Posted on

Clark County Sgt. faces internet sex crimes

Clark County Sgt. faces internet sex crimes Clark County Sgt. faces internet sex crimes

Accused of exploitation, enticement, threats and solicitation of area child



A patrol sergeant with the Clark County Sheriffs Office is facing charges of internet sex crimes against a Taylor County girl.

Jeremy Chapman, 38, of Spencer was in Taylor County Circuit Court on Tuesday afternoon for his initial appearance. Chapman faces up to 72 years in prison and up to $220,000 in fines for charges connected to incidents alleged to have happened from December 24, 2023 and January 4,2024.

Chapman faces the following charges: Sexual exploitation of a child - a class C felony with a penalty of up to 40 years in prison and up to $100,000 in fines for “persuading a child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording or displaying in any way the conduct.”

Child enticement - a class D felony with a penalty of up to 25 years in prison and up to $100,000 in fines. For “intent to cause a child to expose genitals, pubic area or intimate parts to him.”

Threatening to communicate derogatory information - a class I felony with a fine of up to $10,000 and up to 3 years, 6 months in prison for “maliciously threaten with the intent to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person’s will.”

Solicit intimate representation from minor - a class I Felony, with a penalty of up to $10,000 in fines and up to 3 years, 6 months in prison for soliciting “an intimate or private representation from a person who the actor believed or had reason to believe had not attained the age of 18 years.”

At Tuesday’s hearing Chapman requested a preliminary hearing with time limits waived. The bond was continued as a $10,000 signature bond and a $2,500 cash bond with conditions of having no contact with 16-year-old victim and no unsupervised contact with anyone under the age of 18.

A pretrial conference was set for August See CHAPMAN on page 10 21 at 3 p.m. and a status hearing was set for Sept. 10 at 3 p.m.

The case was investigated by Det. Aemus Balsis of the Taylor County Sheriff’s Department and his report was included in the charging documents.

According to the criminal complaint: Chapman contacted Balsis on the morning of June 3 after Balsis left a business card at the home of Chapman’s parents in Marshfield. Balsis informed him that he was working on an internet crimes against children case.

“I told him some of the IP's addresses used by the suspect had been discovered to belong to his residence in Spencer, WI, and his parent's residence in Marshfield,” Balsis states in his report.

Balsis stated, “[Chapman] got strange and evasive on the phone and made comments not knowing what this was about. [Chapman] asked if I was investigating him. I told [Chapman] that I didn't have a suspect identified yet, but I was just looking to speak with him and his wife about the case.’

Chapman indicated he did not have any children who lived with him or anyone else at the residence and it was just him and his wife. Balsis asked if there was anyone who would go back and forth between Chapman and his parent’s residence that would create the link between the two locations. Balsis states: “[Chapman] was quite nervous and seemed to be choked upmaking a comment that it was just him and his wife.”

In attempting to arrange a time to meet, Det. Balsis learned that Chapman was a patrol sergeant with the Clark County Sheriff’s office. Balsis told Chapman there was another IP address, this one assigned to Loyal City Hall, which also houses the Loyal police department and was used on January 1.

Balsis stated, “When I mentioned the IP address of Loyal City Hall, [Chapman] again seemed to be quite nervous and evasive. [Chapman] then made comments about being available all week now. I asked [Chapman] why he would now be available. [Chapman] said he was going to be suspended from work. I asked [Chapman] why he would be suspended; [Chapman] said as soon as he reports this to his captain and tells him what's going on, and that he's being investigated, he's going to be suspended. I told [Chapman] that I was just looking into the issue and wanted to speak with him.”

Balsis asked Chapman if he was working on January 1 and noted in his report that Chapman “again hemmed and hawed before making a comment about not knowing or not remembering.”

On June 4, Balsis met at the town of Molitor home of the victim, a 16-year-old girl.

According to the report, the victim said she received an add request from Snapchat user 'outdoorsman222' about a week before she accepted him. [The victim] said this was about a week or so before Christmas (December 25, 2023).

According to the report, “[The victim] said she at first communicated with outdoorsman222 for a few days and they text messaged back and forth. [The victim] said after she accepted him, she asked him who he was and he said 'Caleb' and that he was from Wausau.

Balsis stated, “I asked [the victim] if outdoorsman222 asked for photos; she said yeah kind of. [She] said outdoorsman222 told her he'd do something for her and get something for her that she wanted. [She] said she did it because she wanted it from him. [The victim] had previously told Deputy Kauer something about being offered money. [The victim] said she sent outdoorsman222 pictures of her face, so he knew what she looked like, but then it progressed into other things.”

According to the report, the victim was sent a photograph of a male subject who appeared to be college aged, but the photograph seemed to be older and not generated by Snapchat.

“The profile name on Snapchat for outdoorsman222 was 'Caleb Schroeder.” [The victim] said after she sent pictures of her face, it progressed into other things. I asked if she sent nude photographs; she said yes. [The victim] then clarified that they were of her wearing a bra and panties. [The victim] said she then sent him additional photographs of her body. [The victim] said she doesn't believe she was completely nude in the photographs, but she posed for the images. [The victim] said she was wearing bra and panties and took the images as 'selfie' type photographs, many of which were taken in a mirror. [The victim] said she would take photographs of her body, her breasts, and her butt and send them to outdoorsman222.”

