Laura UnBound wrote:
Patrick...Hi, Im Laura, Im a model

You clearly didnt pick up on just how firmly my tongue was placed in my cheek when I wrote that models are dumb. I thought perhaps the little winky face would at least HINT at the sarcasm, but apparently not. OF COURSE models arent dumb. Well, not all of them...there are a few...

I also was not stereotyping any models as anything. You again read me wrong. I said that IF the model walked out on the shoot, and the cops were unable to do anything about what she reported, the photographer COULD hurt HER reputation by ranting all over the place about how she completely blew off a shoot. Again, the line "God, models are such divas" was tongue-in-cheek.

A photographer videotaping models, in the bathroom or otherwise, is not as serious as being groped? How so? Id rather have, and would feel less violated, if someone grabbed my ass than if I later found out they videoed me using the bathroom or changing my clothes or even doing my makeup. To me personally, being videoed without knowledge or consent is fucking creepy, whereas someone touching my butt or tit is pervy and gross and unwanted, but more along the lines of annoying, not really fucking creepy.

Am I somehow NOT letting the cops do their job? Hell, Im not even in the same country right now, I dont think Im standing in anyones way. Im also not stopping the photographer from getting his day in court. If hes found innocent and that this model made it all up and those other 17+ models all consented to being photographed and videotaped, hey, I'll feel like a douchebag. I will admit to having been a douchebag.

I get it!  I know that you were "tongue in cheek"  but you are (were?) still making the presumption that the photographer is guilty!   You are perpetuating the story to be true when in fact we don't know it's true.  By posting what you have with presuming that he is guilty, you are not helping the investigation any.  If models have shot with this photographer and have concerns, they should call the police in this matter and not be posting about it in a public forum.  He might be a douche bag and he might not be.  It's not for us to say here!

Just because you find groping to be less offensive than being unknowingly video taped does not mean other models will agree with you.

Photography by BE wrote:

After finishing the shoot, the women spoke to a city officer about the camera in the changing room. The officer spoke to Faulkner Saturday and got permission to look inside, but did not find the camera.

Article says police officer got permission (bold in quote), I assume from photographer.

Hehehehe... I watch Law and Order.   My first words would not have been, "Please come in Mr,. Policeman". 

They would have been.. "You have a search warrant, right?"

That's why these stories have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Some of you might recall the Duke boys.   The media had them tried
and convicted.   I said in a thread that something sounds wrong here.
In NY last year several teenagers were arrested for rape.   Later all
charges were dropped when the 'victim' finally told the truth.
Of course not before all three had their faces all over the news.

Maybe he's a scum bag.   Odd as there are cameras sold on-line
that go in teddy bears, etc.  Some clothes over a video camera???
Maybe its not exactly as the media has said.

Artemis Bare wrote:
So White knights smell like fast food? I kinda figured thats what they smelled like on the other end of the internet screen.

Image not copied.....    .

I was gonna go  home to eat dinner in a few minutes.. Darn you, now what am I gonna do? 

Photography by BE wrote:
I was gonna go  home to eat dinner in a few minutes.. Darn you, now what am I gonna do? 

Go home. Eat. Beat that Anorexia!

Tony Lawrence wrote:
That's why these stories have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Some of you might recall the Duke boys.   The media had them tried
and convicted.   I said in a thread that something sounds wrong here.
In NY last year several teenagers were arrested for rape.   Later all
charges were dropped when the 'victim' finally told the truth.
Of course not before all three had their faces all over the news.

Maybe he's a scum bag.   Odd as there are cameras sold on-line
that go in teddy bears, etc.  Some clothes over a video camera???
Maybe its not exactly as the media has said.

My mom has always said that " ... paper never refused to take ink!" ... well it's even easier for so called "news" to get out as factual when it is after the fact found to be entirely false.  I say it time and time again on these public "mayhem" forums that we should not be so freaking quick to judge!

Cherrystone wrote:
Probably not....he was busy making what's for dinner lists.

I will agree, with the facts that are available, it seems there is a pretty good case against the guy, and if he did in fact do it, he should be punished for it - it's pretty disturbing.

