Kids: ‘Aunt Michelle’ left us to pose in nude pics

[Liebling:-)))]

Kids: ‘Aunt Michelle’ left us to pose in nude pics
N.Y. woman faces endangerment charges; photos reportedly for revenge

SYRACUSE, N.Y. - A 20-year-old Syracuse woman who left children in her care to go pose for nude photos is facing several charges of endangering the welfare of a child.

Police say Michelle Rendino was supposed to be watching four young girls Wednesday when she left them alone and went into the woods near Syracuse's Inner Harbor to have a man take nude photos of her.

A man fishing saw the children crying and called police. When police arrived, the oldest girl — a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

Rendino says she asked the man to take nude photos of her so she could get back at her ex-boyfriend.

The children were returned safely to their mother.

Kids: ‘Aunt’ left us to pose in nude pics - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I first thought it meant that Aunt let the photographer to take pictures of kids'... Arrrhhhh *phew* It's not the kids but herself....

If she want to have someone to take nude pictures of her then is her business, not anyone but leave young children is neglect and irresponsible. I am surprised that they charge her for pose the nude pictures, not as neglect 4 children? They are suppose to charge her for her neglect in care for 4 young children, don't they?

I wasn't realized that it's criminal to pose the nude pictures since it was just a picture and a human body?

Who teachs the young children about negative about human body? It written in article:
a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

It scary to know that it will teachs young children to be prude and paraniod about their body which is really sad.

 

[pek1]

I first thought it meant that Aunt let the photographer to take pictures of kids'... Arrrhhhh *phew* It's not the kids but herself....

If she want to have someone to take nude pictures of her then is her business, not anyone but leave young children is neglect and irresponsible. I am surprised that they charge her for pose the nude pictures, not as neglect 4 children? They are suppose to charge her for her neglect in care for 4 young children, don't they?

I wasn't realized that it's criminal to pose the nude pictures since it was just a picture and a human body?

Who teachs the young children about negative about human body? It written in article:
a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

It scary to know that it will teachs young children to be prude and paraniod about their body which is really sad.

I concur. The woman shouldn't have been having pics taken while caring for children, as those can wait until later. I presume the pics are of a sexual nature, which is sad. What is more sad is that being nude is not sexual, contrary to what Hollywood says. Being nude is very beautiful and that's how God created us, but it's humans that have dulled that picture of true innocence of nudity. As for the kids, it seems to me that they have probably seen her go do this before and/or have seen pictures of her doing this sort of thing, of a sexual nature. This indeed, is sad and very disturbing.

 

[Reba]

... I am surprised that they charge her for pose the nude pictures, not as neglect 4 children? They are suppose to charge her for her neglect in care for 4 young children, don't they?

I wasn't realized that it's criminal to pose the nude pictures since it was just a picture and a human body?

Who teachs the young children about negative about human body? It written in article:
a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

It scary to know that it will teachs young children to be prude and paraniod about their body which is really sad.

The article didn't say the woman was arrested for posing nude.

It said, "A 20-year-old Syracuse woman who left children in her care to go pose for nude photos is facing several charges of endangering the welfare of a child...."

The article didn't say anything about someone "teaching" anything negative about the human body.

You're making assumptions about facts NOT presented.

The article did NOT describe the poses other than being nude. We don't know what she was doing in her poses.

 

[Reba]

Here a little different version:

Police: Woman left children alone at Inner Harbor
Posted by Douglass Dowty July 18, 2007 7:44PM
Categories: Breaking News, City News, Crime & Safety

A Syracuse woman is accused of leaving four young children alone for more than an hour Tuesday at Syracuse's Inner Harbor while a man shot nude photos of her in the woods, city police said.

A passer-by called police, who said they found the children -- a 6-year-old, two 4-year-olds and a 3-year-old -- "highly distraught and crying" shortly before 6 p.m. About an hour later, Michelle Rendino, 20, of Beattie Street, and a man in a wheelchair emerged from the woods.

