Little White Faces

My organization has done so much on the national level to shift the focus to the truly dangerous. An organization that you don't think too highly of. What's the deal?

- Jim Freeman
Executive Director SoHopeful

Remember this guy? The one with the little white face? In case you've forgotten that's Jim Freeman, former executive director of SoHopeful. He's the guy who claimed he wasn't a pedophile. He's the guy who claimed he was low risk. He's the guy who claimed he didn't pose any danger -- after all he was the perfect example of "non-dangerous" sex offender wasn't he?

When Jim tumbled down the mountainside earning himself multiple life sentences it went virtually ignored by Sosen. Well, except for their attempts to hide their association with him. And of course Cheryl Griffiths subsequent attempt to cover-up her cover-up attempt.

Sosen never stopped to consider that there could possibly be another Jim Freeman hiding in their forums pretending to only care about "No More Victims" while having children sexually assaulted and filmed to order and on demand. Little children. Toddlers. Infants.

"How could we have missed this?" or "Was there anything we missed?" or "How can we prevent this from occurring again?" were not questions they asked as they scurried about pretending they weren't involved with him. Perhaps they paid him no attention because he had a little white face?

To imply Sosen must be racists and not care about his crimes because he had a little white face and that's the reason they ignored the possibility of other Jim Freemans hiding among them and implementing changes which may help prevent them from harboring another recidivist sex offender sounds pretty offensive to me. But that must be why, mustn't it? What else could it possibly be! Certainly they wouldn't miss an opportunity to "prevent and educate" would they? Which idea is more offensive? That they really blame the victims rather than the offender, that they rationalize on behalf of the offender, that they fail to recognize the serious crimes that have been committed and the possibility of them being repeated and instead try to insult those who have been victimized because they really deep down hate victims - OR- the idea that they treat victims this way because they're racists? Which is it? Does it have to be either/or? Can it be both? Could it be something else altogether? Something perhaps deeply rooted in blame-gaming philosophy? Try to think like a Sosenite for a moment and figure this out because Sosen has sunk to an all time low - even for their standards as Richard Schalich attempts a new technique. According to Richard, people who try to make the world a little safer for children are no longer simply "the haters" they are now racists too. And he has proof.......

Megan's Law, the Jacob Wetterling Act, the Adam Walsh Act and Jessica's law were all named in honor of children who were white.

A child named Lunsford or Kanka or Walsh with a little white face attached to it will attract more voters and PAC money. You probably will not see a "Christopher’s" law. His last name is Barrios. He has a brown face and looks too much like the dirty illegal’s the politicians and their pundits love to rant about.

And

it is obvious these laws are rooted in racism and discrimination

Wow! Not only do they compare their struggle to escape the consequences of their own actions to the historically widespread mistreatment of other minority groups - those minority groups who weren't labeled because they had harmed someone else but merely because they were born with it. Richard Schalich has taken it to a whole new level.

Richard doesn't understand that these laws were enacted due to the hard work of the families of those abducted and murdered children. It was due to their determination to do something to help other children, to turn their never-ending loss and pain into triumph and to assure that their own child had not died in vain.

There wasn't a new law proposed in honor of Christopher Barrios because he was Black/Hispanic, but rather because his family didn't lobby for one. The case of Christopher Barrios wasn't hidden and "not talked about" because he was Black/Hispanic - it did in fact receive widespread attention. Google "Christopher Barrios" and your results will be in excess of a half million. It faded from the forefront however, because his family allowed it to. They could have stayed in the spotlight and kept the case on everyone's lips if they had chosen to. The media would have flocked to them. Why is Richard Schalich trying to put the focus on something else which had nothing to do with this case? David Edenfield received the death penalty. He said that killing Christopher "felt good". George was a registered sex offender and is being evaluated for competency. Peggy won't face the death penalty in exchange for testifying against her husband and son. In case Richard Schalich has forgotten, these baby-raping killers - the Edenfield's all had little white faces.
Parents of murdered children are actually encouraged by law enforcement to do such things - to focus their energy - to volunteer - to lobby - to keep busy doing something to help with their grieving process. But of course Richard Schalich wouldn't be aware of that. Like the other Sosenites he's too busy trying to find someone else to blame.

