Culture of Silence

Randy English, the new COO of Sosen has decided to make a splash and draw attention to himself.

Since I'm relatively positive that it is virtually impossible for him to actually believe the demented things he's written, I'm left with the opinion that he's saying them with the sole purpose of deflecting attention away from the CEO - Mary Duval and the demented things that she says.

I believe Randy must be jealous of Mary being "at the top". She says she's "at the top". She says we rocketed her "to the top".

I'm not quite sure yet what she's "on the top" OF, but I think Randy must be jealous of it. Why else would he say these things?

Randy English has joined the long historical line of those who have enabled child sexual abuse. From the notorious Catholic Church pedophile cover-up to the Boy Scouts of America: Sosen wants to silence victims of sexual crimes.

"...we also know that it is not healthy for a family who has been devastated by a loss such as this to be cast into the spotlight, rather than having time to deal with the pain and anger in order to recover mentally and emotionally. Their pain and anger begins to rule their lives. It becomes who they are and only they know the true toll it is taking on them."

This is a continuing theme among the radical extremists of Sosen - to point the finger at victims and tell them they aren't doing it right. They aren't recovering correctly or well enough or soon enough or in a way that they deem appropriate. That victims who aren't interested in rationalizing on behalf of an offender are "haters", not "true survivors", not "true victims" or "not moving on".

Instead of focusing endlessly on bashing, blaming, distracting, rationalizing, justifying and harvesting any and all comments that they believe is favorable to "their side" as Kevin Meier refers to it - they should be focusing on identifying what is wrong with THEM and their own movement - what are they doing wrong? What behaviors and attributes do they encourage, foster and nourish within Sosen.....ways of thinking that not only led those offenders to offend in the first place but also which may lead to re-offense if maintained. Distortions which also damage the very points they are trying to make.

The mission statement of Sosen says:

"At SOSEN, we do not condone what former offenders have done. In many cases the harm done by former offenders is horrendous. No one can take that away. However, we feel that with proper treatment the victims can move on with their lives and put the pain and anger behind them. We know that this is the best thing for them as many members of SOSEN are former victims who have reached out for healing and now live normal productive lives."

The truth is, of course, that the only victims associated with Sosen are those who are now offenders themselves or are associated with - and advocating for an offender. Don Sweeney (a sex offender therapist turned activist) who Mary claims is an "expert" told her how amazing it was to him how many offenders went on to marry victims of child sexual abuse. But that's not amazing at all. It is a fact that offenders have a talent for targeting those most vulnerable to their manipulations. They find victims who ARE the most vulnerable and they marry them and begin another co-dependent relationship. The victims who are the strongest of all are those who don't fall prey again to this garbage, who speak up and tell their story without making excuses for their offender, who do support strict management of people who have committed these horrible crimes and in return for their strength and commitment are faced with a daily barrage of victim-bashing, mockery, badgering, and blatant victim-blaming. And yet they carry on. They ARE the "true survivors" to use Mary's term.

Common sense tells us that this issue must be victim-centered. The experts agree. And yet Randy English says this:

"It is time to bring in the experts and remove the decision making process from grieving families and politicians that have a political bias. Though we sympathize with their cause and feel angry that this has happened to their children, they are ill-equipped to make good choices when it comes to managing issues that are exceedingly diverse."

Does Randy believe, that as an offender himself, he is better equipped to make decisions on these issues? Randy, along with all the Sosenites keep referring to "the experts" and yet experts all agree that everything we do regarding the management of sex offenders MUST be victim-centered.

Not sex offender-centered.

Randy English once wrote:

"I would like to thank the ACLU for standing up for the truly weak, the RSO’s"

I was reminded of the infamous statement from Zman:

"Why can't we let the police do their job, and let PJ geeks get real jobs? They could be protecting the country with their hacking skills or something, yet they want to go after defenseless child predators instead of OSAMA, terrorists or other hackers!"

Victims of sexual abuse are "haters" and the offenders who created the victims are the weak and defenseless. That is the attitude of the extremists of Sosen.

When we consider that the mission statement of Sosen says:

"The mission of SOSEN is to educate the public, media, law-enforcement, and legislators regarding the facts, based on current research, of sexual abuse."

Then I am quite sure that Randy English would be interested in fixing some of the errors he has made when quoting "facts".

Error #1

• Treatment has been proven to reduce recidivism to 1%

Treatment has not been proven to reduce recidivism AT ALL. Some studies show a reduction, some studies show no reduction. None of them show a reduction to ONE PERCENT

Error #2

• Pedophilia is the sexual desire for a prepubescent child, and rare among offenders. Less than 1%.