Rendino told police she left the children for a moment to talk with the man. He told police Rendino asked him to take nude photos of her to get back at a former boyfriend.

Rendino was charged with four counts of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor, police said. The children were taken to their mother's home.
Police: Woman left children alone at Inner Harbor - News from The Post-Standard on Syracuse.com

I highlighted the new information.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

A 20-year-old Syracuse woman accused of leaving four young children in the wild so she could pose for nude photos is facing charges of endangering the welfare of a child. The authorities were alerted of situation by a man, who was apparently fishing at the nearby creek, saw them crying.

When officers reached the woods near Syracuse's Inner Harbor, the oldest girl, age 6, told them that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

Rendino told police that she wanted to take nude photos of her to get back at a former boyfriend.

The children were taken to their mother's home.

Babysitter Leaves Children Alone In Woods To Pose For Nude Pictures

It look like that Aunt Michelle brought 4 young children with her and then leave them alone in the wild to go somewhere to take nude pictures because a man who was fishing and saw them. It's scary to leave 4 young children like this in the wild...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I concur. The woman shouldn't have been having pics taken while caring for children, as those can wait until later. I presume the pics are of a sexual nature, which is sad. What is more sad is that being nude is not sexual, contrary to what Hollywood says. Being nude is very beautiful and that's how God created us, but it's humans that have dulled that picture of true innocence of nudity. As for the kids, it seems to me that they have probably seen her go do this before and/or have seen pictures of her doing this sort of thing, of a sexual nature. This indeed, is sad and very disturbing.

Yes I thought the same as you as well...

I wondering to myself how do the young children know those word "nasty" pictures when they talked to police... "Aunt Michelle went to wood to take "nasty" pictures...? It could be that they were shock when they saw Michelle being nude and ran and cried... that's how a man saw them and call police...

It's very sad to expose the children to beleive that nude is a dirty...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

The article didn't say the woman was arrested for posing nude.

It said, "A 20-year-old Syracuse woman who left children in her care to go pose for nude photos is facing several charges of endangering the welfare of a child...."

for clear... I misread those article because it written something about nude is more important...

The article didn't say anything about someone "teaching" anything negative about the human body.

You're making assumptions about facts NOT presented.

Please re-read my post carefully... I never say that the article say about "teaching" but I wondering to myself since the article say that one of 4 young children brought those word "nasty" pictures... This is a difference.

I said:


Who teachs the young children about negative about human body? It written in article:
a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

I am wondering because one of 4 young children told police about "nasty" pictures... "nasty" is not positive thing. The children are being expose to know the negative about nude issue which is really sad.

The article did NOT describe the poses other than being nude. We don't know what she was doing in her poses.

Again It look like that you think nude is a porn or what? Remember that pose nude and porn are not the same thing.

Can you read those simple article...?

Rendino says she asked the man to take nude photos of her so she could get back at her ex-boyfriend.

Just take pictures of her human body... If it written she do something with porn pictures... but it doesn't.

 

[Reba]

Please re-read my post carefully... I never say that the article say about "teaching" but I wondering to myself since the article say that one of 4 young children brought those word "nasty" pictures... This is a difference.

I said:
Who teachs the young children about negative about human body? It written in article:
a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

Yes, I did it read it, and you just proved again that you said "teach". You are implying that someone "taught" the child that it was nasty. Where did you get the idea that someone taught the child that it was nasty? You're assuming a lot from that brief article.

How do you know that the woman didn't tell the girl, "I'm going into the woods so this man can take nasty pictures of me."

You don't know all the facts, and I don't know all the facts, so we can't speculate on what the girl was "taught", saw, or heard. We don't know.

I am wondering because one of 4 young children told police about "nasty" pictures... "nasty" is not positive thing. The children are being expose to know the negative about nude issue which is really sad.

The article did NOT say why the child thought the picture was "nasty". It did NOT say she thought the picture was nasty just because the woman was naked in them. It might have been the provocative pose that was nasty. You don't know, and I don't know. There is no description of the picture. You're just making assumptions.

