Police/Fire

City man arraigned on child porn charges

WESTFIELD – A 61-year-old city man entered not guilty pleas to charges of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 years of age and to possession of child pornography today in Westfield District Court.
Gardner A. Whitney Jr., of 19 Sunbriar Drive, was ordered held in lieu of $25,000 cash bail, or $250,000 surety, pending the continuation of his case. Whitney is slated to return to court on Feb. 22, 2013 for a pretrial conference.
Whitney is charged with one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 years of age, four counts of possession of child pornography, three counts of lascivious posing/exhibiting a child in the nude, and three counts of photographing an unsuspecting nude person.
Assistant District Attorney Mary Partyka said that the case, investigated by Westfield detectives and state police assigned to the District Attorney’s Office, was initiated when a woman brought a thumb drive she found in her home to police. The drive was apparently left there by Whitney’s 19-year-old stepson, who had taken the device from the Sunbriar residence for a school assignment.
The woman told police investigators that she inserted the drive into a computer in an attempt to identify the owner and that when it opened there were 10 photographs of young girls, naked and in various stages of undress.
The woman said that based on the physical development of the girls photographed, she estimated their ages at between seven and nines years of age.
Whitney’s wife turned in a computer to investigators after finding hundreds of photographs of nude girls.
The police investigators executed a search warrant and found other electronic devices with photographs of girls ranging between seven and 16 years of age. Many of the photographs were posed, but many were taken without the subjects’ knowledge.
“There are hundreds of images,” Partyka said, “many of girls unaware they were being secretly recorded.”
Whitney was taken into custody last night at a residence in Agawam on a temporary warrant issued through the district’s attorney’s office.
Partyka had requested that Judge Philip Contant set bail at $50,000 cash, while Whitney’s defense attorney, assigned by the Commonwealth for the arraignment, argued that Whitney is not a flight risk and is retired from the U.S. Air Force, where he served for 34 years, requesting a bail of $10,000 to $15,000.
Partyka requested the high bail amount because the Commonwealth feels that Whitney is “an eminent threat to other children” in addition to the victims already photographed and video recorded.
Whitney has been employed as an academic support aid at the Suffield Middle School, but said through his attorney that he anticipates being suspended without pay once the school is notified of his arrest.
Partyka said that federal investigators are also examining the evidence to determine if they will pursue charges in federal court of manufacturing child pornography.
Attorney Goldplatt, representing Whitney in the arraignment process, requested that the state provide Whitney with legal representation for the criminal case because he will not have income if suspended from his current job to be able to retain an attorney.
Judge Contant rejected that request and advised Whitney to retain legal counsel for the February pretrial session.
Goldplatt also argued that none of the evidence was found in Whitney’s sole possession and that all of the electronic devices were available to any family members or visitors to Whitney’s residence.
“There is no hard evidence or documentation to support these charges,” Goldplatt said. “The entire family had access” to the electronic and computer equipment.
“There is no record of any inappropriate behavior toward any child, no statements from any children,” Goldplatt said.
Judge Contant set a number of conditions as part of the bail process, including contact with Whitney’s wife and stepchildren, no access to the Internet, and no possession of pornographic material. Whitney’s wife was granted a 209-A domestic abuse protection order following the arraignment.

To Top