This is an invented statistic pulled from someone's backside. There is no such statistic. There cannot BE such a statistic in existence considering the fact that most sex offenders haven't been "assessed" - according to Mary Duval. One-third of all sex crimes are committed against prepubescent children. While we can all agree that not everyone who molests a child would fit a psychiatric diagnosis of pedophilia, why would anyone believe that only 1% of them were? Randy English has no reference for that statistic, just as Tom Madison and Mary Duval didn't when they repeated it. In fact, the offenders in the infamous DOJ recidivism report they all rely on states quite clearly that 60% of the offenders had victims under the age of 13.

Error #3

• Re-offense rate averages, for auto theft -78.8%, possession/sale of stolen property -77.4%, burglary -74%, robbery -70.2%, larcenist -74.6%, sex offenders - 3.5%.

That is from the Department of Justice and on it's face that's a true statement regarding what was in the report. What Randy English didn't tell you is that the report ALSO said that 78% of the released sex offenders in that report had ANOTHER previous conviction before the crime they were released for. In other words, they were already recidivists. And 28% of them had 2 or more previous convictions for sex crimes. How do you incorporate the information that at least one-fourth of them had already re-offended with another sex crime before this release - into the recidivism data? How do you use the statistic from the DOJ that only 5% of those offenders re-offended with a new sex crime within 3 years of release when 25% of them already had a history of sexual recidivism? Which leads to the next error Randy has made

Error #4

• A study from the department of Justice found that about 94.7% of former offenders will not commit ANY other crime.

That study from the Department of Justice found that within 3 years 43% of sex offenders had committed another crime though not necessarily a sex crime. One-fourth of those were for property crimes and one-fourth were for violent crimes. THAT is what the Department of Justice said.

Staying in the closet enabled child sexual abuse to flourish and continue. The most important voice of all in this issue is the voice of those who have been victimized. Victims will no longer be badgered and shamed into silence. It is time for the culture of silence to end.

Seth the molester

Another girlchat pig is in the process of molesting a little girl.
Seth tells his pedophile friends all about it:

Another Girliscious Day with Mary

Posted by Sethon Tuesday, August 17 2010 at 04:37:41pm

Yesterday I went over to see Mary's mom, Ann, and immediately Mary jumped into my arms and mentioned something about swimming. I had told Ann the day before that I wanted to take her swimming, as it may be the last time this summer we got to go. Ann can't keep a secret either, so Mary was already excited about the idea when I arrived. So we went to the pool for a couple of hours, and again for a large part of the time we were there we had it all to ourselves. Mary has this habit of clinging to me while she's in the pool, which can be charming sometimes and annoying at other times. But I didn't mind it yesterday; I was in a good mood all day.

Later we went back to my house, and I set Mary up on my computer playing games. She loves the pinball game that comes with Windows, as well as Minesweeper, although she still hasn't completely grasped the concept of the latter. I made some pizza rolls and we had a great time just hanging out. Later, after I took her home, I stayed for awhile to visit with Ann and her friend. We watched TV for a bit, with Mary in my lap the whole time. She still hadn't changed out of her swimsuit, so her behind was a bit damp in my lap, but I didn't care. I spent the whole time rubbing and scratching her back, she directing me where to scratch; she was relaxed and limber in no time. Eventually I had to slip out from under her and go home because I was getting a little too relaxed myself.

So went another girliscious day with Mary. I can't wait till I get to do it all over again. :)

As you can see the process of molesting this child has already begun, and with her mothers blind stupidity "Mary" will become another child victim for this sick piece of pedophile shit!

How sad that the mother doesn't use common sense as to why this weirdo wants to be with her daughter.

And what kind of a mother would let her child lay around on a guys lap and not change out of her swimsuit?


Desperate people have desperate needs. Must be that this mother is desperate. I feel bad for "mary" because of her mothers desperation she will become another statistic.

Good vs Evil

This blog and Life is, essentially, the conflict and the conflagration involving the struggle of Good vs. Evil.

Who will win?

BZ

P.S.

You'd best give this post your molecular considerate thoughts before you respond. Your words will expose you, track you down, make your thoughts transparent and jejune. Save you or damn you.

I have no further succinct statements to make in this reality.

Hey Moms:

NOW is as good a time as any to visit your local firing range, and ensure that your skills meet or exceed those of the evil meatbags who prey on children, and whose words are featured here on Absolute Zero:



BZ

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.

