News Alert
Alleged 'Luger Bandit' Who Hit Up Riverside…

Convicted Child Pornographer's Home Raided

Authorities suspect he's making more child porn.

A convicted child pornographer's home was raided after he allegedly asked to take illicit photos of a Temecula girl.

The home of John Brady, 64, in the 200 block of East Heald Avenue in Lake Elsinore was searched, and forensic investigators were examining his electronic devices this week, according to Detective Darin Gray of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

"I know, based on my training and experience, that collectors of child pornography rarely dispose of their collection," the detective wrote in a search warrant affidavit. "Any items of child pornography that they possess or obtain will be cherished and maintained so that it may be viewed on a regular basis."

Brady was arrested in Colorado for taking lewd pictures of a 14-year-old and a 17-year-old victim, and he was sentenced to three years in state prison, according to the affidavit.

To see Brady's page on Megan's Law, click here.

When Brady's Colorado home was searched, photos of both victims were found, including one showing the suspect touching the 17-year-old victim's breast, according to Gray.

Brady allegedly met the more recent 17-year-old victim at her work place, a fast food restaurant in Temecula. He told her he was a photographer and wanted to do a shoot with her, according to the detective.

"He told her that he liked her 'look' and wanted her to do modeling for him," Gray said.

The suspect gave the victim his card, which had his website on it. To see the website, click here.

The suspect then emailed the victim to arrange the photo shoot. He said they would drive to Orange County, where he booked a studio for two hours, according to Gray.

"Braddy told her to bring a few nice dresses and 'sexy is fine, even encouraged, even an old prom dress, if you still have one that fits, maybe something sexy and casual -- open shirt exposing as much cleavage as you are comfortable showing -- tied under the breast and (as) short and tight… as you are comfortable wearing," Gray wrote in the affidavit.

He went on to say the girl would be in the shoot with a male model, and encouraged her to take suggestive photos.

"You do not have to touch his package, but if you are willing, images of you inspecting him would fit the fetish. I have some white nylon rope, a whip and a riding crop that I'll bring along," the suspect told the victim via email, according to the affidavit. "I'll be paying the modeling fee, in that he doesn't want to leave a paper trail."

Investigators opened the investigation when the girl's parents searched the victim's email box, found the messages and called the sheriff's department.
Gray interviewed the victim at her school, and she said she never met Brady for the shoot. "She told me the entire situation sounded strange, so she stopped returning his email," the detective said.

During Brady's trial in Colorado, a psychologist said she believed Brady was likely to offend again, according to the affidavit. "She stated it was her opinion that Brady was 'getting off lightly,' and she did not believe it was a one time offense 'as it is far more likely that Mr. Brady has exploited minors for years,'" Gray wrote.

An investigation is ongoing. Anybody with any information about this case was asked to contact the Temecula Police Department at 951-696-3000.