Again It look like that you think nude is a porn or what? Remember that pose nude and porn are not the same thing.

Can you read those simple article...?

I can read the article, and I don't add any assumptions to the information in it. I never said nude and porn are the same thing. You are making more assumptions about things that weren't posted. I said that we don't know what the poses were other than they were nude. A picture of Michelangelo's David, and a photo spread from Hustler magazine are NOT the same. It depends on the pose and presentation.

Rendino says she asked the man to take nude photos of her so she could get back at her ex-boyfriend.

Just take pictures of her human body... If it written she do something with porn pictures... but it doesn't.

So your assumption is that artistic, tastefully posed nude photos taken by some guy she met in the park would be the way she would "get back" at her ex-boyfriend? Uh huh.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Yes, I did it read it, and you just proved again that you said "teach". You are implying that someone "taught" the child that it was nasty. Where did you get the idea that someone taught the child that it was nasty? You're assuming a lot from that brief article.

Come on, Reba...

How the children learn those word from?

How could the children says such thing like this to police?

Of course it tell that the child was being taught to know that nude is a dirty...

I was not realize that you made a big fuss over my simple questions tha'ts because I am only wondering... :roll:

How do you know that the woman didn't tell the girl, "I'm going into the woods so this man can take nasty pictures of me."

Again, a very simple question... Why the girl told police that her Aunt went into the woods to take nasty pictures? Where it comes from?

I do not see that I accused anyone here but just wondering...

You don't know all the facts, and I don't know all the facts, so we can't speculate on what the girl was "taught", saw, or heard. We don't know.

No matter either we know or not... That's just I am WONDERING what/how those word "nasty" from young child's mouth when she told police about "Aunt went into the wood to take nasty pictures". Of course it tells alot that young child was being exposed to know that nude is a nasty because a lot of children never say like this...

The article did NOT say why the child thought the picture was "nasty". It did NOT say she thought the picture was nasty just because the woman was naked in them. It might have been the provocative pose that was nasty. You don't know, and I don't know. There is no description of the picture. You're just making assumptions.

I cannot beleive that you twist my word... that's just I made a simple question because I am wondering how and where those word "nasty" come from when a young child told the police that her aunt went into wood to take "nasty" pictures. Nothing more than just a simple question... Please don't make a false assumption...

I can read the article, and I don't add any assumptions to the information in it. I never said nude and porn are the same thing. You are making more assumptions about things that weren't posted. I said that we don't know what the poses were other than they were nude. A picture of Michelangelo's David, and a photo spread from Hustler magazine are NOT the same. It depends on the pose and presentation.

You said this yourself
"The article did NOT describe the poses other than being nude. We don't know what she was doing in her poses. "

So your assumption is that artistic, tastefully posed nude photos taken by some guy she met in the park would be the way she would "get back" at her ex-boyfriend? Uh huh.

I do not see where have I say anything? I only see what I said is what she did with nudity pictures is her business but what she doing to 4 young children is a neglect and irresponsible, period.

Don't make a false assumption please.

 

[Reba]

Come on, Reba...

How the children learn those word from?

Her parents, TV, school, friends, babysitter? You don't know and I don't know. We shouldn't speculate about things we don't know.

How could the children says such thing like this to police?

Of course it tell that the child was being taught to know that nude is a dirty...

This might come as a shock to you but kids can pick up words and concepts that aren't "taught" to them. :roll:

I was not realize that you made a big fuss over my a simple questions tha'ts because I am only wondering... :roll:

It's not a big fuss. I just don't like seeing false and misleading assumptions being made.

Again, a very simple question... Why the girl told police that her Aunt went into the woods to take nasty pictures? Where it comes from?

I do not see that I accused anyone here but just wondering...

We don't know any of that. The article doesn't say.

You posted: "It scary to know that it will teachs young children to be prude and paraniod about their body which is really sad."

