Posts
Jan 3, 2008 (The Weekly Vice) - Just a few brief months ago, the Internet was abuzz when nude photos of Disney Star Vanessa Hudgens quickly spread across thousands of websites. Although the story brought into question the principals actors and actresses should follow when children are the core audience, Hudgen's case never involved minor children directly. At least Hudgens took responsibility for release of the picture although she didn't personally release them.
Another Disney actor, 41 year old James Barbour has crossed all of those lines and more.
James Barbour, the actor who played 'the beast' in Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" has plead guilty to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.
Barbour, who also works as a Broadway actor met the child when she was brought back-stage to meet him following a Broadway production he was starring in. Barbour admitted it was then that he began touching the 15 year old girl sexually.
The sexual touching continued the next month when the girl visited him at his New York apartment. He admitted to the court that he had known that the girl was 15 at the time.
Barbour agreed to the charges in exchange for a reduced sentence. 60 days in jail and three years of probation. Sentencing is currently scheduled for February 29th, 2008.
By pleading guilty to the arrangement, Barbour will not have to register as a sex offender. According to his attorney Ronald P. Fischetti, "By pleading guilty to misdemeanors, he doesn't have to register, and that's important. He wouldn't have been able to travel without reporting, and he wouldn't have been able to work with children."
And Now For The Outrageous Part:
Although Barbour admitted to sexually touching a minor child that he knew was under aged, he blames the child for the entire thing.
His Attorney publicly lashed out at the child, blaming her for Barbour's legal troubles and questioning her motives. Barbour's attorney issued a statement claiming "She initiated both of these sexual encounters and then waited five years before filing a complaint against him".
Barbour, through his attorney took the blame a step further by attempting to publish the minor child's name in newspaper ads in an attempt to solicit responses from other men who might have experienced the same supposed advances from the child.
The Court of Appeal's Judge hearing the case was forced to ban Barbour from running the ads.
The Weekly Vice Reaction:
I'd like to begin my response to this story by asking you a question. How do you feel about a man who sexually gropes a child, blames the child for his actions and then readily admits his confession was offered as the quickest path to get himself back in front of children?
How do these three admitted facts square in the mind of parents who's child may someday become star struck with such actor? How do you feel about the play and movie producers who will showcase this actor to your children in the future?
Undoubtedly, most will be outraged by the very thought that this man will walk out of jail in 60 days and resume an acting career which has catered heavily towards the children he apparently now has his eyes on. But as this story will likely have a short shelf life, how will most parents in the future even know of the man's crimes - as he will not be listed as registered sex offender.
Although the very thought of a 41 year old man molesting a 15 year old girl is repulsive, the real shocker is not so much the slap on the wrist 60 day stay he'll undergo at the county jail.
Yes, the sentence falls ridiculously short of true justice when you consider the obvious lack of personal responsibility that has not been shown by the admitted molester.
The real outrage however is that this man will be completely free to resume all activities with children the moment his 60 day R & R are up. This is a pretty scary thought considering Hollywood has an established track record of returning these tainted actors to duty regardless of public concern about it.
For example, Rob Lowe's 1988 video tape sex scandal is ancient history as he enjoys critical acclaim for his work on the Emmy Award-winning 'Brother's & Sisters'. Lowe's indiscretion at the time wasn't nearly as clear cut as this case, as Rob did have reason to assume the 16 year old involved in his case was at an age of consent (they met in a bar and the other teen was of age).
Teachers who find themselves in sex scandals involving children are quickly dismissed from their duties. Even in instances like Joelle Ogletree's, where the teacher was wrongly accused of having sex with a student, the career is cut short. So, why would an actor who regularly performs for children enjoy unfettered access to them after admitting to their twisted and lured attempts to do the same.
The prisons are filled with cases of child sex offenders now serving time for simply conducting a sexually oriented conversation with what they think is a minor. They are busted, prosecuted and jailed for 6 months or longer without ever having the opportunity to do what Barbour did. Physical Molestation.
Consider the case of Andrew James, the scumbag who plead guilty and was convicted of molesting a 4 year old boy 10 different times. He was sentenced to 30 months to 5 years in jail, however the Judge suspended the entire jail term in lieu of sex offender therapy and a warning to 'refrain from criminal behavior'.