But perhaps we should look at some other faces.




How about Jesse Timmendequas it looks to me as though he has a little white face. He had already re-offended multiple times before he raped and murdered little Megan Kanka in 1994. In 1979 he had sexually assaulted a 5 year old girl for which justice meant a suspended sentence. In 1981 he sexually assaulted a 7 year old girl. He got 6 years for that one. A therapist stated that she thought he would re-offend one day. Of course, no one expected he would go that far.




What have we here? Another little white face it appears. John Couey's sex crimes went back over 20 years before he abducted, raped and murdered Jessica Lunsford then buried her alive. Of course, he'd never exhibited such horrific violence before, he wasn't considered especially dangerous. Who could have predicted what he'd go on to do? Even experts now agree that it's practically impossible to accurately predict who will or will not re-offend. Which reminds me........




This is Michael Jacques, a twice-convicted sex offender, in fact a violent rapist - who was allowed off probation early because Richard Kearney of the Department of Corrections called him a rehabilitation success. In fact Richard told the court "When I make comments about successes in sex offender treatment, I have three names of which Michael Jacques is one." Of course the court didn't know that Jacques also had other convictions........a sexual assault he'd managed to have expunged from his record. And of course Richard Kearney didn't know that at the time he told the court these things - Michael Jacques was molesting a little girl and had been since she was nine years old and continued to for the next 5 years. And of course they didn't know that he would go on to rape and kill his own niece. He had groomed everyone it appears, not only his family members but the DOC as well. He was a model sex offender alright. He also had a little white face.


This is Jon Savarino Schillaci aka Dylan Thomas. An unremorseful pedophile - in fact an activist for pedophiles and one time webmaster of BoyChat. Jon served 10 years in prison for the sexual assault of two boys - twins - when he was a teenager. While in prison he earned two Master's degrees. He spoke several languages fluently, was an accomplished pianist and disturbingly articulate - for a filthy pedophile. After capturing the attention of a woman who was taken by his poetry that was printed in a prison publication he managed to convince her that he was reformed, regretted his mistakes and wanted to make a new life. She agreed to help him. She allowed him to move in with her family, he registered as a sex offender, enrolled in a doctoral program at a nearby university and gave her 5 year old son piano lessons. He also downloaded child pornography and repaid her kindness and willingness to give him a chance by molesting her son. He had a little white face.

Shall I continue? Here is John Gardner. A registered sex offender in fact a child rapist who was considered low risk to re-offend. He's confessed to raping and murdering 17 year old Chelsea King and 14 year old Amber Dubois and attempting to rape a woman. He has a little white face.

This is Joseph Duncan. His first recorded sex crime occurred when he was 15 years old. In that incident he raped a 9-year-old boy at gunpoint. He was sentenced as a juvenile and sent to Dyslin's Boys' ranch in Tacoma, where he told a therapist that he had bound and sexually assaulted six boys. He also told the therapist that he estimated that he had raped 13 younger boys by the time he was 16. He went on to murder an entire family, kidnapping 9 year old Dylan and 8 year old Shasta Groene. He tortured Dylan, raped him - made Shasta watch, and of course raped her too. No one anticipated his actions. He had a little white face as well.


Here's a little white face for you. Thomas J. Leggs, a registered sex offender charged with the murder of Sarah Foxwell - his girlfriends niece. He's facing the death penalty.

I could go on like this all day. Instead, why don't you go here and see a wall of little white faces staring back at you. Little white repeat sex offender faces. It must be racism and discrimination! It simply must be, the lack of someone else to blame might be too hard for some people to bear.

