Charlestown Man Arraigned on Child Pornography Charges.

City employee James Mansfield was arraigned in Charlestown District Court today.

James Mansfield was held on $20,000 cash bail at his arraignment in Charlestown District Court on charges that he possessed child pornography on his laptop computer and a portable flash drive, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said.

Mansfield must reside only at his family home if he posts bail. He must have no unsupervised contact with his children and no contact at all with any other children under the age of 18. He must be fitted with a GPS monitoring device within 24 hours of his release and report to probation officers three times per week. He must also refrain from using alcohol or drugs, must abide by a curfew of 8:00 p.m. to 6:30 a.m.. He must have no contact with any victims or witnesses in his case.

Boston Police executed a search warrant there on Friday evening, according to the District Attorney’s office’s statement. Police recovered over 100 images depicting children under the age of 16 on his computer and on a flash drive.

Boston Police arrested Mansfield and charged him with two counts of possessing child pornography, a felony punishable by up to five years in state prison. 

Macli6 October 16, 2012 at 09:37 AM
This is a great family that will be ruined because of this. All innocent victims, I feel for them, truly I do. However, I am forced to focus on and feel sympathy for these poor children who were victimized to make these DISGUSTING photos. My heart breaks for them and their parents, this a horror no parent ever wants to know. Although, his family is innocent and victims too, the focus must not be taken off of the ones who will fight nightmares, depression, addiction and suicide. They are the true victims of this. Who will pay for their treatment and rehabilitation? Most of the time they just end up lost souls. Shame on you, Jimmy. May God have mercy on you.
Joseph November 13, 2012 at 01:06 PM
You guys want to think this is an innocent crime? You should be ashamed of yourselves for supporting this sick man. Look where it could lead. http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20221113victims_ofsuspectedkid_pornpair_sought/
Owen November 13, 2012 at 04:25 PM
WHo said this is an innocent crime? If you're referring to the first comment on the article, they were sympathizing with the family, not the suspect.
Owen November 13, 2012 at 04:38 PM
I'm going to try to get an intelligent discussion going here. I know that's next to impossible around here lately, what with the new lows people have gone too in the last week since the election. Call me the devil's advocate here, but cases like this always make me think about due process and our legal system (guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States). People take more exception that usual toward accused child predators, and rightly so. We view children as the most vulnerable of society. This man is accused of a serious crime and, if found guilty, will face punishment. But from reading the article, he's facing punishment already: a monitoring bracelet, reporting to probation officers, no unsupervised contact with his children, etc. In the off chance that he is found not guilty, it won't matter. People have already made up their minds about him. Take a second to think about this. Even though our immediate, emotional reaction against this man is to want the book thrown at him (I dare say there are some who would be fine with it if his constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial were circumvented), is it at all possible that perhaps we've over stepped the boundaries of "innocent unless proven guilty"? The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the accused. Again, take a minute to think before you start tapping away with an angry, ill thought out reply, please.
Joseph November 13, 2012 at 04:41 PM
Actually Owen, I was referring to another article that was blocked from comments cause friends of this guy complained to Nate and he closed them down.
Owen November 13, 2012 at 04:50 PM
I see. Thank you for clarifying.
Joseph November 13, 2012 at 05:05 PM
Not so quick with innocent until proven guilty. I hear ya Owen. I agree for 99% of crimes committed. However, when talking internet crimes, there's my 1%. You are guilty until proven innocent. We may not like it, but this is a valid argument. Whatever webpage we visit, our IP address is tracked. Send an email and it's tracked to the IP address it was sent from. People who believe deleting internet history cleans out the memory, you are sorely mistaken. Remember the Craigslist Killer? He was tracked down using the IP address. We all know the rest of the story in that case. In the example here in Charlestown, the Feds tracked the IP address to this particular location. Unless someone else in his family was involved, it points to one person. Do you see why guilty until proven innocent is the norm in situations like this? Even the Mayor Mumbles agrees with this stance. His supporters want this story buried. My support goes out to the families that are still innocent. The article I attached goes to show that kids of all ages need to be protected from the sick minds of individuals such as these.
Owen November 13, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Joseph, I disagree wholeheartedly. If you feel that people accused crimes committed on the internet should not get the same protection as other accused criminals, then you can petition the government to change that. However, individual citizens do not have the right to decide which crimes are protected under the constitution and which ones aren't. A few years ago, close relatives of mine got a visit from the FBI. These relatives were the definition of respectable and law abiding. However, the FBI had a few questions regarding Yahoo accounts that were accessed from their IP address. These accounts were linked to an investigation into trafficking children. It was clear that they had no involvement, and because they were protected under the Constitution, the FBI couldn't just slap cuffs on them and call it good. By your logic, that should have been the acceptable course of action since the internet was involved. The Constitution protects all of us from overreaching government (or at least it's supposed to). This man accused of these crimes is as innocent unless proven guilty as any murderer, car thief, or white colar criminal. The government must present how the evidence was collected, what evidence points to this man, and it must be done in a court room in from a jury of his peers. The prosecution has to prove the case, not the accused. That is the case 100% of the time.
Owen November 13, 2012 at 05:55 PM
It's a sad day when the guy advocating 100% protection under the Constitution sounds like an oddball. But, it's a sacred document that I took an oath to protect.
Joseph November 13, 2012 at 06:11 PM
I understand your point of view Owen. It's hard to disagree when it comes to the Constitution. I'm afraid though that while it is his right to be protected and given due process, he was arrested because his "digital fingerprint" was found at the crime scene. I have no problem with the government actively searching for predators of this nature. Does it lead to further government into our personal lives, yes. And I do have a problem with that. Yet, in crimes of this nature, the hell with it. Those who live normal lives have nothing to worry about. I'm not saying I'm right with this attitude I have, but that's my stance on this issue. "It's a sad day when the guy advocating 100% protection under the Constitution sounds like an oddball." - I know you weren't trying to be funny, maybe you were, but I found that statement amusing. It's scary, but you're right. Weird world. Anyways, thank you for your service to our country Owen. G'day


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something