TX Man Who Molested Child Gets 40 Years

.jpg photo of convicted Child Predator
Mark Anthony Pape, 24

Ft Worth, TX  –  A Fort Worth sex offender who videotaped himself sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl he lived with was sentenced Tuesday to 40 years in federal prison, the U.S. attorney’s office said.

Mark Anthony Pape, 24, had pleaded guilty in October 2014 to one count of production of child pornography and one count of committing the offense as a registered sex offender.

Pape was convicted as a juvenile in 2006 of indecency with a child for molesting his adopted sister, who was 4 at the time.

He has been in federal custody since his arrest last year in San Marcos.

In one of the videos, Pape assaulted the victim at his father’s home in February 2014, federal authorities said.

When Pape uploaded child pornography to the Internet, Google alerted the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, according to a criminal complaint.

The center forwarded the information to police, who searched his mobile home and seized Pape’s cell phone and computer equipment.  Police found photos and videos of Pape sexually assaulting the victim as well as more than 100 images of her, prosecutors said.

They also found other child pornography on his devices, court records show.

When confronted with the evidence, Pape initially told police he was trading in child pornography to “catch other predators,” according to prosecutors.

He later confessed to molesting the victim since moving into his father’s home on Churchill Road in June 2013, authorities said.  He said he videotaped the molestation and took sexually explicit photos of the victim, reports show.

While in custody, Pape told other inmates that he molested other young girls in his neighborhood, prosecutors said.  Fort Worth police have investigated similar allegations, according to prosecutors.

Online, You Are Guilty Even After Being Proven Innocent

I received a message several days ago, and other than WordPress, only one other person knows.

I have been cussed, threatened, and my Family has been threatened since building this website.

At first I got more than a little upset, then I almost broke down….  because I was humbled to the point of collapse over a simple thought of what kids say to each other.  I had let my pride go unchecked for a minute, until I had the thought that this isn’t the right Circle to go to pushing people around, and while I was thinking of all of the Veterans that make up Our Circle, I PLAINLY HEARD “my big brother is tougher than yours”.

You see, me and Frank never got to say that.  Ladies, this isn’t just to the men, this is to you equally.  I don’t like to think of us “fighting” for change, that to me is counter-productive at this point in time.  Maybe more like AFFECTING CHANGE, like ANTIBODIES.

My point is that everybody needs someone in their corner.

I removed one of Our Posts, and what you will find in it’s place is what follows.  But everything about this person that was on this website is destroyed.

Once you’re arrested, your name is tarnished forever.

More and more people are having “Google problems.” They usually look like this:

  • someone got arrested;
  • the local newspaper wrote about it;
  • prosecutors dropped the charges completely;
  • the person’s record was expunged (in other words, the slate was wiped clean);
  • the original arrest article, however, is still online.

Now whenever anyone searches that person’s name, the arrest is one of the top Google results even though they’re weren’t guilty.

Google: Your new permanent record

You can imagine the trouble this causes for the individual seeking the article’s takedown: difficulty getting a job, a promotion, or even a date. It seems unfair that even though the judicial system saw fit to remove all traces of the arrest from the person’s record, there’s no corresponding requirement that the local newspaper do the same. What’s the point of expunging a record when anyone with internet access can bring up an old, bogus arrest? Even if a court of law drops the matter, the court of public opinion has condemned that person for life.

The free speech rights of publishers trump those of individuals

In the battle of the newspapers versus the individual’s reputation, the law is on the newspapers’ side. They have a First Amendment right to report true information and are under no legal obligation to remove—“unpublish,” as it’s referred to lately—content, even when significant updates have occurred. In our experience, publishers are generally unwilling to remove articles that were factually accurate when written. Their reasoning ranges from lofty (saying they don’t want to “rewrite the historical record”) to lazy (they have a policy of never changing anything).

Some publications will remove an article, but only if the stars align and several factors exist: the publication doesn’t have a strict policy against unpublishing, we reach an actual human being, we reach an actual human being who’s in a good mood that day, we’re able to provide documentation of the dropped charges or expunged record, and the person to whom we speak decides that the facts of the particular situation warrant removal. It takes hard work, persistence, and luck. Does it happen? Yes, but you can see why it’s pretty rare.