[web_stories title="true" excerpt="false" author="false" date="false" archive_link="true" archive_link_label="" circle_size="150" sharp_corners="false" image_alignment="left" number_of_columns="1" number_of_stories="6" order="DESC" orderby="post_title" view="circles" /]
Judge lets woman’s ex-husband keep edited intimate photos in divorce ruling she calls ‘violative’
As the couple worked out the divorce paperwork, Lindsay Marsh was horrified to learn that her ex-husband, Chris Marsh, had sought to preserve a book of her private photos.
People, she reveals Unexpectedly, Utah 2nd District Judge Michael Edwards, who presided over their divorce, ruled that Chris may keep the “boudoir album” even though the images had been altered by a third party to hide Marsh’s body. Lindsay, 43, says the fight over the album was “shocking and pretty unsettling to me.” The album contained topless photographs that were intended as a present for someone close to her.
She continues, “I never would have believed my husband of 25 years, my high school sweetheart, the man that I chose to have three lovely children with, would one day turn his back on me in revengeful, filthy reprisal and be so cruel as to beg for anything like this.” Even more shocking, in my opinion, is the fact that a judge who swore to defend and maintain the law has failed in that duty.
Chris told PEOPLE that his attorney claimed to Judge Edwards that the inscriptions Lindsay made on the photos were the “primary emphasis” of his request for the book. He further asserted that Lindsay had posted several of the images online after they had been taken.
Many inquiries were made to the Utah State Courts regarding the ruling.
According to a judgment reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, Edwards demanded that the original photographer “do whatever it takes to change the pages of the pictures” to remove any depictions of Lindsay “in lingerie or that sort of thing or even without clothing.”
However, the judge ruled that Lindsay’s letters to Chris must be “kept for memory’s sake,” as stated in court documents obtained by KSL. After the ruling, Lindsay’s friend the photographer first declined to make the changes out of concern for “jeopardizing her business” due to the faith her clients had placed in her about the privacy of their images. Lindsay had hoped the decision to hand up the photos would be overturned, but Edwards ultimately concluded that someone else would need to make the adjustments. Lindsay explains, “the judge ultimately ordered me to have to deliver these books to this other man that I don’t know so that he may make the revisions and acquire the inscription for my ex-husband.” “I can’t place his name.”
After the judge ordered that the photos be provided to someone else, Lindsay’s photographer changed her mind and agreed to black out the images. Yet, Lindsay claims she felt “violated” by the initial decision to grant third-party access to her private photos. Lindsay claims that her ex-husband has been given a “censored version of the book with just the inscriptions,” but that she must keep the original photographs until December in case the judgment is reversed. She claims she has contacted the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission about the situation but has yet to receive a response.
With her experience, Lindsay hopes to spare others the anguish she felt. This will have been worthwhile if, by doing this, I can spare even one person from suffering.
Visit journalworldwide.com for the latest news and share this article with your loved ones.