Latest Headlines
- State Funding $240 Million Beulah I-10 Interchange
- Failed Urban Development Centery YouthFirst Program Finally Repays Unsecured Loan From Century
- FDOT Updates Status Of Century Highway 29 Construction Work
- Walnut Hill Man, Three Others Charged After Alleged Overdose On Embalming Fluid, GHB
- Escambia Man, 77, Charged With Shooting Multiple Rounds At Santa Rosa County SWAT
- Escambia (AL) Volunteer Fire Departments Receive State Grant, Present Service Awards
- Tate Grad, UWF Standout Darrien McDowell Selected In 2024 MLB Draft
- Escambia County Corrections’ Wilson, Hankins Graduate From State Leadership Programs
- Escambia Commission Cancels This Week’s Meeting
- Suspect, 19, Indicted For Fatal Drive-By Shooting Of 70-Year-Old
Walnut Hill Man Gets Five Years In Federal Prison For Child Pornography
May 5, 2011
A Walnut Hill man has been sentenced to federal prison for possession and distribution of child pornography.
Jonathan Mark Jantz, 39, was sentenced this week to five years in prison, the minimum allowed by law. He will be required to register as a sex offender upon release.
Florida Department of Law Enforcement Cybercrimes Unit investigator Chuck McMullen located known child pornography on Jantz’s computer that was made available on a file sharing network using the program Limewire in 2005.
McMullen, according to court documents, located a child pornography video over three minutes in length on Jantz’s home computer by searching the file sharing network for the term “kiddy”. He also located six computer files that were cataloged as known child porn and 120 files that “were named with file names that would suggest the file contained images of child pornography,” according to federal court documents.
The case was turned over to the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, and a search warrant was executed at Jantz’s residence on Highway 31, Atmore on February 1, 2006. “A forensic analysis of the digital evidence confirmed the presence of multiple images and videos of child pornography,” according to a court document.
The indictment against Jantz was returned by a federal grand jury on June 24, 2010, charging him with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography.
In a brief filed August 6, 2010, Jantz asserted that he believed the file sharing software was set to not allow access to the “shared” folder on his computer. His attorney argued that without a search warrant, law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment that protects individuals against unreasonable search and seizure. Jantz also asserted that authorities were unable to prove that he had actually viewed the child pornography because his anti-virus software had accessed all files on his computer the morning of the search warrant and seizure.
Jantz also claimed that he had unknowingly downloaded any child porn on his computer.
“Mr. Jantz initially downloaded a large quantity of pornography with no intent to download child pornography. His interest was in adult pornography,” according to court documents filed by defense attorney Christopher Knight. “His possession of the alleged child pornography was incidental to his primary interest in collecting adult pornography.”
Jantz’s motion to dismiss the evidence against him was denied by Judge Callie Granade in September 2010. He immediately entered a guilty plea on both counts against him.
According to documents filed last week by his attorney, Jantz downloaded both adult and child pornography using the file-sharing program Limewire. He then organized the adult pornography into separate files by category and “placed what he considered to be suspect or perhaps illegal pornography into files which he designated as ‘New Folder’.”
“He did not select the files to be downloaded initially, but sought files using key words such as ‘teen’ and ’sex’. The result of his Limewire search produced both legal and illegal pornography, which he admittedly saved on his hard drive. He intended to delete the illegal pornography, but he failed to do so due to procrastination. He produced no pornography, distributed no pornography, spent little time viewing the pornography, whether legal or illegal, because of his busy schedule. He did not rape, torture or sodomize children. His reputation in the community is nothing but pristine with respect to his treatment of children,” according to response filed by by his attorney, Assistant Federal Defender Christopher Knight.
“Mr. Jantz is a good man, a hard-working man with a family who made a mistake, which, more than five years after the fact, he has taken steps to correct and go on with his life,” Knight stated.
Comments
37 Responses to “Walnut Hill Man Gets Five Years In Federal Prison For Child Pornography”
Grace ALL MY LOVE AND BEST WISHES. GOD WILL SEE YOU THROUGH.
tO EVERYONE ELSE.
If you don’t know the Jantz family, your missing great people. You could
not meet a better group of people. I can only hope one day you all should
have friends as good as they.