But I still say the OP has some kind of agenda against this guy, and to be honest, taking a look at some of the lists the OP has, with the focus being mostly nude women, asses, oral sex, and models touching themselves, and names like "Absolutely Best ASSetts!", "Clothing optional beyond this point !!!", "Perfect topless", "Orgasmically Hot Shots!!", and "what's for dinner?" (which includes a close up of a vagina), I do find it ironic that he is judge and jury and spreading the word about what a perv the accused is.

Greg Kolack wrote:

I will agree, with the facts that are available, it seems there is a pretty good case against the guy, and if he did in fact do it, he should be punished for it - it's pretty disturbing.

But I still say the OP has some kind of agenda against this guy, and to be honest, taking a look at some of the lists the OP has, with the focus being mostly nude women, asses, oral sex, and models touching themselves, and names like "Absolutely Best ASSetts!", "Clothing optional beyond this point !!!", "Perfect topless", "Orgasmically Hot Shots!!", and "what's for dinner?" (which includes a close up of a vagina), I do find it ironic that he is judge and jury and spreading the word about what a perv the accused is.

I lol'D.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I get it!  I know that you were "tongue in cheek"  but you are (were?) still making the presumption that the photographer is guilty!   You are perpetuating the story to be true when in fact we don't know it's true.  By posting what you have with presuming that he is guilty, you are not helping the investigation any.  If models have shot with this photographer and have concerns, they should call the police in this matter and not be posting about it in a public forum.  He might be a douche bag and he might not be.  It's not for us to say here!

Just because you find groping to be less offensive than being unknowingly video taped does not mean other models will agree with you.

I am, yes. I am also free to do such things. Having not been one of the models who shot with Craig, I cannot HELP their investigation. I am not hindering it either, therefor I am doing as you suggested, and letting the police do their job I in fact encourage them to do their job.

Oh come on, thats a moot point. My response was to YOU SAYING that videotaping was not as much of a concern as say groping or raping, and I disagreed stating a personal belief on the matter. Of course all other models wont agree with me. I was just a model disagreeing with you.

Artemis Bare wrote:

So White knights smell like fast food? I kinda figured thats what they smelled like on the other end of the internet screen.

AAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's the bleach for my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Laura UnBound wrote:
I am, yes. I am also free to do such things. Having not been one of the models who shot with Craig, I cannot HELP their investigation. I am not hindering it either, therefor I am doing as you suggested, and letting the police do their job I in fact encourage them to do their job.

Oh come on, thats a moot point. My response was to YOU SAYING that videotaping was not as much of a concern as say groping or raping, and I disagreed stating a personal belief on the matter. Of course all other models wont agree with me. I was just a model disagreeing with you.

Do you not see the fear mongering aspect of many of the postings?  Do you believe that a model could not make false accusations against a photographer?  I think in this case, you have made the assumption that the photographer is guilty.   Am I wrong?  We can make plenty of mistakes in our postings on the forum here, but is anyone going to get hurt?  Maybe if the victims, the accused and the families of both are reading this? 

So if we roll with the stereotypes then ... a thread like this spreads fear that all photographers are suspect!  Naive models may read this thread and make that assumption?  I think this is very harmful!  I try hard to not make assumptions about other people, including models.  I give people the benefit of doubt, and that means I don't believe everything I hear.  Sometimes I'm shaken to the core by real news stories like what happened like the recent Tucson Arizona shooting for example.  I have been face to face with people I had no clue about.  Most of us have!

I remember being shocked by the case of a former model who used to be on here, Amanda Logue, and her boyfriend, Jason Andrews being indicted for the alleged murder and robbery of a Florida tattoo artist.  In the past, I had spoken with her and was going to shoot with her.  It's horrible to think that she did that, but the mountain of evidence against them is huge!  I stopped trying to defend her and am leaving it up to the courts which are slow to bring justice on capital murder cases for good reason. We don't want our justice system to make any errors.

By the way, just because I know one model who is accused of a grievous crime, does not change the way I relate to any models I work with now .. at all!  I know that the case with Amanda was an extreme exception!   Most models are not like her.

Greg Kolack wrote:

AAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's the bleach for my eyes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's sitting on it Greg.....

go fetch


tee hee hee

Greg Kolack wrote:

I will agree, with the facts that are available, it seems there is a pretty good case against the guy, and if he did in fact do it, he should be punished for it - it's pretty disturbing.