Secrets of Safety January 01, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Hi Brenda, Happy New Year. Well, that's what makes our lives as human beings so much fun and interesting. We are all different. I AM very direct and I don't mind being so. I don't mind someone being direct with me. I personally would rather say what I have to say and people say what they have to say to me. I think that saves on the misunderstandings. If someone wants to know my reasoning for what I say, I don't mind someone asking or challenging me on what I say. While you have said that you have been on the receiving end of me attacking you, I would challenge that. I have challenged what you said, not attacked you. I didn't say you called me names or attacked me. I said I have been attacked personally and called names. You have chosen to personalize things said, rather than seeing it as what it was. I have seen your posts and some of them ARE quite direct ie; "Castration: Done With a pair of those little cuticle scissor's [sic] and it takes hours and hours to start and finish …" I personally don't support breaking the law to exact vengeance. I personally find that the way things are in this country have been seriously impacted by the "politically correct" approach to communication. Oh, don't say that or someone might get their feelings hurt. Hogwash. I say "get over it". If a person doesn't like being challenged, they should keep their mouth shut. (this is my general belief, not a personal thing toward you).
Secrets of Safety January 01, 2012 at 10:12 PM
2 I realize the direct approach is only popular when someone is expressing their views toward another person and not generally accepted when there is a challenge directed back at them. I have read a lot of people suggest horrible and illegal actions be taken against accused people of unpopular crimes. I personally find that offensive. The reason I find that offensive is simple. We have passed laws that describe the punishment for crimes committed. We, as a society have to live within those laws. The law is very clear that citizens do not have the right to exact their own punishment outside the law. Therefore, you will see me comment when those suggestions are made. You don't have to like it, but you will see it. As far as Travis' advertisement in the comments section, I suggest you and everyone else let him answer my challenges (especially when you don't know him or what he intended to do). He started the comments with his advertisement, and I purchased his book that was (in my opinion) somewhat misrepresented. If he isn't going to respond, since he is the one who started this section, then let it rest there. I don't care if it had anything to do with the article or not. There are places for business advertisements on these pages, let him do his advertising in those areas rather than attempting to capitalize on this horrible situation. And I didn't "dig" when I said what I said. I simply said I hope his next was better than his first..
Secrets of Safety January 01, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Oh john, How is it you jump on someone for their comment with regard to what other people say, when your comment prior to that was a similar attempt to referee. "I agree with Vicki and anonymous. SOS; you can drop it.". Interesting how it's okay for you to do it, but not someone you don't agree with.. It is almost laughable..
temeculan January 02, 2012 at 12:38 AM
"A Lies" - I must say, you are quite the pedantic windbag. I guess you did explain almost every point...except... Are you OK with them living next door to you?
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Hey john, I didn't see where you asked "Amazing Lies" if they are ok with them living next door. You asked what "Amazing Lies" thought about "hanging pedofiles [sic]". I believe "Amazing Lies" answered you. You are being a jerk. You ask for "Amazing Lies" to explain something and then criticize them for spending the time to explain. Personally, I don't mind a sex offender living next door. They are on the website and I know who they are and what they have done. It's the people I am not allowed to know their past that concern me. The likelihood of someone who has never been caught committing such a crime is about 93.5 times greater than for a sex offender to commit a crime.
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 12:55 AM
John, you asked me a question. I answered it to the best of my ability. I apologise if my answer used my vocabulary and my style rather than yours. I also apologise for not answering the question of neighbours, but then you didn't ask me that question. I'll try to enlighten you. I'm not a child, I don't have children living with me. What possible threat can they be to me? I'd be much more worried about having a convicted burglar or a drug dealer or a person with a history of violence living next to me. Who knows what they might do and they, believe it or not, are six times more likely to commit a sex offense than someone who has already been convicted of a sex crime. Even someone with no history of crime at all is more threat than a registered sex-offender. At least I know who the registered sex offenders are. I don't know who the other people are or what they have done, or what they are capable of. Did you know that gang members, drug offenders and arsonists also have to register with law enforcement? Yet their names, photos and offenses are not put on a website so we can see who they are and where they live. Yet those people pose more threat to you and me than registered sex-offenders. They are more likely to re-offend by committing any type of crime INCLUDING sex crimes - are you happy having them living next to you, without your knowledge?