Rita, what a very warm and kind thing to say, it meant so much to me. I thank you from my heart.
Just because you plead guilty does not mean your guilty. You have to plead guilty if you want a lighter sentence. Jon is a very nice guy i have known him for years!!!!!!!
I agree that a person can open up something on one web site & it will download something bad like the porn. Years ago I just happend to open up my favorites and a porn site was listed in there. I know I never downloaded it and I quickly deleted it.
FYI….YouTube is a major site to have porn download in your computer if you are playing a video, etc. & YouTube is also packed with viruses.
@ Joe: You obviously have not spent any time in computer programing to understand how programs work. I have and the purpose of some programs are to drive what your doing to a particular site for their profit. It is no different from any other advertising. They will even down load stuff for free to get you hooked. Just little things like certain words and so on can direct you to things you do not want. This is not just a matter of morals and standards it is highly probable that this man may be guilty but just as probable that he is not. Computers do as directed and if it pick up a word it will direct to where it is suppose to go. This is why they have vreated in the last few years software to protect children from this happening. It’s called parental controls.
So again I am not trying to say he is wrong or right I am just saying that long ago it could have been something simple that took him unknowingly or by mistake to the site. Who knows. But he did plead guilty.
One last thing you seem to try and hold your self out to be higher than. So, just so you know I am a christian as well and it can happen to you or I at anytime so don’t get to high and mighty. It could bite your back side. Just saying.
I know this man and his family. He is from an innocent & cloistured background and stepped out into the “world” without knowing the harsh realities. He did not realize limewire was known for piggy-backing child porn onto other types of stuff. Limewire even has a history of adding covert child porn to music files. Even the judge stated that she felt like he did not intentionally down load this material and was only sentencing because she “had to’ because of the federal law. This is a very unique case and many people making harsh comments don’t know all the details. This man would not hurt a child or an adult in anyway. This is a clear example of sometimes good guys get caught in the crossfire and have to pay because of what bad guys do.
Many of you do not understand what “sentencing guidelines” are. Several years ago, these guidelines had to be put in place because so many judges would vary the way they would sentence. There was a higher number of certain races of people going to prison than others that were committing the same crimes. Some judges were more harsh or more lenient…so guidelines had to be put in place to “force” judges to sentence the same way for the same crimes.
Jon and the family are in our thoughts and prayers. Those who know you, know you are innocent. You are loved and respected.
liz, what happened to you was a one time thing apparently…you didn’t keep going back to it, downloading 3 minute long videos and have the word kiddie in another file….there is to much evidence here to just disreguard it as “accidental”. There are good people out there from good families and they have been known to be do things they shouldn’t do. Good family friends can also do things to family members and friend’s children too…read the papers, happens EVERY single day, people you trust with your life will do things unheard of…it’s a sickness….
Whitepunknotondope-
Wow, some in the community seem to have very strong opinions of porn and standing by their criminal friends. At the same time there is a misconception that some people (i.e. me) are ignorant to the “real world.” I laugh at the very idea of my “Bible and Coveralls” this was a good metaphor or simile you, decide which it was. It seems the question of me “learning something new” has caused more than a considerable amount of disquiet within our small community. You obviously do not know me so without excessive ostentation, please allow me elaborate and educate you.
My origins are from a benevolent group of upper median range socio economic gender specific and Theo centric Christian beliefs. I have traveled the world reaping the intellectual marvels of civilianization’s erstwhile to our own. Amidst my journey of life I have pondered and deliberated many philosophical concepts and ideas.
My conclusions are thus:
Of all the things we can carry on this journey of life, there are but 2 that truly matter, our faith and our integrity.
My integrity tells me laws (natural and manmade) are established for the good of man. Breaking them can have dire consequences.
My faith tells me “porn” is wrong, legal or not. You do not covet your neighbors wife. For those who enjoy the homosexual porn, that falls under Leviticus 18:22.
I appreciate the opportunity I have been afforded here to express my personal opinion, and it is just that, My Opinion. I hope this helps those who are so afflicted, to overcome their insufferable cases of ignorance.
I almost forgot to clarify, I am no better than anyone else. My life style choices are just that, my life style choices.
And all in 300 words or less, THANK YOU!
