This is the opening page of an obscene slide show that was sent as an e-mail among state workers.

PROVIDENCE — The state police and the Department of Transportation have launched separate investigations into the use of state computers and e-mail accounts to send pornographic material.

The Journal has obtained e-mails forwarded by state troopers using state police e-mail accounts that contain images of graphic sexual acts. One of the pornographic e-mails, entitled “How To Find A Preferred Contractor,” was ultimately passed to a DOT employee earlier this month, who then forwarded it to other DOT employees.

“I did something stupid and I regret it,” said the female engineering technician who forwarded five pornographic e-mails to other DOT employees this month.

“I don’t do that regularly. It was kind of a joke because of where it came from,” she said, referring to the state police officers who had received and forwarded the e-mails before they got to her.

One of the e-mails, entitled “Wet T shirt,” was initially sent in April by a retired state police lieutenant’s personal e-mail account to several state troopers, including a lieutenant and a detective sergeant.

Neither of the commanding officers forwarded the pornographic message, according to e-mails obtained by The Journal, although at least one state trooper forwarded the message using his state police e-mail account on Sept. 5. The DOT engineering technician received it the next day.

Reached by phone yesterday, the male trooper declined to comment, citing the internal investigation. “I can’t comment sir because it’s being investigated by the inspector,” he said.

Maj. Steven O’Donnell confirmed Monday that the state police’s professional standards unit has begun investigating the possible inappropriate use of state e-mail accounts.

“We’re disappointed to see this and we’ll see what the investigation reveals,” O’Donnell said. “There is due process. We will interview all of the people involved. We will trace all of the e-mails. ...We can’t control who sends us an e-mail, but you can control forwarding that to people. Anything coming to us inappropriately, the process would be, delete it. You don’t forward that type of information.”

O’Donnell said the state police would not use its computer crimes unit to investigate the pornographic e-mails because “forwarding of an e-mail is not a crime. You’re not talking about something that’s against the law. It’s just inappropriate.”

The state police’s e-mail policy does not address pornography specifically: “The e-mail system shall not be utilized for communicating private messages, such as: parties, jokes or vulgarity,” it reads. The e-mails in question would likely fall under “vulgarity,” O’Donnell said.

DOT spokeswoman Dana Alexander Nolfe said Monday night that an investigation at the DOT would begin immediately.

“Based on the information we have, we’re going to be investigating this issue thoroughly. And any rules that were broken, we’re going to be taking strong appropriate action,” she said.

The DOT’s policy on e-mail prohibits state employees from sending e-mails that are “profane, obscene, or that use language that offends or tends to degrade others.” “Employees should be aware that e-mail messages are clearly identifiable as coming from this state department,” reads the policy.

Some of the e-mails obtained by The Journal have been passed around from e-mail account to e-mail account for more than a year. One e-mail entitled, “Fender Bender,” for example, was forwarded by a senior state trooper using his work e-mail address in June 2006, before it ultimately found its way to the inboxes of three DOT employees on Sept. 4 of this year.

When contacted Monday, the state trooper whose name and state police e-mail address appears on “Fender Bender” said he didn’t remember sending or receiving the 2006 pornographic message. “I’ll have to look it up,” he said.

When asked whether the state police should be held to a higher standard regarding inappropriate conduct at work, O’Donnell said, “It’s not about a higher standard, just a standard that anyone should comport to. If someone’s found to have violated the policy, they will be disciplined for it.”

speoples@projo.com