Sex offenders vary widely in their risk to re-offend. Estimates suggest that 40%-45% of untreated sexual offenders will sexually re-offend in their lifetime. These rates are considerably lower than rates of re-offense for other types of violent offenders.

ATSA

Evil Acts of Disagreement

Kevin Meier says he is there to talk about the TRUTH not the MYTHS and he wants people to listen to "the experts". I don't think it particularly matters to Kevin what kind of expert the person is and whether or not they are speaking regarding their own area of expertise as long as they say what he likes....after all, an expert is an expert, eh?

But the problem goes much deeper than that. Kevin has made the accusation that people like us would refer to the California Sex Offender Management Board as "pedo enablers" because they are trying to "make sense of the laws". Here are two things Kevin has failed to consider. One: a person speaking about the issues is not representing the Board itself, they are speaking in an activist role and stating their own personal opinion and their words are not a reflection of the policies of the Board. Two: When a so-called expert agrees with ONE thing Mary Duval says that does not mean they agree with everything Mary Duval says and yet Mary Duval takes the agreement with the one thing she said to mean validation for ALL of her beliefs.

The California Sex Offender Management Board has made recommendations however. Most of which conflict directly with what Mary Duval is advocating. They in fact do recommend things such as GPS monitoring, use of polygraphs, residency restrictions for high risk offenders, child safety zones and civil commitment if only two professionals agree. They don't recommend abolishing the use of every single form of monitoring and restricting of sex offenders as Mary Duval does - the truth is that they don't recommend abolishing ANY of them. They recommend strengthening them and making them better.

The most important thing California can do to reduce sexual recidivism is to implement the full Containment Model, requiring communication between an approved treatment provider, a supervising parole or probation officer, and a polygraph examiner. This approach would be victim-centered, guided by policy that protects victims and prevents future victimization.

Regarding community notification the California Sex Offender Management Board says:

Alerting the community of the presence and the address of a sex offender acts as a containment tool of supervision. Effective containment strategies help to limit an offender’s contact with potential victims.

And:

Each registering agency should make compliance with the state’s registration laws a priority, regardless of budgetary concerns.

Mary Duval says that sex offender treatment helps over 95% of offenders who receive it. I wonder which expert she got that statistic from. Perhaps she would be so kind as to "educate our ignorance" and tell us where she learned this because I've not seen anything like that in any of the publications I read. But - the California Sex Offender Management Board did publish a nice summary of the different studies done on the effectiveness in reducing the rates of sex offender recidivism. Some of them showed a slight reduction, Karl Hanson's showed a 5% reduction, some showed no reduction at all - but the highest reduction that ANY of them showed was 40%. Which one of these should we believe, if any? Does the methodology and reliability of a study have any bearing or should that only relate to whether or not the researcher was an "expert"? The California Sex Offender Management Board said:

One of the few studies known for a superior experimental design was California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project. Final results of the relapse prevention program over an 8-year follow up period found no results for the treatment group in reduced recidivism rates.

But what about recidivism? It seems we always come back to this as those people intent on proving something which is not true stubbornly and stupidly hold on to a DOJ recidivism statistic which does not accurately reflect recidivism and they KNOW IT. Admitting the truth of the matter however would disturb their agenda. So, let's again go to "the experts" - you know, the ones Kevin says we should listen to and see what they have to say. The California Sex Offender Management Board spoke of a study by Meithei, Olson, and Mitchell (2006) that followed 38,000 released prisoners in 1994 and found that sex offenders recidivated with a new sex crime less than other criminals. In fact that study said that 56% of property offenders committed another property offense while only 26% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. The California Sex Offender Management Board says:

Nevertheless it remains true that sex crimes can have such a devastating impact on their victims that even “comparatively low” recidivism rates are still unacceptably high and efforts to reduce them even further are deserving of considerable investment of efforts, resources and funding.

What do you think about that? Do you think 26% recidivism with a new sex crime is a low number? Well, sure compared to thieves I suppose it is - lower, but does that make it low? Do you think that one in four sex offenders re-offending with a new sex crime is acceptable? Do you think that's a low number?