If it Saves One Child

Derek Logue asks the question:

How much are we willing to sacrifice to "save one child?"

Let's ask Mary Duval and see what she has to say on the subject - of saving one child.

Whatever we do it could help our sons. And, you know, it's a huge fight, I mean - It's us against the people and the government and so we must start with education and hopefully educate America

In the end I'm sure Cathy and Lisa agree you know, as long as we save one child it does give me a little peace in my heart. My heart breaks every day but I know if I can save one child - a boy or girl - then you know, at least I've done something good for this country.

She wasn't talking about saving victims of sexual abuse though. And of course, on later shows she mocked the idea of "saving one child" - when referring to victims.

Still. Derek has a complaint about "saving one child". So does Walter Howard for that matter. Check this out. Interesting that Derek is still hanging on the coat tails of Tmax while knowing the man was a member of boylover.net Naturally, Derek Logue wouldn't believe (or wouldn't care) that someone like Walter Howard would go into chat rooms designated for minors. Even if he did believe it deep down in his heart of hearts they need every one they can get. If it saves one pervert that is.

A Major Distinction

Mary Duval believes no one should be on a public registry. (Except for people who criticize her views of course) She believes the "truly dangerous" offenders should never be released from prison. She says this even though she has listed a "fact" on one of her propaganda brochures that long prison sentences make the community less safe.

I'm not sure which she actually believes - if either - but I'm going to go with the assumption that what she really thinks is that "dangerous sex offenders" should be incarcerated and never released again to the public. This would fit with her statements such as"He should never get out of prison" or "He should just be shot".

So if that's true which sex offenders does she think poses a danger to the community? She defined it:

1. Repeat Sex Offenders
2. Those whose victims are strangers
3. Someone who uses violence

Mary Duval has further defined a repeat sex offender as someone who has been convicted of a sex crime. So according to her statements a man who is caught for the first time and who has multiple victims and was molesting children for years and years and years before being detected would be a first time offender and the "repeat offender" factor wouldn't apply to him and he would therefore not be dangerous.

If he groomed children over a long period of time, if he plied them with gifts and attention then maintained their compliance with the abuse through the use of psychological manipulation, that would also not be a dangerous person since he didn't use a gun or knife or fists to secure their cooperation. A man like that would not be considered dangerous according to Mary Duval.

If the person obtained his victims by dating or marrying a woman with children, or by playing ball with kids in the neighborhood, or volunteering as a Little League coach or being a Boy Scout leader, a Big Brother, a Church volunteer - or Church leader for that matter - that person wouldn't be a perpetrator against strangers and therefore would not be dangerous according to Mary Duval. Someone like Harold Spurling for example.

Mary Duval repeats that we need to start distinguishing between the "violent" and the "non-violent". What would she consider Harold Spurling? He didn't meet any of her criteria.

Harold Spurling who along with his partner molested a three month old baby and multiple children in their community. Some of their victims were abused for years. Harold Spurling who had the baby in his apartment that day because he had volunteered to babysit her. Harold Spurling who was known to play ball with the neighborhood kids. Harold Spurling who had one of the largest collections of child pornography in the history of Connecticut - much of it produced by himself. Harold Spurling who put my pedo-predator-detector into overdrive with his poem:

Little boy,
Pull me inside
The sweet dream that is you.
Let me hold you;
Let me breathe you in.
You justify my beating heart.
With you, the world and its endless troubles
Ceases to exist ...
Paradise doesn't hold a candle
To you.
Sweet expression of perfection;
Infantile bliss.
You run through my veins,
My lifeblood.

Harold Spurling does not fit Mary Duval's definition of "truly dangerous".

Harold Spurling was not a repeat offender as Mary Duval defines it. Harold Spurling did not use physical violence to rape children, he groomed them. Harold Spurling did not sexually assault strangers. And like most people who groom and molest children, one day he will get out of prison. I repeat: One day he will get out of prison. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to live across from that elementary school is protected. Mary Duval wants to insure that Harold Spurling's "right" to loiter around the playground is protected. Mary Duval wants to deny you the right to know that someone like Harold Spurling has moved into your neighborhood or invited you over for tea. What do you think about that?

On the flip-side of all this I wonder what Mary Duval thinks of Donna Kistler? As a Sosen activist Donna's primary argument was that most children are sexually abused by someone they know and .... it's always the parents fault. She says stranger crimes are rare. This was her basic argument for why the registry should be abolished. Take a look:

"The problem is, MOST child sex crimes or child abuse is caused by someone the child knows and trusts such as a family member. It is also mostly due to parental neglect. IF a child is NOT left alone or unattended, such as walking to and from school or the park then they could not and would not be abducted."

