court over the conflicting rulings.

In the Highsmith case in Norfolk, Amy is awaiting a ruling on restitution by U.S. District Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. The judge heard arguments on Sept. 22 at Highsmith's sentencing, but appeared skeptical. He has until Dec. 21 to rule.

"I don't have any testimony. I don't have any documents. How can the court determine how much?" the judge asked.

"I cannot stand here and vouch for these numbers," Assistant U.S. Attorney Randy Stoker admitted.

Stoker submitted to the judge details from other cases and a lengthy position paper arguing for restitution, but he did not provide the court with the letter from Amy or the report from her psychologist, both of which were provided in other cases.

Stoker also acknowledged that even Amy's uncle was ordered to pay restitution of only $6,000, of which she was to receive $1,125.

Amy has received payment from only one defendant, but that didn't stem from a judge's order. Amy settled out of court with that defendant, in Connecticut, for $130,000 in a civil action that voided the need for restitution in the criminal case.

Amy did not testify in any of the cases. The victim in the Vicky series has, in a case out of Fresno, Calif., but even then she was awarded only $1,000. Her mother testified, too.

"The memories and trauma of her abuse still haunt her and our family, but now there is a new abuser," the mother said, according to a court transcript. "The new abusers are the sick individuals who download her pictures and enjoy watching her being sexually assaulted as a child. This sickens me."

Amy's attorney, James R. Marsh of New York, has been fighting the restitution battle for her. Amy, he said, remains in a very fragile state. She just had a baby and is in a troubled relationship.

"She is completely devastated by this," he said. "She basically doesn't have any joy in her life. This is just an awful situation."

Amy wrote in her victim impact statement that she feels unworthy of anything and a complete failure.

"What happened to me hasn't gone away," she said. "It will never go away."

Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com



ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its Web sites. Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Report Violation" link below the comment.

Mixed feelings on this tactic

I'm not going to comment what happened other than say, you have to have something seriously wrong with you think that was an ok thing to do to a child. moving away from that part of it. The victims do need to be compensated. The victims do need monetary compensation. The rest of their lives is not going to be easy and the special help they need is not cheap. This compensation needs to come from the predators. All of those involved. I am concerned though about this as a precedent. I am worried this kind of thing will make people who are PC think "hey that's what we do to people we don't agree with, make a law letting us sue them for compensation." I know, slippery slope and all that, blah blah blah...One step in that direction is good, 2 is ok, but 3 or 4, dangerous. So I have mixed feelings about this. I am concerned that it's going to cause even more insane lawsuits down the road given the greed and sociopathic traits of some lawyers and lawmakers.

Bad writing

If her pictures are the most popular and readily available, then how in the world are they considered collector's items, either by pedophiles or anyone else?!

Amy's lucky

I'm only guessing but I think most predators don't tape their crimes, and they're victimization is forever internalized. Much of the problem comes from the publics attitude towards sex in general. The article stated that the abuse started at age eight. I'm not trying to shift blame here but I taught my daughter about sex at age six. Not all the details but just in general, about good touching and bad touching. I did this while holding her hand at the roller rink, I told her to do what ever she had to to get through the situation and then tell me as soon as possible, I included that if it were me she should tell someone else right away. I gave her permission to talk about it before anything happened. Fortunately she never had to tell anyone anything. But the door was open and she learned all the important things later. The when, where, with who, why's, the dangers, the pleasures, the way sex will effect your heart and head. We teach our children about violence all the time they see it everywhere TV, movies, games, news, etc. and we have no trouble explaining, the when, where, whys, who and if appropriate encourage their participation. Yet were mute when it comes to sex, leaving our

child porn

There is no way or me to comprehend how anyone can derive sexual stimulation from watching a monster rape and abuse a defenseless child. I have no problem with consenting adults who are producing pornography and are being compensated to do so with contracts,etc. where everyone involved know what they are getting into and how much money they will make. Adults making adult material for adults. The very thought of child porn is so vile it makes me want to vomit. If this were to happen to anyone in my family, (trying to think of a tactful way to put it) I would have absolutely no problem with the "euthanasia" of the perpetrators by my hands. Euthanasia may be a bit of a exaggeration as I know for sure they would not experience a painless exit from this world. I waste my time typing this as I already know it will not be posted. Thanks in advance Va Pilot.

Horrified

I am horrified. That a relative of this child took advantage of her trust and innocence, and basically ruined her life.

I pray for the day when she can be made whole, and move on, but my G_d, what a tall order.

Anyone who has downloaded this filth should be made to live life behind bars with hardened criminals who will take advantage of them for the rest of their miserable lives.

I can only say that this Uncle got off easy. If this young lady had been MY daughter, he would have been dead, and I would have made sure it was slow, and excruiatingly painfull.

In fact that's the kind of death penalty that the courts should hand down to these animals. I am not sure that there is anything that can be done to reform these deviants.

Again, he's lucky, had this girl been MY daughter, he wouold be dead.

WHAT money???

In a vast, vast majority of any cases where she's seeking restitution, she will never see a dime. Why? Because in order to get money from these sickos, they have to *have* money. So what if the court awards her millions of dollars -- unless the defendant is super-rich, she will never see any money. In the case where she was awarded slightly more than $1,000 -- was that before or after the lawyers took their cut, before or after court fees, before or after the costs to her for therapy, lost wages for time spent in court, etc., etc. She's not getting rich off this.