One of "the experts" that Kevin and Mary Duval were recently impressed by was Kate Thompson from John Hopkins, who went on a radio show and told a politician that he had misinterpreted Karl Hanson's recidivism study. In fact she said that Karl Hanson's study actually showed the rates were very low "especially for child molesters". Does that strike you as odd? Listen to Karl Hanson speaking on the subject:

"On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we’ve been able to follow them, which is about 20 years, the rates go up to somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of the total sample will eventually be caught for a new sex offense."

And take a look at his chart:



Does that look like reoffense rates for child molesters are "especially low"? Those with boy victims - 23% recidivism after only 5 years, and 35% after 15 years. And consider these are the KNOWN reoffenses. Does that look "especially low"? Why would a seemingly educated woman have made such a statement?

The California Sex Offender Management Board says:

WHAT IS THE “TRUE” RATE OF SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM?

Underreporting of sex offenses is another factor that influences the accuracy and reliability of recidivism rates of sex offenses. Theoretically speaking, the true rate of recidivism may have been and will always be unknown since a significant number of sex crimes are never reported by victims or are undetected by the criminal justice system. The recidivism rate is normally only estimated from officially recorded crime statistics. Therefore, all recidivism rates, including those for sex offenders will be underestimated for one reason or another.

ATSA - (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers) says:

Because not all sex offenses are reported, it is difficult to accurately measure the true rate of repeat offenses. However, based on convictions for sex offenses, Hanson (2006) estimated the following rates of recidivism:

Regarding recidivism in California, the Board says:

• There is no good source of statewide data tracking rates of reports, arrests, charges, prosecutions, outcomes and dispositions related to sex offenses. It is, therefore, nearly impossible to ask and answer such questions as whether increased sanctions in California decrease offending, decrease reporting, decrease satisfactory plea bargains or have other unintended consequence.
  


• No information is available at this time regarding sexual recidivism for sex offenders on probation in California.

So then how do you explain Mary's reliance on a "report out of California" that shows a low 3% number? They've said clearly they have trouble tracking, and no data at all regarding offenders on probation. Well, perhaps this is the answer:

It has come to the attention of CASOMB that there has been some controversy about the dissemination, use and possible misuse of some draft papers about recidivism which had been distributed and discussed at Board meetings and which had been posted on the CASOMB website for a time. This statement is an attempt to clarify the matter and preclude any misuse of these two papers.

CASOMB wishes to state clearly that the papers in question have never been officially approved, sanctioned or published as finished statements by the Board. In fact, precisely because they are regarded by the Board as being misleading and easily subject to misinterpretation, they should not be seen as anything but provisional drafts reflecting the Board’s work process – a process which is not now and which may never be completed - due largely to the elusiveness of the data which would allow the Board to produce a complete and acceptable statement.

Of course none of this explains why Sosen - attempting to back up their claim - would quote Anderson Cooper saying sex offenders had lower rates of recidivism than other criminals - as though that had any bearing on how many sex offenders DO reoffend. But seriously... Anderson Cooper? I didn't realize he was a recidivism expert. They sure got one on me there! Blind-sided me! On the other hand, anyone can clearly see that I must be one of those "uneducated ignorant sheeple" turned rogue vigilante out here flapping my lips trying to educate people about the misinformation Mary Duval is trying to educate them with. For God's sake, beware.

Mary Duval refers to us as "Vigilantes" who will "bring the registry down" so I strongly suggest she continues reporting these evil acts of disagreement. I implore Mary Duval to print this one out too and mark it VIGILANTE and send it on in with everything else she printed....and I do mean EVERYthing. May I suggest using bright red ink for that extra little attention-grabbing Zing! Perhaps Zman will lend his yellow highlighter. Have no worries, I'll have more to print shortly. Perhaps we can "educate your ignorance" after all.