temeculan January 02, 2012 at 05:37 PM
"A Lies" - referring to convicted sex offenders, you wrote: "I don't have children living with me. What possible threat can they be to me?" - So let’s get this straight (SOS is listening!) - If my kids or your neighbors kids get molested, no problem. No skin off your nose. You are more concerned about a burglar or drug dealer because they might steal your ipod or sell you a joint. And, all these statistics about “six times more likely” and who is more of a threat – where do you get this Barbara Streisand? (that’s BS) And you guys think I’m a jerk for calling “BS” on your “BS”? Please. I do have children and our neighbors do care about what goes on in our neighborhood. And know this…pedophiles are evil. Have a nice day ladies.
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 08:43 PM
"John, Try to decide what question you are asking and then read the response to that particular question. You didn’t ask me about your neighbourhood. You didn’t ask me about “convicted sex offenders”. You asked me - “Are you OK with them [“pedofiles” (sic)] living next door to you?” I answered that question. I believe you were probably called a jerk because you asked me a specific question, read my response, called me “a pedantic windbag” and then accused me of not answering a question you hadn’t asked! Would that amount to jerk-like behaviour? The statistics come from the Government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics. Here is a link to that site. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbo Go to Megan's Law website and read carefully the fourth paragraph on the home page which includes "Not all sex offenders have been caught and convicted. Most sex offenses are committed by family, friends or acquaintances of the victim. ...." Your opinions are not based on facts, they are driven by emotion and fear of the unknown. Do not presume to know my mind and my motivations from what I have NOT said. Your seeming refusal to check for yourself and understand for yourself is a greater risk to your children than any criminal. The facts are the same, whether read by me or by you. Read and educate yourself."
Brenda January 02, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Amazing, "John, you asked me a question. I answered it to the best of my ability. I apologise if my answer used my vocabulary and my style rather than yours." Your statement is another way to directly insult John with your immaculate expression of the english language. You and Secret can out "type" us all out of the ball park and while we diligently deciper your comments sometimes your meanings get lost in all the big words, LOL. I laugh at it because you both know exactly what you are doing, thinly disquising more insults. However, the point here is, I completely agree with John because I also think about everyone in our area and know that anyone can be a victim, not just a child from a molester, and not just my child. To say I only care about what goes on in my home is......I wont finish that cause it could get insulting. I care about the elderly, the young, the children, race, wealthy or non wealthy, the animals, the homes, cars, and other property. I watch out and look around occassionally throughout the day, definately not obsessed with it. But I know a burglary can happen, the suspect goes in to find a say 83 yr old woman with her 13 yr old granddaughter, rapes and kills them, and still go on to take whatever he wants. This burglary went to rape, and murder, no witnesses. I would like to know everyone in our area who has a record of any type, not just child molesters. As it was stated any crime easily turns into something worse and often does.
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 09:15 PM
Hi John, Sex offenders are the least likely to reoffend. http://casoap.org/information-misinformation/recidivism/ http://csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html Sex offenders make up 6.5 percent of parolees, and have a lower recidivism rate than other offenders. http://www.correctionsone.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/2865158-California-DOC-report-looks-at-recidivism-rates/ Politicians claim a 1998 department of Justice study shows sex offenders are the most likely to reoffend. That is a lie, there is no 1998 report. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-5764-sex-offenders___.html Here is the link to the Department of Justice, find the 1998 report yourself. http://www.justice.gov/ Out of The 15 States in the study released 272,111 prisoners altogether in 1994. Among the 272,111 were 9,691 men whose crime was a sex offense (3.6% of releases). Before being released from prison in 1994, MOST of the sex offenders had been arrested several times for different types of crimes. The more prior arrests they had, the greater their likelihood of being rearrested for another sex crime after leaving prison. Released sex offenders with 1 prior arrest (the arrest for the sex crime for which they were imprisoned) had the lowest rearrest rate for a sex crime, about 3%; those with 2 or 3 prior arrests for some type of crime, 4%; 4 to 6 prior arrests, 6%; 7 to 10 prior arrests, 7%; and 11 to 15 prior arrests, 8%. (1 of 2)
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 09:17 PM