Even worse, the court failed to process the sex offender notification paperwork, and James walked out of jail with no provisions ordering him to stay away from the child. He was completely free to molest again.
It's woefully obvious that the protection of children from adult child predators like Barbour still have yet to be taken seriously.
In the case of Megan Meier, the teen who committed suicide after an adult named Lori Drew stalked her to death, the legal system failed to even bring charges for her role in the tragedy. The community was basically on it's own to take protective measures against the woman's actions - as officials and even the media sought to cover up the woman's identity.
We'll be keeping track of Barbour's child-related activities and invite you to share your views and known updates here at The Weekly Vice. In this way, parents have the opportunity to be informed and thus make better decisions about their child's dealings with this sick individual.
Full story and supportive links at:
Danny Vice
The Weekly Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
20 comments:
I think he was grooming her for sex. Just a couple of visits and he's right at it with this girl. and he'll be back with children?
sick..
Kristen
She may very well have initiated the sexual encounters but it will still never make it right. A young girl often uses her sexual prowess with innuendos and so forth but it will never make it right. Good post Danny!
One more detail. The girl wanted to meet this guy because she's enrolled in acting school. Of course she's going to try to impress him. If.... and that's a big if.... the girl tried to flirt with him, young girls like that rarely do it for the purpose of becoming physically intimate. What they want is a bond typically.
Another issue of course has to be brought out. Why on earth would a parent leave a 15 year old girl alone with a 41 year old guy in his apartment?
It's just begging for trouble...
Oh,then you are making the other party accountable...hey shmuck-you are naive and do not understand anything about how the world works.If as a parent, you raise a slut, then be prepared to deal with the consequences. This girl is no innocent sucking on a lollipop. Some fifteen year olds are quite capable of making up their own minds.
Successful people are constantly surrounded by star-fuckers. Yeah, he probably should have kept it in his pants-but SHE wanted it out. And if SHE is HOT and wants it, and you happen to be a man WITH a penis, then you give it to her. Now, sometimes that doesn't work out too well. Especially if the female wants OTHER things(carreer advancement, money, etc). So Mr. Barbour must now pay for his play, but lets not condemn him.
In this most fucked up society that produces saints and whores, all you can try to do is just not get caught. Because, shits like mr. vice get to judge you
Yes, I'm making an adult accountable for molesting a minor child. While that may seem incredible to you - God I hope you don't have children - The law holds an adult accountable. I considered deleting the above post because of the profanity, but until I get a complaint from someone, I'll leave it up so everyone can see the kind of attitude that leads many to rape children.
I think I know what the profane post was trying to say, but only because of my profession. I say leave it.
I think it is altogether possible that the 15-year-old did "initiate", but 15-year-olds are merely mimicking what they have seen on television etc by women who are viewed as desirable. They do not yet understand how that behavior is processed in the minds of adult males.
I do wonder why her mother would leave her daughter alone in a private setting with a man that age.
I also find it strange that the girl waited five years to file charges, since that would make her 20 when charges were filed, and I can't help but wonder why she waited for so long. Is she seeking a civil judgment as well?
Either way, there is absolutely no excuse for a man that age to sexually fondle a 15-year-old girl. She may or may not know better, but he definitely knows better.
I would honestly find him less disgusting if he hadn't blamed it on the girl, though. As soon as he did that, the plea deal should have been withdrawn, and he should have been prosecuted for the felony. This is a man who refuses to take responsibility for his actions, which means he is likely to re-offend and therefore should be monitored.
Yes, I am sure she flirted with him...thus his assumption he had a green light...
But along the lines of your thoughts..
An adult is accountable to stop the process... not invite it further...
That's like saying robbing a bank is alright since the bank left the vault open.
Oh the profanity....I have an idea: Let's encourage and enable people to act like animals and then point our fingers at them and run away laughing! Gee, sounds like the American way.
The media has changed since Pat Boone had a hit record singin about the lord. Now, you are supposed to be "hot" and "bad".
Jim Barbour is a good guy and a great actor. Who is this female?
