« CNN+ Has a Great New Idea for Attracting Viewers: One Hour of Tater Every Single Day |
Main
|
David Frum: Only a Low-Rent, Low-IQ Propagandist Would Compare a Political Leader He Doesn't Like to Adolf Hitler »
February 17, 2022
Connecticut Socialite and Mother of Four Pleads Guilty to "Inappropriately Filming Minors" As Part of Deal to Avoid Other Sexcrime Charges
What is going on?
Connecticut socialite mother-of-four, 53, admits inappropriately filming minors in her $10million mansion as part of mysterious plea deal to have OTHER child sex charges dropped
Hadley Palmer, 53, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony voyeurism for sexual gratification in her $10million mansion
She is accused of filming minors without their knowledge in the home
She was originally facing a charge of enlisting a minor in a sex act too, but that was dropped by prosecutors
Palmer's plea deal is under seal along with other details about the case
She was married to financier Bradley Palmer for 28 years but she filed for divorce in 2020
The pair are understood to have four children together
Hadley is the daughter of financer Jerrold Fine, who started the Connecticut hedge fund Founder Oaks Management
Child psychologist Dr. Jerome Brodlie was charged with intentionally not reporting Palmer's alleged crimes to the authorities - as he is legally bound to do
And the state has fought like lions to keep it covered up.
Of course.
A Connecticut socialite has pleaded guilty to inappropriately filming minors as part of a mysterious plea deal in which other more serious child sex abuse charges were dropped.
Hadley Palmer, 53, is a mother-of-four, financier's wife and the daughter of a wealthy hedge fund founder. She lives in Belle Haven, Connecticut, in a $10million home and has four kids with her estranged husband Bradley.
Palmer is a regular on the Connecticut social scene and is regularly photographed at charity events but in October last year, she was arrested on charges of felony voyeurism, felony invasion of privacy and felony causing injury to a child.
The voyeurism charge against her involved recording someone, naked or in their underwear, without their consent or knowledge, with 'intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of such person (defendant) or any other person.'
It related to an incident in 2017 and 2018.
More serious charges of employing a minor in an obscene performance, a Class A felony, and possession of child pornography, were on the table.
The case has only just been brought to light by matter of the plea deal - one of the only publicly available documents in the case. It was reported by The Associated Press - which has been fighting to make the story public - on Monday.
Because she's rich and well-connected and Ruling Class, she'll get a special kind of "accelerated rehabilitation" probation.
Must be nice.
After her arrest in October, Palmer filed an application for a special probation program known as 'accelerated rehabilitation' which immediately sealed the file. She then negotiated a deal with prosecutors, in which they will drop the more serious charges in exchange for her pleading guilty to the voyeurism.
...
Legal experts tell the Associated Press - whose reporters opposed the seal - that it was a highly unusual move for her file to be sealed immediately and many say she did not even qualify for accelerated rehabilitation.
They are demanding to know why she has been able to hide from public view, when other defendants have not.
The judge is claiming that to reveal this woman's crimes would be to expose the children, which is nonsense; children's identities are routinely protected in sex crime cases. That doesn't mean we shield the perp.
Except if you've got money and connections and some Ruling Class palz.
There's a chance that this could be a case of filming a legitimately "artistic" but edgy short film or something, and it's all been trumped up by the cops.
But I don't think so. This is cosmopolitan Connecticut, just a quick commute to the pit of misery that is New York City. I don't think these are some yokels who got all offended at a photograph of a partly unclothed child in some "arty" portrait.
And they wouldn't be going after a psychiatrist for hiding evidence of a crime if that's all this was.