The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that the majority of sex offenders were previously convicted of a non-sex related crime. Let's look at the 4,295 convicted of child molest (presumably your pedophiles). The figures are as follows: 4,295 child molesters released from prison. 141 rearrested for child molest (in 15 states). 262,420 non-sex offenders released from prison. 1,042 rearrested for child molest. Do the math. Percentages don't work when measuring the risk factor to children. You have to use raw numbers. If you want to know who is a greater risk, the numbers don't lie. There are almost 7.5 times more people out there that aren't being tracked that pose a risk to your children, than there are child molestors. Keep in mind, the majority of those released from prison for sex crimes were previously convicted of NON-SEX related crimes. Therefore, the numbers of people who started out commiting other types of crimes and are on the registry are in fact the most dangerous. So, let me see your research that supports your claims? I will go with being more at ease with sex offenders in general than just anyone living next door. 1994 DOJ report http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/​rsorp94.pdf (2 of 2)
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 09:38 PM
Hi Brenda, John asked me how I felt about "hanging pedofiles". I responded to that question. He then called me a name to which I responded specifically. I was not attacking him, I was defending me. He then asked me if I was "OK with them living next door to" me. John didn't ask me about the neighbourhood. He didn't ask me about other things, he asked me only about paedophiles living next door to me. I kept my response focused. Of course I care about the community, and the children, the elderly, the infirm and the animals, etc. - but he didn't ask me about them! And I didn't want to be called a pedantic windbag again. You express that "I would like to know everyone in our area who has a record of any type, not just child molesters." That is what I said too (in different words). I believe that, if the powers that be are serious about keeping us safe, then we are entitled to know who is living near us, and if they have been convicted of a crime, we should have access to the information about it - in exactly the same way that we are given access to the information about registered sex-offenders. I have no desire to attack anyone personally. I am only debating the issues as they are brought up to me. I am British by birth and a naturalized citizen of the USA so my expression of the language may be a little different from yours. However, I attempt to use the precise words to express my intent in order NOT to have the meaning lost in translation.
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Brenda, p.s. Thanks for "immaculate expression of the english language". My teachers would be proud...... tee hee.
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Hi Brenda, Wow, you have all day to sit and type and use quite a bit of space to do so, just as I do. Your ranting about being attacked in previous exchanges with me, yet not responding when I ask you to point out where I have attacked is a good indication that you cannot substantiate that claim. If I am going to attack or call names, I will do so and more often than not, if I call a name I do so in response to being called a name or someone calling someone else a name. The fact that "Amazing Lies" points out in the quoted statement that he or she used his or her own vocabulary and style rather than johns was in response to him calling him or her a name. I don't understand how you and john have the right to say what you want to say, and you criticize someone else for saying what they have to say. "john" directly called a name, and has launched an attack on both myself and "Amazing Lies" and we have responded with both documentation and our points of view regarding that supporting documentation. Yet, you provide little more than a personal belief and refuse to respond with anything more, and then go on to launch your implications of our collective "insults". I have asked you before and I will ask you now, where is your qualification to make the statements you are making? If you care as much as you claim, I would tend to believe you would educate yourself about the more realistic threat of those who are not on the Megan's Law Website. (1 of 2)
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 09:55 PM
The figures I have provided are skewed in the supporting documentation by the fact that "the majority" of sex offenders released from prison are people who have been previously convicted of crimes not having anything to do with sex at all. Therefore, the numbers that have been reported are not accurately providing the true risk of sex offenders. Without having the ability to accurately evaluate reports, we can still look at the statements in the reports and see that the vast majority of risk to children is posed by people who are within a child's family, friends and people who have been previously convicted of a crime that has nothing to do with sex. Those are facts that cannot be denied from any logical rationale. If you wish to remain in the classification of emotional responses using myth rather than fact, that is your choice. I refuse to do so. There is a problem in this country. As I have stated in previous posts, I have (with others) begun putting together a website where people can join and talk about these issues. I believe it is better to have something where people can connect with other concerned citizens and learn how to best protect our children, families and communities. I am doing something about the mis-information being thrown around by politicians and other politically motivated people. If you care about other people, then I tend to believe it is better to spread facts, not fiction. I don't care what you call me, I will pursue education. (2 of 2)