That's not "wondering". That's making a conclusion about something that wasn't even mentioned in the original article.

No matter either we know or not... That's just I am WONDERING what/how those word "nasty" from young child's mouth when she told police about "Aunt went into the wood to take nasty pictures". Of course it tells alot that young child was being exposed to know that nude is a nasty because a lot of children never say like this...

It's amazing how you're more concerned with where the child learned the word "nasty" then what the babysitter did.

Did it ever occur to you that children might have their own opinions about what is nasty or not?

I do not see where have I say anything? I only see what I said is what she did with nudity pictures is her business but what she doing to 4 young children is a neglect and irresponsible, period.

Don't make a false assumption please.

I was referring to your "question" about the girl using the word nasty. We don't know what the pictures looked like, so we can't judge the content. We don't know if they were artistic or pornographic. In the little girl's eyes they were nasty. That doesn't mean someone taught her that a nude body is nasty. There is no way you can come to that conclusion from that brief article.

Readers need to learn how to sort facts from assumptions.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Her parents, TV, school, friends, babysitter? You don't know and I don't know. We shouldn't speculate about things we don't know.

Do you suggest that all expose young child negative about nudity?

This might come as a shock to you but kids can pick up words and concepts that aren't "taught" to them. :roll:

Yes, I am shock because it´s not normal for the young child to negative about nudity like this.

Yes, the atmosphere at everywhere influence young children like this but nudity as nasty? I never seen anyone in my life to say that nudity is a nasty. I am total speechless that a young child told police that her Aunt went into the wood to take nasty pictures...

The children are being taught to respect nudity with no negative word.

It's not a big fuss. I just don't like seeing false and misleading assumptions being made.

I do not see that I made a false and misleading assumption but the FACT... "Aunt Michelle went into the woods to take "nasty" picture... It´s not normal for a child to say like this.

We don't know any of that. The article doesn't say.

No matter what, but it tells alot. It´s not my problem if you refuse to open your mind and see the sense. It´s you and what I see is it´s me.

You posted: "It scary to know that it will teachs young children to be prude and paraniod about their body which is really sad."

That's not "wondering". That's making a conclusion about something that wasn't even mentioned in the original article.

Don´t try to twist my word again...

At begin, I said: "Who teachs the young children about negative about human body?" is a wondering of me... since the article says:
"a 6-year-old — told police that "Aunt Michelle" went into the woods to take "nasty pictures."

Then I find sad to know that a young child are being exposed to know that nudity is a nasty because it will teachs young children to be prude, disrespect, paraniod etc which is no good.

It's amazing how you're more concerned with where the child learned the word "nasty" then what the babysitter did.

I already stated what I view about those situation in my first thread.

Did it ever occur to you that children might have their own opinions about what is nasty or not?

6 years old? Do you mean about nudity as nasty? Unfortunlately no, they are being influence by anyone to negative or postive like this. 6 years old have feeling and can say what they have feeling, not their own opinion... This is a difference.

I was referring to your "question" about the girl using the word nasty. We don't know what the pictures looked like, so we can't judge the content. We don't know if they were artistic or pornographic. In the little girl's eyes they were nasty. That doesn't mean someone taught her that a nude body is nasty. There is no way you can come to that conclusion from that brief article.

Readers need to learn how to sort facts from assumptions.

Oh yes, the small children are being influence postive and negative by anyone... Oh yes, they are being taught what right or wrong by anyone...
What the article says is nudity which mean is no clothes to wear - just human body, period.

I have seen a lot of children who see nudity around which doesn´t bother them really... They do not pay their attention on nudity issues example TV, beach, household, magazine... They are being raise to know that nudity are natural in positive way like this.

 

[Reba]

Do you suggest that all expose young child negative about nudity?

Huh?

Yes, I am shock because it´s not normal for the young child to negative about nudity like this.

You don't even know what the child saw, so how can you make such a judgment? How do you even know how that child defines "nasty"? You don't know anything about the child or the pictures.

