Wednesday, November 1, 2017

RETIRED PRIEST INDICTED FOR HAVING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ON HIS COMPUTER


Onetime Archdiocese Chancellor Allegedly Viewed Images on Computer at Retirement Home

  Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark today announced that a retired Catholic priest has been indicted for possessing pornographic images of girls as young as eight years old on his computer which he allegedly viewed in front of many individuals at his retirement home in the Bronx. 

  District Attorney Clark said, “This investigation by the Economic Crimes Bureau found that the defendant had dozens of photographs on his computer of girls ages eight to 14 years old performing sex acts with men or posing naked. People at the defendant’s residence were subjected to it when they entered his room. Anyone who views child pornography supports horrific child exploitation.” 

  District Attorney Clark said that Monsignor Harry J. Byrne, 96, who resides at the St. John Vianney Center for Retired Priests in the Bronx operated by the Archdiocese of New York, was indicted on 37 counts of Possessing an Obscene Sexual Performance by a Child and 37 counts of Possessing a Sexual Performance by a Child. He was arraigned today before Bronx Supreme Court Justice Robert Neary and released. He is due back in court on January 17, 2018. If convicted of the top charge, he could face up to four years in prison and would have to register as a sex offender.

  The investigation began about five months ago when officials at the residence notified the Bronx District Attorney’s Office after receiving complaints about Byrne. According to the investigation, the defendant sought out the images of young girls using Google and Bing. Detectives from the NYPD Computer Crimes Squad conducted a forensic examination of his computer and found at least 37 images of child pornography.

  District Attorney Clark thanked the NYPD Computer Crimes Squad for their assistance in the case, as well as the Bronx DA Detective Investigators. 

An indictment is an accusatory instrument and not proof of a defendant’s guilt.

No comments:

Post a Comment