I totally agree with Joe – Good man or not this man was caught and now he is convicted! No one know what really goes on behind another person’s closed doors and everyone has secrets – some are just bigger than others and some are immoral and some are illegal and some are both
Was the court able to determine the ages of the “children” in the photos? Were they teens? How can one tell if someone is 17 vs 19 by a photo. Unless they were pictures of small children. Quite a big difference in these, they should say what exactly they found so people would know if its little children or just accidentally underage age girls, and if so, how they determined their age
Joe, take your right hand off the Bible and put it down your coveralls. You just might learn something new.
“…it could never be me as I am not a pervert downloading pornographic material”
Joe, people who view adult (not child) pornography are not perverts. They are real people who are comfortable with sex and view at as stimulation. Just because you don’t “download pornographic material” doesn’t make you any better than someone who does.
Sex is God’s GREATEST gift for both men AND women, and if you believe it’s immoral to view pornography you are a very childish, stunted man indeed! There’s nothing more pathetic than a bunch of uptight, victorian throwbacks talking about sex.
Joe, he pled guilty last September. With a 99% conviction rate on these kinds of cases, no matter WHAT the circumstances, I’m sure he knew there was no point in dragging it through court. The sentencing had absolutely nothing to do with whether he was guilty or not. The 5 year minimum mandatory is set by Congress, so that is the absolute lowest the judge could give him by law. Granade is a tough judge who normally goes by the guidelines. That she went downward from the recommended to the absolute minimum says a lot.
to those who say :
it could have been you….
You don’t know him or the facts…..
He is a good man…….
He got the minimum sentence so that says something…….
I will answer these for you
it could never be me as I am not a pervert downloading pornographic material
I do not know him, but the facts presented here produced a conviction
this man is a registered sex offender and convict (does not sound good to me)
So he got the minimum sentence, he still got one, which means guilty!
I have to question the moral fiber of individuals that openly defend a stone cold criminal. Was this man doing this on the same computer his children use for school? what if kids found it? I have had friends make mistakes, (and I do not consider this a mistake it is a crime) and when they did I held them accountable.
it is going to be hard to defend this man from the community and have them think otherwise, as he will always be a registered sex offender now!
For the rest of you who are jumping on board remember this could have been you just as easy the way the documents read. If you have ever down loaded anything like this without the protection of the required software it to would be on your computer. Just saying.
I do not know if he is guilty or not but it appears he was found to be so now he has to pay up according to law.
I went to school with Mr. Jantz’ Mother from the time we were small til grown. She was, and I’m very certain she is to this day a beautiful, gracious person inside and out. My love to her and the family and prayers that God will comfort her. I’m sure this is a very heartbreaking and painful time for her and the family. My heart hurts for her. There is nothing like a Mother’s love.
>>>I wish that William would have included all of the judge’s comments about Jonathan in this article
The judge’s comments are not filed with the court documents. They are in the transcript, which is not yet available online.
First of all, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your love, support, and prayers through this extremely difficult time for our family.
Anybody who knows Jonathan personally can tell you that he is a kindhearted, decent person. Even the judge stated that this is an unusual case and it is obvious that he is not a threat to his community. I wish that William would have included all of the judge’s comments about Jonathan in this article… she is an understanding person and did what she could for us.
I trust Jonathan completely with my children, as does anyone who knows him. We love you, Jon!
it can happen accidently.years ago after i got my first computer i went to (a wrestling site) it pulled up nasty stuff and not there products like shirts and gear.i exited really quick.no your facts before u speak.only god can judge us.