What will she amount to?
"Artists" are people who because of their ability to shed inhibitions, express themselves as ordinary folk can't. That's why people are "attracted" to them.
Don't go near the open cage if you don't want to get scratched.
By the way, I have a lovely 6 year old girl. We, as parents have a great deal of influence over our children's behaviour. "yes" and "no" are up to the parents until the "adult" emerges. Then, its a crap shoot.
Hey "vice", quit blogging and start thinking.
Alaputa are you insane? Having an acting talent does not disqualify someone from following the law.
Who the girl is, is irrelevant of the fact that she was a minor and off-limits regardless of what you or Barbour personally believe.
Are you suggesting minor children are open game for an adult's sexual gratification as long as they don't put up a fight?
Pretty twisted.
It's no wonder our kids become damaged goods before they turn 16.
alputa,
I haven't heard anyone say anything about whether or not Jim has a right to attract someone. The point is that it's a kid. a child.
What part of "kid" is not getting through that thick skull of yours?
What the hell does Pat Boone have to do with molesting children?
The statutory rape laws are in place for a reason. Children are NOT equipped to handle the psychological dynamics of human sexuality - regardless of what they look like on the outside.
I think you need to take your argument to a pedophile forum, as it's becoming obvious you are either one yourself, or have been a victim of one at one time...
We aren't talking about a 17 year old and a 19 year old Romeo and Juliet relationship here. It's a kid and a 40 some year old man. A 15 year old is not an "emerged" adult sicko. The body might be there, but young teens have a lot of maturing to do socially and rationally... Way too young.
If Jim Barbour was a "good guy", he would have sent the girl back to her mommy and daddy if she started being a tease.
Oh, and one other thing. If you or Jim Barbour lay a hand on my child, you'll have a lot more to worry about from me than you would a lawyer. What a sick little puppy you are.
I saw the Ogletree teacher story on a program a couple months ago and was angered that she was completely vindicated, yet the school refused to give her job back. Or that she lost her job prior to being convicted. Does anyone know what happened to her lawsuit against the school? The last update I saw was on Dr. Phil and I think the suit was still pending. I'm hoping she sues for a lot more than backpay. Very good story.
Sounds to me like Alaputa is just a troll trying to stir up trouble.
Danny and others, best to ignore him/her and his/her buddys (whom I'm sure will troll around here soon enough)
This is disgusting. On a side note, Tina Meier was on Dr Phil today. I really hope she doesn't give up and I hope Jack Banas is voted OUT (he's such an ass) Isn't blaming the victim part of a phedophile's modus operandi?
This case has a lot more to it than we know, and only God should judge, because He is the only one who knows what "intent" was there in Barbour's part, and that of the so called "girl" as well. I have seen a lot of people's good reputations and characters being dragged in the mud forever, and in this case, someone is going to jail for it. From a forum I read, an interesting disclosure was made: (the name was given as Cristin Milioti)This girl's career was non-existent before she accused Barbour. Right after he was arrested, she got "speaking" parts in the Sopranos, got substantial parts in Theatre, and just this month has a Ford commercial(she is the "innocent" looking girl in the back of the Suv looking up through the moon roof at NYC skyline). Let's get real: With so many excellent and talented actors trying to make it in NYC, why would she get so "lucky" all of a sudden, and to coincide with this accussation? The discussion in the forum was that maybe she cut a deal with someone influencial enough who promissed her upward mobility in the industry of show business(this is what she was seeking from Barbour, and when he ended the relationship abruptly,--No, he WAS NOT grooming her for sex, otherwise he would have had it in his apartment or even in the first encounter--she lost her "golden egg". I am also sure she must have had some sort of resentment towards him as well, for ending the relationship that she thought would get her ahead in the business. Let's note also that this "girl' had a boyfriend, so she definitely was not naive about her sexuality. And I contest the statement that just because she was 15 at the time, she could not "process" or take responsibilty for her actions of inciting a man. By the way, Mr Barbour was 34 at the time(this happenned in 2001, and he was born April 25, 1966), not the 40 year old they attest him to be! So you see, if they got the facts that were so obvious, wrong, what other aspects of this case have been distorted as well? Let's give Mr Barbour some space here, and the benefit of kindness to think that he was still young(and some people at that age CAN indeed be very immature, including in sexual matters), and just committed a drastic, foolish mistake. So many girls actually SLEEP with older men, and never come out about it, and they like it this way. This one apparently had an "agenda", coming out JUST before the stature of limitations expired(which is something that points to the posible fact that someone advised her of it, as not many people, unless involved legally, know about time limits). Everything seems to point to the posibility that Mr Barbour has an enemy out there who, when savvy about his connection to this girl, took the opportunity to bring him down. Yes, and someone with "connections", not unlike "mafia".