Yes, the atmosphere at everywhere influence young children like this but nudity as nasty? I never seen anyone in my life to say that nudity is a nasty. I am total speechless that a young child told police that her Aunt went into the wood to take nasty pictures...

See the above answer.

The children are being taught to respect nudity with no negative word.

See the above answer.

I do not see that I made a false and misleading assumption but the FACT... "Aunt Michelle went into the woods to take "nasty" picture... It´s not normal for a child to say like this.

OK. If you know exactly what happened in the woods please describe it to us. What exactly did the woman do in the pictures? What did the guy do?

No matter what, but it tells alot. It´s not my problem if you refuse to open your mind and see the sense. It´s you and what I see is it´s me.

Sorry, I don't have psychic abilities like you do. I only know what the article said. I have no special insight into the details. I wasn't there, and I'm not going to speculate on such flimsy information.

Then I find sad to know that a young child are being exposed to know that nudity is a nasty because it will teachs young children to be prude, disrespect, paraniod etc which is no good.

You act like you know all about this child and her rearing just from that one sentence. Amazing.

...What the article says is nudity which mean is no clothes to wear - just human body, period.

How do you know what was involved? Were you there? That was a very brief article. Obviously, they didn't include all the details yet.

 

[sara1981]

im sure Aunt need kept watch kids and cant leave the unsupervisor without knowledges!

my family never leave me as without supervisor but always kept me as eyes all the times!

i do watch my cousin they never leave kids because under 18 need supervisor so my young cousin is 9 years old will become 10 years old on Sept 24 and 6 years old and also baby 9 1/2 month old always kept eyes of children all the times if adult still with children that so important!

if Aunt not on duty to watch kids they can go anywhere if Aunt have to watch kids they cant getting pose the nude! they kids will embrassment by aunt's pics of nude that so crazy they will front of families to embrassment and kids will look and more shocker!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

You don't even know what the child saw, so how can you make such a judgment? How do you even know how that child defines "nasty"? You don't know anything about the child or the pictures.

OK. If you know exactly what happened in the woods please describe it to us. What exactly did the woman do in the pictures? What did the guy do?

I presume that the pictures are nature. They would alarm if Aunt Michelle really did more than just nature. I check for update... None, which mean is nothing serious about nude picture but charge her for neglect in care of 4 children.

Sorry, I don't have psychic abilities like you do. I only know what the article said. I have no special insight into the details. I wasn't there, and I'm not going to speculate on such flimsy information.

You act like you know all about this child and her rearing just from that one sentence. Amazing.

It's not very hard to tell something from the article. *shrug*

How do you know what was involved? Were you there? That was a very brief article. Obviously, they didn't include all the details yet.

I guess the problem is your paraniod to compare nudity with sex. Nudity is only human body, not sex and porn.

The medias would alarm if Aunt do something more than show off her naked body but it doesn't which mean is they only charge her for her neglect in care of 4 children. It's just her naked body.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

they kids will embrassment by aunt's pics of nude that so crazy they will front of families to embrassment and kids will look and more shocker!

Why embarrassment? Do you mean that nudity is horrible or what? Nasty?

 

[Reba]

I presume that the pictures are nature.

Why would you presume that? There was nothing in the article to infer that. If anything, they were "revenge" pictures (as the article did state).

I check for update... None, which mean is nothing serious about nude picture but charge her for neglect in care of 4 children.

Not necessarily. Sometimes additional charges come weeks later after investigation.

I guess the problem is your paraniod to compare nudity with sex. Nudity is only human body, not sex and porn.

That's interesting. You always say that I'm paranoid about nudity but you are the one who posts numerous threads about it. I've never started a thread on nudity. It seems that the perception of nudity is on your mind a lot. To me, it's not a big deal worth mentioning over and over again.

The medias would alarm if Aunt do something more than show off her naked body but it doesn't which mean is they only charge her for her neglect in care of 4 children. It's just her naked body.