Brenda January 02, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Having movie date with husband, daughter, hubby and my GRANDSON who is three this past December, but I wanted to answer this one right up. Amazing, as I have many English born friends, and relatives now I have a better understanding of you. Sometimes its unfortunate we do not know some things about who we are talking to before hand, it might help in the final translation.
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Thanks Brenda, I too sometimes have difficulties in understanding American expressions and usage of some words... Churchill was right, two nations divided by a common language.
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 10:13 PM
Enjoy your date...!
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Then Brenda, You do agree that it is better to have some understanding before you make statements about someone or any subject at all? I just want to understand that, because you haven't seemed to be willing to do that before. Maybe asking questions and paying attention to the answers might be a better way to go, wouldn't you agree?
Amazing Lies January 02, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Hi John, In case you don't want to follow all of the links provided by Secrets of Safety, I'd like to show you this particular quote taken from an article written by Kelly Davis, published in the San Diego City Beat in April 2008. "As the state’s Sex Offender Management Board put it, in its 219-page analysis of California’s sex-offender laws, released in January (2008), “Statements that sex offenders cannot be ‘cured’—a concept generally accepted by experts in this field—have often been misinterpreted to mean that they will inevitably re-offend. In fact, the majority of sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time.”"
Secrets of Safety January 02, 2012 at 11:41 PM
I would add to the statement you made "Amazing Lies", that of those who do re-offend, they are much more likely to be people who's crimes began as non-sex related crimes. Thus, bringing us right back to the FACT that those most dangerous to us and our children ARE those who are not on the registry and those who's sex crimes began after having committed non-sex related crimes prior to being convicted of sex crimes. Thus, those who committed a sex related crime as their first and only crime, are the least threat to society in general. So, let's put everyone who ever committed a crime on the registry and track them all. If you care about your children and your community, it only makes sense to pay attention to the people who are committing all the other crimes!!!
Vicki January 03, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Secrets of Safety you say: It's not because we aren't punishing, we have increased the punishment this last year, yet it still keeps happening. Why? Answer: Because we let the ones keep breathing and pay for their meals and housing for a few years and let them back out on the streets. Just get rid of them. We're not advanced, we're spoiled. If we were advanced everyone would appreciate and respect each other and not follow through on what they want to do versus what they should be doing.
Secrets of Safety January 03, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Hi Vicki, "Just get rid of them. We're not advanced, we're spoiled." Well, I guess you answered the question about why 90 percent of sex offenses are new, and committed by people known to the victim as well as the 50 plus percent of family members committing the crimes. Fact, MOST sex offenses are committed by family members of the victim. Fact, MOST sex offenses are committed by people known and trusted by the victim. Fact, the MOST likely sex offenders to commit another sex offense are people who were convicted of a non-sex related crime prior to being convicted of a sex crime. Fact, the least likely sex offenders to commit any other crime (including a sex crime) are those who are family members of the victim. So, because a sex offender is a sex offender, you suggest killing them all. I suggest to you that there are too many family members committing NEW crimes and too many people who committed non sex related crimes that are committing new sex crimes for your suggestion to be practical. Killing one person to stop a significant number of other people from committing a similar crime has been proven to be ineffective, regardless of your argument. Until our "spoiled" society stops believing politicians and other politically motivated people when they pass useless laws based on a flawed logic, erroneous information and outright lies, there isn't going to be a solution. It has been proven, scarlet letter laws do not solve anything.
Vicki January 03, 2012 at 11:35 PM
What has not been tried is to see the reaction of suspects when previous offenders (not just one) are killed quickly. Low crime in many chinese and japanese provinces. People come together and beat the person prior to the police coming lol. They know what's coming and not worth it. If our laws followed through and swiftly convicted rather than the slow process and revolving door people know it to be, people may think twice. I'm not knocking handling things appropriately but sometimes enough is enough. Until our "spoiled" society stops believing politicians and other politically motivated people when they pass useless laws based on a flawed logic, erroneous information and outright lies, there isn't going to be a solution. I completely agree !!!