Ah! And, yes, the parents should be made accountable, as they WERE in the Theatre that night, but allowed their daughter to go alone to an actor's dressing room;clearly, the message sent to this girl was that this was OK--not in any reasonable parent's book. Why did not at least ONE parent go with her? And the boyfriend? He was also there. And to top it off, she was allowed(from the info I have read she was 16 by then)to travel ALONE to NYC to visit with a man twice her age! At this point I can only think, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!
From several trusted sources, I have heard that, as Alaputa has stated, James Barbour is a good man, and comes from a decent background. He is not only a great talent in the Theatre, but an honest, and(inspite of how he comes across sometimes)humble guy, who takes responsibility when due. In this case, remember, he felt he had taken responsibility when he ended the affair on the second encounter. Disclosing a "groping" session to accuse someone 5 years after the fact--I find that repulsive in itself. Could she not have resolved her "issues" with Mr Barbour without making this into a 3 ring circus and tagging him with the scarlet letter of "molester"?
There are always two sides to a story... and given the amount of time "anonymous" has given to Mr. Barbour's side, I won't refute anything said.
I will say this though..
If you mess with a bee's nest, you have to pretty much expect to get stung.
Mr. Barbour really fared pretty well... There are thousands of people doing long term, hard time for doing less...
They aren't any less important as people just because they aren't actors for a living.
other than that.... you make a good case for allowing the man to serve his time and get on with his life.
When his time is up, remind me, and I'll remove this post.
James Barbour is guilty as sin. He took advantage of a 15 year old girl who he was supposed to be a mentor to. He came out after his performance and met with the girl and her parents and offered to show her around backstage. While her unsuspecting parents waited he was sexually abusing their daughter in his dressing room. What kind of slime does that? He got off easy because there was taped evidence supporting the girls allegation. If he would have went to trial he would have lost and he knew it. The only reason he was allowed to take a plea was to alleviate the pain of the victim. His attorney kept eluding to a motive of monetary gains by the victim. This was not the case. She never pursued a civil case and it was never in her mind. She was merely trying to prevent this from happening to someone else. In my book what she did was heroic. She put herself out there exposed, to stop him. And for the record, she landed those spots prior to this circus that James Barbour and his attorney were putting on and he never helped her with her career. As a matter of fact his adoring wife was his girlfriend at the time that he was molesting this girl. So good luck Mrs. Barbour, the 15 year old girl was only one. There was a 13 year old girl out in California who was willing to testify but it wasn't necessary because your husband was lucky enough to get off easy.
If she can be tried as an adult when she was 14, then she should be capable of 'Mens Rea' and should have informed him of her age.
The notion that someone is an adult when they are 18 is a Victorian antiquated idea. In our modern era, teenagers are more mature, thanks to the internet.
-Pete
He served his time. He and his wife have a daughter of their own now. He deserves to be left alone to live his life.
You said to remind you and you would remove this post. I'm reminding you. Please remove this post...give him some space and allow him to turn the page...
He's doing performances at of 1776 now http://www.papermill.org/papermill.html
Of course he's going to blame the child. He's a Scientologist!
They believe they're above the laws and everything they do, is for a reason.
All sexual harassment cases related to scientology the victim is always told they're the ones to blame and that they shouldn't do anything about it.
Scientology's fair game policy also applies to him trying to publish the girl's name to harass, defame, intimidate, and ruin her life because she went to the police about it and got him in prison.
Don't believe me? Research all I've said.
Post a Comment