Like I said before, charges are sometimes not decided for several weeks, pending investigation. Also, since the event involved minor children, sometimes they don't reveal all the details to the press.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Why would you presume that? There was nothing in the article to infer that. If anything, they were "revenge" pictures (as the article did state).

Yes I read "revenge" but it make no sense... because she asked the man to take nude photos of her so she could get back at her ex-boyfriend. Revenge?...

Not necessarily. Sometimes additional charges come weeks later after investigation.

Why weeks after investigation? See the picture is not hard job for the police...

That's interesting. You always say that I'm paranoid about nudity but you are the one who posts numerous threads about it. I've never started a thread on nudity. It seems that the perception of nudity is on your mind a lot. To me, it's not a big deal worth mentioning over and over again.

mmmhhhh...Nudity is on my mind a lot...? wow... interesting...! Why have you denied when Pek1 and I have the same thought after read the article because we know the logical. You are the one who deny the logical and keep saying that I made false and misleading assumption etc. here.. All what I said is your problem is parniod over nudity etc.

Oh yes I know from your posts from other threads - I didnt say anything but debate with disagree/agree with you. Anyway, I am not here to talk about our posts from other threads but this thread here.

Like I said before, charges are sometimes not decided for several weeks, pending investigation. Also, since the event involved minor children, sometimes they don't reveal all the details to the press.

Like what I said before... Why investigation for? It´s not hard to see the picture what kind of nudity, she posed and plus it´s not hard for the law to charge her for neglect in care of 4 children... Right? Why weeks investigation for?

 

[Reba]

Yes I read "revenge" but it make no sense... because she asked the man to take nude photos of her so she could get back at her ex-boyfriend. Revenge?...

It makes no sense because we don't have all the facts of the situation.

Why weeks after investigation? See the picture is not hard job for the police...

I guess you don't know about crime investigation and case preparation. It's not the same as what you see on TV. Many investigations and legal charges take a long time to accomplish. Witnesses have to be interviewed, evidence gathered and analyzed, etc.

mmmhhhh...Nudity is on my mind a lot...? wow... interesting...! Why have you denied when Pek1 and I have the same thought after read the article because we know the logical. You are the one who deny the logical and keep saying that I made false and misleading assumption etc. here.. All what I said is your problem is parniod over nudity etc.

You can say that I'm "paranoid over nudity" until you turn blue but I think it's obvious who's making all the posts and threads about nudity, and it ain't me.

Like what I said before... Why investigation for? It´s not hard to see the picture what kind of nudity, she posed and plus it´s not hard for the law to charge her for neglect in care of 4 children... Right? Why weeks investigation for?

Charges additional to the neglect ones might be pending, depending on the results of a complete investigation. We don't know.

In the USA, cases are investigated before judgment is made. That's the legal process.


I'm bowing out of this thread. It's taking more time and energy than it's worth.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I guess you don't know about crime investigation and case preparation. It's not the same as what you see on TV. Many investigations and legal charges take a long time to accomplish. Witnesses have to be interviewed, evidence gathered and analyzed, etc.

Sure, it is about murder, crimes, interviewed etc. because they need the proof but the photos are the best proof than their own word. It takes real fast when they found the proof. Witness is a man who was fishing and saw 4 children and then see the pictures. It´s not really hard like what I said before.

You can say that I'm "paranoid over nudity" until you turn blue but I think it's obvious who's making all the posts and threads about nudity, and it ain't me.

Whatever :roll:

Charges additional to the neglect ones might be pending, depending on the results of a complete investigation. We don't know.

In the USA, cases are investigated before judgment is made. That's the legal process.

Excuse me, I know what investiagation is about but those situation about the pictures of nude Aunt, a man who fishing and neglect 4 children is not very hard job for the police. *shrug*

I'm bowing out of this thread. It's taking more time and energy than it's worth.

Okay

I think we should quit to post here since we have different view on this issue. What you see is your own view and what I see is my own view.