But I still say the OP has some kind of agenda against this guy, and to be honest, taking a look at some of the lists the OP has, with the focus being mostly nude women, asses, oral sex, and models touching themselves, and names like "Absolutely Best ASSetts!", "Clothing optional beyond this point !!!", "Perfect topless", "Orgasmically Hot Shots!!", and "what's for dinner?" (which includes a close up of a vagina), I do find it ironic that he is judge and jury and spreading the word about what a perv the accused is.

A feeling of guilt maybe ?? Hmmm,addin up

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Do you not see the fear mongering aspect of many of the postings?  Do you believe that a model could not make false accusations against a photographer?  I think in this case, you have made the assumption that the photographer is guilty.   Am I wrong?  We can make plenty of mistakes in our postings on the forum here, but is anyone going to get hurt?  Maybe if the victims, the accused and the families of both are reading this? 

So if we roll with the stereotypes then ... a thread like this spreads fear that all photographers are suspect!  Naive models may read this thread and make that assumption?  I think this is very harmful!  I try hard to not make assumptions about other people, including models.  I give people the benefit of doubt, and that means I don't believe everything I hear.  Sometimes I'm shaken to the core by real news stories like what happened like the recent Tucson Arizona shooting for example.  I have been face to face with people I had no clue about.  Most of us have!

I remember being shocked by the case of a former model who used to be on here, Amanda Logue, and her boyfriend, Jason Andrews being indicted for the alleged murder and robbery of a Florida tattoo artist.  In the past, I had spoken with her and was going to shoot with her.  It's horrible to think that she did that, but the mountain of evidence against them is huge!  I stopped trying to defend her and am leaving it up to the courts which are slow to bring justice on capital murder cases for good reason. We don't want our justice system to make any errors.

By the way, just because I know one model who is accused of a grievous crime, does not change the way I relate to any models I work with now .. at all!  I know that the case with Amanda was an extreme exception!   Most models are not like her.

No, patrick, I dont think Im fear-mongering. I stated a personal opinion I have on the matter at hand. Im not ranting and raving up and down that this man is DEFINITELY guilty. I said I think, based on the info in the article, that its a stretch that hes completely innocent. Im not telling all the models I know to stay away from all photographers because theyre all like this pervert who videoed a bazillion girls oh my god the hysterics.


Yes, I understand that a model can make false accusations. Or vice versa.

You really think the models and craigs families are reading modelmayhem forum postings? And are becoming hurt by whats been posted? Man...people need a thicker skin...and something better to do with their time.

Naive models who make the assumption that all photographers are suspicious perverts out to get them...well...remember what I said earlier about models being dumb? Its probably better they get scared off while theyre ahead of the game...

I am truly glad to know you dont judge all models based off of one. I dont judge all photographers based off of one either. or two, or three... glad we agree on something.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

But none of us know what was recorded.  This is pure specualtion.

It's highly unlikely he turned off the camera's microphone.   It's a bet I would take.

Laura UnBound wrote:
No, patrick, I dont think Im fear-mongering. I stated a personal opinion I have on the matter at hand. Im not ranting and raving up and down that this man is DEFINITELY guilty. I said I think, based on the info in the article, that its a stretch that hes completely innocent. Im not telling all the models I know to stay away from all photographers because theyre all like this pervert who videoed a bazillion girls oh my god the hysterics.


Yes, I understand that a model can make false accusations. Or vice versa.

You really think the models and craigs families are reading modelmayhem forum postings? And are becoming hurt by whats been posted? Man...people need a thicker skin...and something better to do with their time.

Naive models who make the assumption that all photographers are suspicious perverts out to get them...well...remember what I said earlier about models being dumb? Its probably better they get scared off while theyre ahead of the game...

I am truly glad to know you dont judge all models based off of one. I dont judge all photographers based off of one either. or two, or three... glad we agree on something.

If the OP is being truthful about his motives in posting this story, then it is his purpose to get the "news" about this photographers arrest as so other models who might have been secretly video taped would read it.  So it is not out of the question that people who know those involved ... as in the potential victims, the accused and those who know them might be reading this.  That was the purpose of posting it on the forums in three different locations to be sure his posts were read!   That is his motive, correct? 

Actually this thread has served that purpose quite well. 

I do support the police and the courst system in their investigation.  That's all.