You all keep talking about what he did. Why not ask yourself what you would do if the athorities searched your computer and took a look . Also, if John is such a threat why did they the Feds. wait almost five years to press the charges. They woke up one morning and said we have nothing to do today so lets go arrest John. Why did they let John out on probation before the sentence? If you know anything about these kind of cases, this never happens. The part about distribution is only because the police pulled it off his computer, he did not give it or share it will anyone. Being stupid and keeping it when it was proven he never asked for it should not mean taking away a persons life. If any of you were in the court and or read all of this case you would see that this is what happens when you are not rich enough to hire a battery of lawyers to fight for your own rights. This same thing could happen to any one of us and it does not have to be child porn. It could be a host of areas that the powers to protect us are also the powers that can hurt us. Was John wrong “YES” but five years after going through this for six years is way overboard if you would really know this case. The article in the paper is a bad as the Feds, If they will do this about John they will do it to any one of you. The five years given to John was the min. the Judge could give but she also said if it was up to her John would only get probation. The paper forgot that part.The real gulity party here is the Feds. who called the case a distribution case because the police pulled a partial file from Johns computer. That is why he is now going to jail for five years. The last time I looked as shocked as some of you may be,adult porn is legal. This case is a good reason why not allowing Judges the freedoms to look at a case and hand down the proper sentence can and has sent someone to jail for five years when it should have been a shorter time and or just probation. People kill other people and sometimes only get five years. You can rape and beat a person and only get five years. To the last person who wrote, John did not make any child porn and he did not distribute any child porn, that was proven in court by your FBI. The only distribution is when the police pulled a partial file from his computer. I hope you are a clean as the driven snow because this injustice could happen to any one of us.
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone… (The divine words of Jesus Christ, who forgives the utmost of sinners including you and me.)
People, your talking and saying things that are very hurtful to this family. Jon has been very honest and open with the courts. Our systems are not always fair or honest. We know a man who pulled a gun on his wife and children this week, SHE was put behind bars, he was let go AND given the children. We know this for a fact and it’s because he knows the right people at the right place. The system isn’t always fair and we all know it. Pray for this family, don’t say things you know nothing about. I truly believe that he did not have any intent of looking at that, he procrastinated in getting rid of it and regrets it deeply now. Have you never been to busy to take care of thing properly? Think about what you say and how it might affect innocent people.
Just wanted to add, the thing that really bothers me is the crime was done in 2005 and this is 2011… if he’s such a bad guy why did they wait so many years to press charges? If he’d gotten charged then and gotten 5 years, he’d have been out of prison several months already.
I also heard that Jon’s lawyer said to the judge at his sentencing that Jon was unquestionably the best client he’d had in his 35 years of being an attorney. I really believe if it hadn’t have been for the minimum mandatory the judge would have just given him probation.
I know Jon personally…. he’s a smart enough guy if he was trying to hide it, he sure as heck wouldn’t have named the folder ‘New Folder’. It would have had a name that disguised it. That’s the default name when you just right-click and make a folder. Jon told me a long time ago that he had copied EVERYTHING out of his shared folder into a new folder, so by him not even naming it tells me he wasn’t ‘cataloging’ it or anything. He also told me there were also LOTS of other files in there, that WEREN’T illegal. I’m guessing if the filename even has the word ‘teen’ in it, the investigator would say it contained words that ‘indicated’ child porn.
I don’t think he realized how incredibly dangerous it is to download pornography from a place like Limewire. You have no idea what the file actually contains until it’s already on your computer, then it’s too late. Notice that out of those 127 files that ‘indicated’ they contained child porn, only 7 actually did…. also, you can get files that DON’T have any of bad terms, and actually will be an illegal file when you open it….
One other thing is, those filenames can have like 20 or 30 keywords in them, so it’s not always super obvious if they contain a bad keyword if they are mixed in with a bunch of legal sounding terms. Those people who made them will name a file with all those words just so they’ll get downloaded. It’s called keyword spamming. I do agree though, if he saw a file that had ANY kind of questionable keyword in it ANYWHERE, he should have instantly just deleted all that stuff.
The fact is, there’s no way to tell from this article WHAT his intent was. The conviction rate on these cases is like 99% so he really had no choice buy to plead guilty. To me, the fact that the Judge, who has access to ALL the evidence, only gave him the minimum (which is required by Congress) tells me she did not think Jon was a bad guy. The guidelines on this deal were like 8-10 years and the judges are highly discouraged from variating from that. She also let him stay out and self-surrender which NEVER happens in these kinds of cases.
Just a bad deal all the way around. Glad he only got the minimum though, he could have gotten LOTS worse.
whether he did or didn’t do anything…i hope he doesn’t have any children
OK, I can understand a lot of things, and I believe he downloaded it by mistake INITALLY, but why didn’t he delete it right away? We are not talking about an 18 year old here, who made a foolish mistake! I believe he viewed the inital one and it peeked his interest, and he went from there. Yes, we need to take a lesson from this, and that is– “If it’s downlowed by mistake, delete it right away!! If you don’t, you WILL get caught. I think he liked the kiddie porn, so he should have gotten a longer sentence!!!
