Sun Reporter answers questions re: possible fabricated description of photo & more

2
July 6, 2012 at 1:07 pm  •  Posted in Corporal Jim Brown, Media Criticism by  •  2 Comments

Update September 6, 2012:   Erotic Vancouver was informed by a source at the CBC that there was a picture that of Corporal Brown that was similar to the description Ian Mulgrew provided that this piece takes issue with. That picture has not been produced, despite requests to see it, and no other source at the CBC or with any other news outlet has supported that claim. The Vancouver Sun has declined to comment.

 

Questions have arisen surrounding many aspects of the story of Corporal Jim Brown and his BDSM photographs that have appeared on the web. Perhaps most significant is the fact that the photos that have caused the most stir in the media do not, in fact, depict Brown, a story first broken here on Erotic Vancouver. But they’re not the only questions that have arisen.

It appears that description of a photograph that appears in the second paragraph of the original Sun story by reporter Ian Mulgrew may have been fabricated. The paragraph reads: “In some of the graphic pictures obtained by The Vancouver Sun, Coquitlam Cpl. Jim Brown appears to wear only his regulation-issue Mountie boots and an erection as he wields a huge knife and a bound naked woman cringes in terror.”

The description of the knife and the bound naked woman seems to suggest it is part of the series causing quite a stir, a series that does not in fact depict Corporal Brown. The only problem? The individuals who appear in that series of photos assure me that at no point did the man appear pantless. When asked about this Mr. Mulgrew indicated that he did not have that photo in his possession, that it was one that had been shown to him on a computer screen by a source, and that subsequently another, anonymous source who he has never met, had about 60 photos delivered to him.

I’ve been speaking to Mr. Mulgrew, the Vancouver Sun reporter who broke the story, via email and by phone, to ask about how he broke it, and the nature of his sources. Mr. Mulgrew is an excellent reporter. I’ve read his reporting in the Vancouver Sun for years. And I accept that this may not have been an intentional fabrication, that it may have been an unintentional composite description of various images that he had seen – but unfortunately it was irresponsible to provide such a graphic and evocative description of an image not in his possession. An image whose existence is now called into question.

Mr. Mulgrew repeatedly stated that his issues were not with the sexuality aspect of this story and BDSM as a whole. He believes that what people do within the confines of their bedroom, and what they might engage with only consensually with others in public, is perfect okay with him. “I’m hip with that,” he said.

Mr. Mulgrew stated that his concern was that the photos that were represented to him as being of Corporal Brown called the officers judgement into question, and gave weight to previously made allegations that Corporal Brown had attended parties at Piggies Palace, the after hours club that was on the Pickton farm, and there that he had engaged in acts degrading to women.

In my phone call to Mr. Mulgrew he said, “What’s been troubling me is not you getting up this morning and saying there are other people out there. What’s been troubling me is the Mounties have had knowledge of this for a week or more, so when I asked why wouldn’t they send something back to me saying we talked to Corporal Brown and he says it’s not him. I described it to them and they didn’t say bring it over and let us look at them. That’s what’s troubling me.”

Unfortunately my conversations with Mr. Mulgrew leave me troubled by more than just that. And I’m left with a series of questions of the two media outlets that first covered this story, the CBC and the Vancovuer Sun, and of the RCMP.

Who are the sources at the heart of this story, and what is their relationship to Corporal Brown? Was there adequate vetting of them and the information they provided? (In the case of Mr. Mulgrew’s story the answer is clearly no, in that the source providing the pictures to him is still anonymous to him.)

Why did the RCMP not ask to see the images in Mr. Mulgrew’s possession?

Would the press have felt there was a story here minus the abduction series of photos? Would that story have been very different from the one that has appeared in the media yesterday and today?

And I would specifically ask Mr. Mulgrew why, with 60 photographs in his possession, he chose to describe in print one that he does not have and cannot produce? Why does he describe that image as obtained rather than as one just seen? And how can we now believe that due diligence was done every step of the way when, intentional or not, it appears that description may be a fabrication.

To his credit it appears that Mr. Mulgrew did his best to contact the RCMP and get some confirmation from them. They indicated they were aware of the issue, and provided many of the quotes in his story, but at no time did they look at the photographs in his possession. Mr. Mulgrew, it appears, went forward with his story in all good faith.

Fabricated description included.

 

2 Comments

  1. Stigmata / July 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm / Reply

    I am curious to see where and when in the Vancouver Sun Mr. Mulgrew will address these serious errors. This story still runs, unaltered, as their web additions lead article.

  2. Linda / December 11, 2014 at 12:57 am / Reply

    Comes as no surprise to lots in the swiignng lifestyle and SM community. Lots of people have been outed, or defamed, or even worse by Jennifer.She’s two faced, super cute to lifestylers that give her what she wants and super evil to those that don’t, if she thinks she can get away with it. Most are quiet about it because she’s a community leader .Jamie Lee Hamilton she accused the guy suing her of raping people, posting it publicly on Fet. in her timeline. THAT’s what she’s beeing sued for. Not outing him, though she did that too. So the proofs in her own words. Proof exists in the screenshots of dozens of people who were smart enough to capture her status updates before she deleted them. So there is an electronic record, proof, in her own words, of her libel. It should be an open and shut closed case. Mr. Doig won’t need to prove anything as he’s not the one taking her to court. It’s not one, but TWO, OTHER people suing her, in two SEPARATE legal disputes. I doubt Jennifer_S is in a position to go after anyone else.When two completely unrelated parties are suing someone, and a third party is publishing these kinds of concerns, and a large number of other people are coming out with their own terrible experiences with Jennifer.. it seems pretty clear who the problem person is, and it’s NOT Mr. Doig. Jennifer_S leaves a trail of destruction behind her. More and more people have started to notice, and people are starting to hold her accountable for it. Hopefully more lifestylers will realize how much of a con woman and how selfish and dangerous she is and no one else will be hurt by her.Ideally this will become mainstream news, and Taboo and other organizations supporting her will realize they have a ticking time bomb on their hand and cut her loose before more damage occurs. Not able to tell my personal story with her, or I’d be suing her too.

Leave a Reply