I see this as her attempt to exact justice, and get some judgment from the court that she was wronged. She is being violated again every time someone views those videos, so to her, it only makes sense that she be able to go after (in some way) each person who downloads and views them. Even if she never sees much money, she will at least know that someone has been held accountable for viewing the videos, even if only by the court.

money may not be the answer, but it helps make her life better

Yes, money is not the answer. But after all that Amy has been through, I'm absolutely positive that this money will help her live a better life. Will the money take away the memories & make her problems go away? Definitely not. Will the money help her buy a house, a car, pay for college, put money in savings for retirement and make her life more comfortable overall? Yes, I am sure of it. I hope that Amy gets all the restitution she deserves and that she continues on in her life with nothing but the best of luck and a positive outlook. Good luck, Amy and keep your head held high.

Look at it his way

Look at it a different way to get away from the emotional issue. Say someone writes and publishes a libelous article. Does the victim deserve civil damages from the person that wrote it and also all the people that read it?

Knowingly downloading this garbage is already a major criminal offense as it should be, but I think extending that to civil damages is outside the intent of the law. If anything they should be pushing for more severe criminal prosecution and jail time rather than trying to get non-criminal fines that will probably never be paid.

Comment removed

The comment from the user Niteliter has been removed after being flagged insensitive to the victim of a tragedy. -PilotOnline moderator

I see you removed...

mine too, and all I proposed was a just reward for such perps! Or was it because I included a reference to NAMBLA?

I didn't see Niteliter's comment before it was taken down,

but I'm surprised that "insensitive" comments can be grounds for censorship. I've just re-read the rules for comments that the Pilot has listed, and agree with them, as long as their interpretation isn't taken to extremes. I see nothing in them that would lead me to believe that there is some "sensitivity index" that must be met. In my search for truth, I am ruled more by logic than by sentiment. My tolerance for "insensitive" remarks is therefore considerably higher than perhaps a reader who wears his feelings on his sleeve. I hope we're careful not to get so affected by our own subjectivity, so as to preclude a rich, diverse group of opinions on this board.
As to this child's case, the full weight of legal wrath should fall upon the perpetrator, and on any and all direct and indirect accomplices to the outrageous crimes against this child. At some point, however, this monetary concupiscence must end. This young adult woman must be allowed to get on with her life, free of the biases of psychiatrists and lawyers.

your lack of experience with this is clear -donvabeach

Suggesting that the young woman "go on with her life" is a clear indication you have no idea what this kind of trauma does to someone. And recieving money for damages will help pay for the doctors etc necessary to help her get better. Furthermore, the concern for the insensitive comments was out of respect for the victim, and perhaps others like her. Are you capable of empathy?

Money is not the answer

Nor will it resolve her fears. She has to face her fears for what they are, a hurt psych, a hurt emotion, a hurt heart, a hurt pride. If she is willing to face that her hurts do not rule her, she will start an incredible journey of healing. Jesus can heal her supernaturally or in guiding her thru maturity. Money is not the answer nor will it stop sin from happening.

supernaturally??? really???

YOu have no idea what you are speaking of. Where was Jesus when she was being raped?????????????????????????? I can say from my own experience with the same trauma, even when you are screaming out in pain from being raped, cut, and burnt by pedofiles, Jesus does not come and save you, nor does he stop them.
She needs to seek out the money where she can to pay for her assistance.
She never sinned, the abuser did by the way.

Shriners

Why does the Pilot insist on dragging the Shriners into this ? This happens all the time, they drag an organization into a story without cause. Shame on them.
Don't confuse the situation for the victim.
If there is a car crash ,they want to name the model of car like a Toyota Camry has an attraction to bridge abutments or trees ?

Yes, but...

You make a very good point: just because one person in an organization messes up, doesn't meant the entire organization should be publicly named for it. However, the irony in this part of the story is that the Shriners happens to be an organization dedicated to HELPING children, while in fact one of it's members was convicted of downloading child porn, which is definitely not helping children. I hope that you can now understand why this was mentioned by the reporter as an important fact.

niteliter,

there is a difference between restitution, profit, and punitive damages. This poor girl has been not only physically by materially injured by the direct and indirect behavior of these defendants. Will you pay for all the psychological helps she needs? Will you cover her rent and living expenses since she can't but reasonably could have if this did not happen to her? Those are restitution issues--she isn't "ahead" by any definition so where is the profit?

Go Amy Go!

I hope at this gives you some feeling of power in the situation. There will hopefully come a day when you can move on, but evidently at this time in your healing, taking control is what you need. Anyone caught downloading this abuse not only owes you, but should be publicly announced with their picture posted multiple times also on the internet as the threat that they are. I'm all for publicly humiliating those that abuse our children, get the secret out and protect all. Let's help get 'Amy' off the interent, and get the abusers on the news

Sex Offender Registry

Information on convicted sex offenders IS available at many websites.
Check this one - you may be surprised/shocked at what you find. Enter YOUR address and then click on the colored boxes.

http://www.familywatchdog.us/

and this one:

National DOJ registry:
http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/Conditions.aspx

The Virginia Sex Offenders registry is at:

http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/

There, you can search for offenders in your zip code or by name or other criteria. Most of the listings include a photograph of the person. You might be surprised who is living among you!

There is at least one sex offender in the Norfolk area that is not listed there; a shipyard owner's son who was convicted several years ago. The story was even carried here in the Pilot. I won't mention him by name, otherwise the Pilot would not approve this comment (they still might not), but there aren't that many shiyards in Norfolk. I imagine it was his daddy's money that kept him off the registry.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More News Stories

More articles from: News rss feed   


Toolbox