“Adult” wrote:
My facts are straight.
The line in the story about “New Folder” is in quotes because it’s from court documents that (to expand on the quote) state:
That is a direct quote from the “Defendent’s Response to Government’s Sentencing Memorandum” filed Tuesday in federal court by his public defender.
First of all, William, you should get your facts straight. The “new folder” he had did not have just one kind of porn in it. He never organized like you said. Also the about him spending little time watching either one, you’re assuming that he made a habit of freely watching both which they gathered in court that his only intent was adult. Thanks.
OK, I can understand a lot of things. I actually believe it was sent unrequested initally, but why didn’t he delete it right away. We’re not talking about an 18 year old who might still be making foolish mistakes. I believe he watched the first one and it peeked his interest and he went from there. He thought he wouldn’t get caught. Yes, we should get a lesson from this, and that is– if it is downloaded by mistake, delete it right away, and you WILL get caught if you don’t!!!!!
I am so sorry to hear of the ruling…..you’ll have A LOT of friends that are gonna you and your family in our thoughts and prayers. We love you!!
The fact is he’s guilty!
He took the time to separate the child porn from the adult porn and put it in a separate folder named “new folder”. He could have just deleted it as it would of took the same amount of time. As soon as he noticed it got downloaded he should of deleted it instead of separating it to a new folder.
Taken from the article:
“He then organized the adult pornography into separate files by category and placed what he considered to be suspect or perhaps illegal pornography into files which he designated as ‘New Folder’.”
Only a sick person who intended to look at this material would EVER leave something like this on there computer.
The article clearly states Mr. Jantz did a search for “sex” and “teen”. He did not use the search term “kiddy”. The investigator did. And for Joe who says the justice system only imprisons the guilty, I have heard of MANY cases, where years later, DNA evidence clears the person who has been behind bars for a crime they did not commit. He should have deleted those files immediately, but he is not the first person to be accused of this type of crime because of Limewire. Some of those poor folks didn’t even know they had that type of file on their computer. Just do a search. I hate this for his wife and mother and father and sisters. They are all good people.
I do believe when you download from shared files, you’re running a huge risk in getting more then what you wanted or bargained for. I could give him the benefit of the doubt until I read he created a new folder for what he knew was wrong. in order to hide it! It didn’t seem he was worried about others finding the adult porn which brings me to thinking he is guilty of the crime he’s sentenced to serve five years. That’s a light sentence.
““Mr. Jantz initially downloaded a large quantity of pornography with no intent to download child pornography. His interest was in adult pornography,” according to court documents filed by defense attorney Christopher Knight. “His possession of the alleged child pornography was incidental to his primary interest in collecting adult pornography.””
Becareful what you download, you could download anything and have it turn out to be something else. Notice how they use his search terms against him, 18 and 19 is legal, but still “teen”
But searching the term “kiddy” goes beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. No one accidently searches for that
And in come the coments of defense for this good man!
if this was so accidental and he is so good, How was there a conviction?
I trust the legal system to put criminals away and those who are not criminals are released.
1 file would be easy to argue as accidental or un-intended
but 6 known child porn files and another 120 files that “were named with file names that would suggest the file contained images of child pornography,”
Joe, I don’t think you understand. He used Limewire in 2005 to download ADULT porn. It was not his fault he got the kiddy porn. In 2005, a great number of people were using limewire, napster, etc to download music and movies. If you saw a file you wanted like “hot-34-year-old-babe.jpg”, you could end up with someone sending you a child porn photo instead. You have no control Now you have child porn on your computer.
He made the mistake of using peer to peer to look for ADULT porn. He got the child porn accidently. He was not some sicko looking for kids.
Kids — let this be a lesson to use iTunes or legal software to look for music, movies, etc. Stay away from peer to peer.
there is a serious problem when a grown man makes and or distributes child porn. and having child porn in a shared computer file qualifies as distrubution.
I know some people will say the punishment is too tough, others will cry out that we do not know this man and he is so good.
well lets just get this fact out there, any adult that gets their jollies from child porn is not a good person!
there is something serious wrong with this guy!