This entry was posted in Lancaster Courts, Police, Racism, Unsolved Murders. Bookmark the permalink.

*    Wise made sexual remarks and solicitations to the undercover adult and sent at least one lewd photo, according to charging documents. Wise attempted to meet the undercover adult at the park, according to the district attorney’s office.
     Perry said he did not share the video with police but “knew they saw it through Facebook.”
From the LNP article.
     This makes absolutely no sense. In order to prosecute Wise for five felonies and other charges, the DA’s office has to have all the evidence on Perry’s phone: the correspondence that Wise knew she was 15-years-old; the fact that he still wanted to meet her for sexual contact and when and where and at the least the one lewd photograph he allegedly sent her. The video alone is not enough! What is going on?    



     LNP finally has the story up on their website and it’s their lead story but the headline is just dreadful (click here but be aware that LNP has a paywall). And what amazes me is everyone on social media is saying the police “set up” Justin Perry. That’s a very serious charge and what exactly do they mean by it? Did the police put the child porn on his phone?
Please check back later today.


  1. Ohwellist says:

    I agree with L.Kisster & wtf may be rt about luring wise with a photo. I still think its possible that it could be planted with todays tech. Theres a few ways that could of ended up on that phone. Im not buying it either or buying that they couldnt plant it on his phone.

  2. OnTheBeachByNoon says:

    Obviously, LE will need his testimony (cooperation). Charges will be dropped in exchange. I’m sure the only porn on his phone is the perp’s d*ck.

    • Becky says:

      He is charged with having child pornography. A picture of the 36-year-old’s private parts is not child pornography!

  3. WTF? says:

    Pretty sure that if LE is running a sting they use of age actresses / agents who can pass as being underage in luring the perp. Big difference.

    • Becky says:

      If he had child porn on his phone to “lure” predators, then you are correct. He’s not law enforcement and he crossed a line.

  4. WTF? says:

    Don’t you think perhaps Perry used photos he had gotten from somewhere that were inappropriate in order to lure wise? Given he’s not LE acting in an investigation, if he had any explicit inappropriate photos of minors on his phone..well, need I say more.

  5. OntheBeachByNoon says:

    Huh: You mean like he did to Judge Jayne Duncan? All he needs is a corrupt cop and BINGO…He has destroyed a career. And a life.

    • Becky says:

      I cannot wrap my head around this. He is charged with two felonies and yet he is free and no bail has been set. Something very strange is going on. I am transcribing what Perry said in his video and will post it when I’m done.

  6. huh? says:

    The pornographic emails exchanged by DAs, judges, and other male employees of the judicial system of Pennsylvania exposed at least one photograph that included a child (not in the act but in the photo). I say this because the police did NOT act against the judiciary of Pa. It is wonderfully salacious to write headlines like that and brand the guy a perpetrator for the rest of his online life… only to learn that a photo has been conflated just enough to call it child pornography.

    I know nothing about this guy. We’ve seen it before… the DA pressing ridiculous charges like “rioting” only to have them dismissed or reduced later. But the damage is done.

  7. Lang Kisster says:

    This pay to read online will work as well their former “Insider” club.

  8. Lang Kisster says:

    The part I don’t get is that he willingly handed over his phone. Wouldn’t taking a phone require a warrant if he’d have refused? This is Lancaster County. Police departments made it known to him they didn’t approve of what he was doing-legal or not. He continues and suddenly, they bust him for having kiddie porn on his phone. Sorry. Not buying it.

  9. Anonymous says:

    It is impossible to “plant” files on a phone without setting off red flags to anyone who knows how file systems work. You can try to change dates and times on the file but the embedded info within the file cannot be changed and it will show when the file was created and installed on the device.