Photography by BE wrote:
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/20 … 386.1.html

Excerpt from the VA law:

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally videotape, photograph, or film any nonconsenting person or create any videographic or still image record by any means whatsoever of the nonconsenting person if (i) that person is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location;

...................


A violation of subsection A shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Thanks.   I see it's dated 2006, so fairly recent.   I've been trying to find the website that aggregated state laws on videotaping, as it's been a big issue with nanny cams of late.   But it seems to have dropped off the web.

VA may be a misdemeanor, but they can request the Federal prosecutor get involved, in which case it will become a multi-count felony.

So VA can hit him for the video charges, and the Fed can get him for the audio charges, and never violate the double-jeopardy rules.

This won't go to trial.   It will be plea-bargained.

Luminos wrote:
Thanks.   I see it's dated 2006, so fairly recent.   I've been trying to find the website that aggregated state laws on videotaping, as it's been a big issue with nanny cams of late.   But it seems to have dropped off the web.

VA may be a misdemeanor, but they can request the Federal prosecutor get involved, in which case it will become a multi-count felony.

So VA can hit him for the video charges, and the Fed can get him for the audio charges, and never violate the double-jeopardy rules.

This won't go to trial.   It will be plea-bargained.

It certainly depends on factors such as prior arrests, etc ... before the Feds get involved if at all.  So if the charges are filed as a Class 1 misdemeanor, he might even walk with probation only.  This can go either way depending on many factors that none of us actually know about.

Greg Kolack wrote:

I will agree, with the facts that are available, it seems there is a pretty good case against the guy, and if he did in fact do it, he should be punished for it - it's pretty disturbing.

But I still say the OP has some kind of agenda against this guy, and to be honest, taking a look at some of the lists the OP has, with the focus being mostly nude women, asses, oral sex, and models touching themselves, and names like "Absolutely Best ASSetts!", "Clothing optional beyond this point !!!", "Perfect topless", "Orgasmically Hot Shots!!", and "what's for dinner?" (which includes a close up of a vagina), I do find it ironic that he is judge and jury and spreading the word about what a perv the accused is.

Hi, Greg.   Man, I like your Avatar.

Does the OP know this guy?   He seems to have some real hate for
him.   Three threads.   Wow!   What's strange is the titles of the
shots and content.   We have a upskirt shot and a surprise peek a boo
booty image.  Yet its look at this perv. 
Another odd thing is why this guy just let the police in.   He probably
didn't have too.  I bet there was no warrant.  Why didn't get get rid
of the evidence?   What if and this is going out on a limb that the
other models actually knew they were being taped.

What if these 'secret' peek tapes were all acted out and being sold
on web sites.  There is a well known upskirt site where a webmaster
buys content.   A lot of this secret footage looks staged.

Tony Lawrence wrote:

Hi, Greg.   Man, I like your Avatar.

Does the OP know this guy?   He seems to have some real hate for
him.   Three threads.   Wow!   What's strange is the titles of the
shots and content.   We have a upskirt shot and a surprise peek a boo
booty image.  Yet its look at this perv. 
Another odd thing is why this guy just let the police in.   He probably
didn't have too.  I bet there was no warrant.  Why didn't get get rid
of the evidence?   What if and this is going out on a limb that the
other models actually knew they were being taped.

What if these 'secret' peek tapes were all acted out and being sold
on web sites.  There is a well known upskirt site where a webmaster
buys content.   A lot of this secret footage looks staged.

You think the OP set this up, possible, hmmmm ?

Marc Rosebeck wrote:

You think the OP set this up, possible, hmmmm ?

No...
I meant the hidden camera stuff might have been known to the
models.   Pay $10.00 a month and see models changing.
Sounds crazy I admit but I know for a fact that some of the sites
that feature the hidden cam sneak peeks of upskirts are staged.
Models getting out of cars, short skirts doing the old Brittney Spears
routine. 

Although, I suspect you were being factitious.

Marc Rosebeck wrote:
A feeling of guilt maybe ?? Hmmm,addin up

A look at his posting history is interesting.

Greg Kolack wrote:

A look at his posting history is interesting.

Eliminate competition by any means , could have happened this way, absolutley could have ....

Greg Kolack wrote:

I will agree, with the facts that are available, it seems there is a pretty good case against the guy, and if he did in fact do it, he should be punished for it - it's pretty disturbing.

