Contempt for Foster's, questions for police

The child porn charges might not stick, but the silly stories charges definitely do.

Hurry before Foster’s takes down their story from Wednesday of last week after they were beaten again by The Lebanon Voice, this time on the news that longtime Foster’s Daily Democrat (Yes, sorry FDD, his stories appeared in your publication too.) and Rochester Times reporter Conor Makem would not face child porn charges.

After The Lebanon Voice posted its story earlier in the day, the Foster’s referenced this publication as it unveiled “contradictory” statements made by Rochester Police.

First Foster’s quoted Rochester Police Chief Michael Allen as saying hard drives taken from Makem’s “personal” computer were so damaged charges couldn’t be supported. Then he added that there was also concern that Makem’s computer was accessible to others.

Then the Foster’s story states (verbatim):

“But a story today in the online publication “Lebanon Voice” quoted Capt. Paul Toussaint as saying Makem would not be charged because the pornography was found on a computer to which others had access.”

Excuse me, Foster’s, but usually “but” references a contradictory idea. Yet, Young and Toussaint both said the computer was accessible to others and that was a reason for Makem not to be charged.

Face it. You just got beat and reacted, sloppily.

The next day Foster’s basically ran the same story, with executive editor Rod Doherty having to co-author a piece that attempts to resolve the paper’s missteps.

Prominent in both stories are two things: one, that Makem was a Rochester Times reporter; and two, that Foster’s diligently called police constantly to check on the potential child porn charges. You insult your readers, Foster’s. They see through such self-serving tripe.

The next day, another red herring. Foster’s comes out with an epiphany: The fact that Makem’s charges connected with the women’s bathroom photo shoots won’t be undermined by law enforcement’s inability to prosecute the child porn images.

The alleged bathroom camera high jinks case, however, was never in jeopardy. The investigation had a fresh scent when it began, the markers were likely more definite and every image was likely time stamped. He was indicted before the forensic analysis even was completed. In fact, it’s possible another Foster’s staffer downloaded the offensive images.

So The Lebanon Voice produced one story that said all that the public needed, and the Foster’s produced three trying to promote their due diligence after being beat.

And do you ever get the feeling that the Foster's treats the Rochester Times like the toothless cousin they're ashamed of?

While the Fosters treatment of this week’s big story is dubious, the Rochester Police Department has some questions to answer as well.

First, why such reluctance to continue an investigation into who downloaded child pornography on a Foster’s work computer?

The Lebanon Voice has reported that Rochester Police noted the iMac computer on which child porn images WERE found was used by several people and had been used by staffers of the Rochester Times for several years. Since it was primarily housed at the Rochester Times, which is owned by the Foster’s, it can be presumed that Foster’s staffers also occasionally used it. The Rochester Tines shares its offices with the Foster’s Rochester bureau.

Computer experts will tell you that every click, every download, every upload can be traced forensically. Why can’t this be done in the iMac, which we don’t believe was damaged?

We would think that - in a normal world - if child porn markers pointed to them being downloaded at a particular business in Rochester, on a particular computer that had been accessible to multiple people over multiple years, that police would at least investigate the possibility of identifying the perpetrator of such a heinous crime instead of just saying: No, not necessary.

Which leaves us feeling just a little creeped out.