The pictures were taken using the Snapchat application camera and that the pictures were taken at her residence and the chats occurred mostly at night. She also told Balsis that the person she was chatting with knew she was 16 years old right away and which high school she attended. She said he told her that he was 19 years old and was a college student.

According to Balsis: “[The victim] said she didn't know who outdoorsman222 was. [The victim] said after she sent the inappropriate photos of herself to outdoorsman222, he then started blackmailing her demanding more photographs and made her download the 'Google Meet' application on her cell phone. [The victim] said outdoorsman222 would send her a 9- or 10-digit code via Snapchat that she would need to use to join him in a chatroom on Google Meet.”

According to the report, “[The victim] said outdoorsman222's background history kept changing. At first, he identified himself as a college student, then as a teacher at her school, then as a student at her school, then as a group of students at her school, and then finally as an older guy who was a 'fire fighter' and had a stepdaughter her age named ‘Lexi.’” According to the report: “[The victim] said outdoorsman222 threatened her and blackmailed her into sending additional inappropriate photographs and joining him on the Google Meet video chat. [The victim] said outdoorsman222 threatened to share the photographs she sent him with school staff, and other students at her school. [The victim] said outdoorsman222 threatened to rape her.”

The victim told Det. Balsis that she added outdoorsman222 on Snapchat a week or so before Christmas, and they then started chatting on Google Meet sometime before New Years. She told Balsis that on Google Meet, the video would be on but was muted and that the screename was “John.”

According to the report, “[The victim] said he would tell her to sit up, lay down, and things like that. [The victim] said outdoorsman222 made her strip her clothes off on camera.” As well as show different parts of her body.

Balsis stated, “[The victim] spoke about outdoorsman222 blackmailing her. Outdoorsman222 would tell her stories about how he was going to send the photos of her to the school and tell [the school principal] about them. [The victim] said he made her send more photos and share more photos or he was going to report her to the school and show her friends and the school the photos.”

Balsis stated, “I asked [the victim] if outdoorsman222 ever talked to her in a sexual nature; she said yes. [The victim] said on the last day, just before reporting the incident to the school and [the school liaison officer], he told her to go to the locker room. Outdoorsman222 told her to go to the locker room because there was a group of guys there who were going rape her.”

She told Balsis that she was so scared she needed her friend to take her to the school office. After reporting the incident, she screenshotted the username and profile name and then deleted the contact from her Snapchat. A few weeks later, she said the username added her again and apologized to her and tried to convince her to stop reporting it.

She told Balsis that she was contacted on Snapchat by someone claiming to be the daughter, “Lexi” of outdoorsman222. Balsis stated, “[The victim] agreed with me that the person purporting to be Lexi was possibly outdoorsman222.”

On June 14, Basis went through the forensic examination of records on Chapman’s cellphone issued by the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.

Balsis stated: “I noted the following Google Searches were of interest as it relates to this examination: - 3/6/24 at 12:52 p.m. - 'will [ny] spectrum ip address change' - 3/6/24 at 12:50 p.m. - ''if i unplug my spectrumrouter will my ip address change' - 3/6/24 at 1:27 p.m.- 'will the ip address change if i unplug my modem and router' - 3/6/24 at 1:28 p.m. - 'How long is a Snapchat preservation request' - 6/9/24 at 4:10 p.m. - “948' The 6/9/24 Google search led him to the domain 'docs.' where it the statute '948/12' was specifically looked at. 948.12 is the WI statute for Possession of Child Pornography. This same search occurred on 6/12/24 at 6:06 a.m. which would've been at the same time he was enroute to the Marathon County Sheriff's Office prior to his arrest.”

On June 14, Balsis went through the forensic examination of Chapman’s personal cellular phone and discovered his gmail account email address.

On June 19, Balsis again met with the victim, who confirmed to him she had minimized some of the details regarding what occurred on Google Meet when she video chatted with the unknown male, and she had minimized details regarding photographs she had sent outdoorsman222 via Snapchat. The victim told Det. Balsis she had minimized the details because her mother was present, listening, and she was afraid of upsetting her.

Balsis stated, “[The victim] said outdoorsmann222 had solicited nude photographs from her by promise of money and a gift. [She] said the Snapchat photographs were of her normally wearing panties. [The victim] confirmed she posed in different ways and sent photographs of her body.”

According to the court report “[The victim] said the suspect offered her money to send nude photographs to her and offered to buy her a pair of silk pajamas she wanted if she sent nude photographs of herself to him. [She] said the suspect said he would give her $20 per nude photograph and all the suspect's friends would pay her $20 per photograph as well if they wanted one. [She] said it started out as $20 per photo, but the suspect was always doubling the rate he was going to pay her. [The victim] said it started at $20 per photo, then $40 per photo, $80 per photo, $160 per photo, etc.”

According to the report, “[The victim] said it was after the first video chat, she started getting blackmailed by the suspect demanding more photographs, and more video chats via Google Meet. [The victim] said the suspect was threatening that he would send the photographs out to others at her school including friends, and school staff and he would do things to her referencing rape. [She] said she was very scared by it, so she kept going. I asked [the victim] if she wanted it to stop; she said yes.”

“[The victim] said she never received any money or a gift for the photographs or the video chats. [She] said she was blackmailed after doing it and being promised money and a gift to do so in the first place.