But I still say the OP has some kind of agenda against this guy, and to be honest, taking a look at some of the lists the OP has, with the focus being mostly nude women, asses, oral sex, and models touching themselves, and names like "Absolutely Best ASSetts!", "Clothing optional beyond this point !!!", "Perfect topless", "Orgasmically Hot Shots!!", and "what's for dinner?" (which includes a close up of a vagina), I do find it ironic that he is judge and jury and spreading the word about what a perv the accused is.

Come on Greg.. white knight.. white knight...

What I'm also curious about, seems like they got a warrant to search his home pretty easily, I always thought it took a bit more than someones word for that.

CGI Images wrote:

Come on Greg.. white knight.. white knight...

What I'm also curious about, seems like they got a warrant to search his home pretty easily, I always thought it took a bit more than someones word for that.

Interesting "The officer spoke to Faulkner Saturday and got permission to look inside, but did not find the camera."

Marc Rosebeck wrote:
Wondering if any of the 17 models have shot with the OP?

Or maybe he's hoping to get the "Hooters calendar" gig?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

It certainly depends on factors such as prior arrests, etc ... before the Feds get involved if at all.  So if the charges are filed as a Class 1 misdemeanor, he might even walk with probation only.  This can go either way depending on many factors that none of us actually know about.

The Federal prosecutor will get involved if asked by the state prosecutor.  That is all it will take.   The state has the evidence.   The Feds won't decline if asked.

As for walking, it is not likely though, is it?   

Most likely, the defense will attempt to keep the Feds out by plea bargaining down to one count and a year in jail.   He'll spend 90 days, then spend the rest of his life on the registered sex offenders list.

But I won't be surprised to hear that it is five years and three served.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Something I would also like to mention is that just because a photographer is arrested does not mean the district attorney will file charges.  In the San Francisco Bay Area, there was a well known photographer by the name Jock Sturges arrested.  The Feds tore his shit up!  Took harddrives, memory cards, film and anything else they could get their hands on!  He was released without charges!  You can still buy Sturges books of naked people including minor aged in any major bookseller in California and also on the net from Amazon.  Just because he photographed nude minors, they thought he was doing something illegal!  Imagine that!

So not everyone accused is going to be convicted.

Major difference is that Sturges didn't break any laws in doing what he was "accused" of doing.

Here it's clear that if the accusations are true, then the law was broken.   That makes it easier to file charges.

Luminos wrote:
The Federal prosecutor will get involved if asked by the state prosecutor.  That is all it will take.   The state has the evidence.   The Feds won't decline if asked.

As for walking, it is not likely though, is it?   

Most likely, the defense will attempt to keep the Feds out by plea bargaining down to one count and a year in jail.   He'll spend 90 days, then spend the rest of his life on the registered sex offenders list.

But I won't be surprised to hear that it is five years and three served.

Do you have some inside information on this case that you are not telling us about?  How can you be so sure?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
In the San Francisco Bay Area, there was a well known photographer by the name Jock Sturges arrested.  The Feds tore his shit up!  Took harddrives, memory cards, film and anything else they could get their hands on!  He was released without charges!

This is a stupid comparison.......not even remotely close.

Luminos wrote:
Major difference is that Sturges didn't break any laws in doing what he was "accused" of doing.

Here it's clear that if the accusations are true, then the law was broken.   That makes it easier to file charges.

Accusations were made against Sturges and there was not a good case against him.  However the Feds did take his personal property and did not return all of his property from what I understand Sturges to have said about it. 

It sucks to be accused of something that you did not do, but how can you be so sure that Craig Faulkner is guilty of breaking any laws?  Are we holding a trial by media now?  How about either waiting for the police to gather enough evidence to bring him to trial?

Cherrystone wrote:

This is a stupid comparison.......not even remotely close.

How is it a "stupid" comparison?  All I'm saying is that photographers get arrested and are not always guilty just because they were arrested.

Sintillations wrote:
Funny how many people jump to the defense of the person with charges against him and balk at those pointing accusing fingers, but have zero problem accusing the OP of anything and everything. Yay hypocrisy.

I'm not defending anyone - just balking at someone who says it has already been proven that this guy is guilty. Which it hasn't