Secrets of Safety January 03, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Hi Vicki, There is a part of your reasoning that is incorrect. This last year the penalties against any sex offender have been severely increased. And your presumption that they only get 4 years is incorrect. The problem with the death penalty as it stands is that we are finding out more and more (now that we can prove with DNA) that many people on death row are actually innocent. I do not agree with putting to death a person that is innocent. And until there is a way to avoid killing innocent people, I do not agree with the death penalty. And the staunch resistance of the prosecutor's offices to release people DNA has proven to be innocent only proves to me that prosecutors (and the population) aren't interested in making sure the guilty die, they just want to make sure someone does. That isn't good enough for me. The United States Supreme Court ruled in April of last year that prosecutors are NOT obligated to turn over information they may have that would prove the innocence of someone accused of a crime. Again, what is the purpose in that unless it's just about making someone pay, we don't care who it is, just someone has to pay. I hope you or I never fall into the category of being one of those people. In cases of sex offenses there are too many accused people that are convicted simply because of a custody battle or an angry spouse. The current requirement has been placed on the accused to prove they didn't do it. (1 of 2)
Vicki January 03, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Not sure what you're reading but I never said nor presumed they get 4 years. Re: death penalty I was speaking of now, due to dna. No innocent person should be behind bars, but when the evidence is on film and person is without question guilty, you gotta go. The system is twisted and needs to be revised in many ways but thank you for the additional info.
Secrets of Safety January 04, 2012 at 12:02 AM
Comments on these type of cases show the tendency of our society to presume the accused is guilty before there is any real presentation of evidence to prove guilt. Juries have been (in past cases) drawing similar conclusions. If a person doesn't have a substantial amount of money to obtain a VERY good attorney to force the prosecutor to prove a case against someone accused of a sex crime, the likelihood is that the accused is either forced to "take a deal" or face the very real probability that they WILL be convicted. I don't see where that is doing our society any good at all. Now, enter the logic "kill them fast". Why? Hmm.. because you don't want to find out later that they might not have been guilty? I have a website that will be up soon that has the purpose of people connecting to discuss these things as they relate to family safety, especially the safety of our children. IF there is to be a solution to the problem of sex offenses, it will be through the people. And it will be done through education, not emotional (knee jerk) reactions to what is reported. It will be through families, friends and other people in a community paying attention to children and what is going on in the family. That is where the solution is. I agree that some people shouldn't have children. But we don't have the right to determine who those people are prior to them committing a sex crime. I suggest we as people be more responsible for what is going on in our families and community.
Secrets of Safety January 04, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Hi Vicki, My error, I mentioned the 4 years from a post above yours. I apologize. Yes the system is out of whack. Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to admit that. Being that the system messed up, and no solution to it is in sight, I believe it is better to become more active as a community in making decisions that lower the risk to children. Sometimes just paying attention to what is going on around us can make the difference between life and death and a lifetime of attempting to recover from a violation. If you are interested, a few of us have put together a free book that talks about some of these things. I would be happy to send it to you when it is ready. Take care and have a great day.
Secrets of Safety January 04, 2012 at 12:11 AM
Hi Vicki, My error, I mentioned the 4 years from a post above yours. I apologize. Yes the system is out of whack. Unfortunately, not enough people are willing to admit that. Being that the system messed up, and no solution to it is in sight, I believe it is better to become more active as a community in making decisions that lower the risk to children. Sometimes just paying attention to what is going on around us can make the difference between life and death and a lifetime of attempting to recover from a violation. Yes, I agree.. if there is indisputable evidence that a person is guilty of any crime, the appropriate punishment should be swift and complete, be it the death penalty or any other type of punishment. If you are interested, a few of us have put together a free book that talks about some of these things. I would be happy to send it to you when it is ready. Take care and have a great day.
Secrets of Safety January 04, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Travis Morgan, You are in violation of the terms of use for Patch. Please remove your advertisement.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something