Today we proudly present our first edition of Fetishes Unhinged, which we warn, given the nature of crime, may become a regular feature. Meet David Beckmann and Thomas Mettham, peacock and poop fetishists respectively.
David Beckmann, 63, of Roselle, Illinois, who was arrested on May 7, 2013, for a host of charges including harassment by telephone, unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, drug possession, battery, attempted indecent solicitation of a child and animal cruelty. Since the case involves a child, there is much information that is being withheld, but glancing at the charges leads this writer to wildly speculate: <Begin Wild Speculation> That Beckmann was high on meth or some type of bath salt, he got horny and picked up the phone to make obscene phone calls. He got a kid on the phone at some point, and, undaunted, propositioned the child anyway. </End Wild Speculation>
The one charge that has been explained is the animal cruelty charge. At some point a horny, frustrated Beckmann raped his pet peacock, Phyl, and killed it. Details of the assault are sketchy, which, gentle readers, is probably for the best. Judging by the look on his face in the photo shown here, it would be wisest to keep Beckmann away from any and all kids, pets, and yes, even phones permanently.
Next meet Thomas Mettham, 26, was caught in a Phoenix, Arizona, supermarket bathroom stall photographing an underage boy in the adjacent stall. The boy reportedly left the stall as soon as he realized what was happening and told a store employee. It took police about a week, but when police brought Mettham in on May 7, 2013, the boy was able to identify him from a lineup.
According to court documents, when questioned Mettham easily “admitted to putting his phone between the stalls to watch the male defecate, which arouses [him] sexually,” but added that, “[Mettham] did not know the victim was a juvenile and stated he was very ashamed that he was looking at the juvenile.”
So, there’s no shame in spying on non-consenting pooping adults? Maybe not, but there is a law against it, which Mettham would know, since only two days prior to the grocery store incident he was paroled from prison one month into a one year sentence for voyeurism. He now faces another felony voyeurism charge.