--Donna Kistler

We know that most young children do know their abuser in some way but I fail to see how that fits into Donna's philosophy. I found it quite interesting that while Donna was screaming "there's no stranger crimes" as her Pillar Number One she forgot about her own husband.

You see Peter broke into a woman's home in the middle of the night and raped her in her bed. She was a stranger. On two other occasions he broke into the homes of other women and attempted to rape them. They were strangers as well. Peter went to prison for 15 years, but like all violent rapists he got out one day.

Less than one year after his release he was caught trying to lure a 9 year old child into his car outside an elementary school. She was also a stranger.

So what do we have? Peter Kistler, a repeat sex offender, a violent sex offender and someone who had at least four stranger victims that we're aware of. What do you believe Mary Duval thinks of Peter Kistler? I wonder if Mary Duval would tell Donna that she believes Peter is dangerous and should never get out of prison.

A politician once said:

We're after violent sex offenders who rape, commit sexual battery, murder, aggravated murder, kidnapping with a sexual motivation and prey on our children. Those are the kind of offenders we're after.

Ken Lanning replied:

What we have to understand is that the major distinction between the sexual victimization of adults and the sexual victimization of children is one simple word: consent.

With adults in order for it to be a sex crime you have to have lack of consent and violence. You can have sexual criminals, sexual assault of children, without there being any violence.

And because an offender happens to groom and manipulate and seduce a child who cooperates in their victimization, those individuals, in my opinion, can be very dangerous. They are the most persistent and prolific of all known child molesters.

And to simply exclude individuals who happen to groom and seduce adolescent children doesn't make any sense to me.

Whose Line is it Anyway?

This weeks whose line is...

In my opinion, it would be a public necessity to put in jail everyone who publicly misquotes sex offender recidivism statistics for the purpose of sensationalism or inciting the public in order to get votes.

Who said this?

At Your Expense

Kelly Piercy writes:

"The dynamic has changed and we must change with it. We must now shift to a model that shows how the registry harms the society, not the registered, if we are to bring people to our perspective."

Kelly is always trying to give sexual criminal defenders tips and techniques for deception. "use this argument" or "use that argument" he'll say. It never gets them very far of course because Kelly Piercy is a convicted sexual criminal himself - and it appears to me he's still thinking like one. How could he possibly know or understand what will resonate with people?

I don't know about you, but the "cost factor" of the registry doesn't faze me. You can't put a price on the well-being of children. Tell people they'll have a fee added to their income tax every year to cover the cost of the registry and they'll say "Sure, how much?", as they pull out their checkbooks. Once again Kelly Piercy is giving people faulty information. Telling people the registry is too expensive just won't help him especially when the person saying it distributed child pornography on his own website and has a nasty little habit of saying things like:

"Do not show how it hurts a person on the registry who is not a risk, show how it raped and murdered Chelsea King."

What is the personal code of ethics for a man such as Kelly Piercy - or does he even have one? Kelly Piercy blamed the rape of 13 year old Samantha Geimer on her mother. He blamed the death of Adam Walsh on his mother. Now he blames sex offender laws for the death of Chelsea King. As I've said before, even blame-gaming has limits which should not be crossed. Perhaps someone needs to educate his ignorance, as Mary Duval always says.

In addition to his continued thinking errors I am reminded of other conduct of his. Once while working with Walter Howard they were trying to figure out ways to lure people into helping them pay for their propaganda dissemination. They wanted to convince people who had OTHER concerns like education reform, Veteran's issues, healthcare - to join their fight - without telling them that the primary ultimate goal was to abolish sex offender laws. Walter determined the cost would be $60,000 just to get started printing their brochures. But Kelly Piercy says he's already started printing his.

Listen:

"At the VA's expensive of course, they're paying for all my materials"

And yet now while teaching sexual criminal defenders how to frame an argument - he wants them to use the "it's too expensive" complaint?

It sounds to me like Kelly Piercy is a thief. He didn't commit armed robbery against the American People by pointing a gun at their heads and saying "give me your printing materials or I'll shoot". No, he took advantage of the situation with premeditation and total disregard for "rightness" or "wrongness" and apparently believed he could just slide under the radar and go undetected. That's how the criminally minded operate.

Would you trust that man around your children? Would you trust him in your home? I wonder what he might steal next, a child's innocence? A credit card? Perhaps something inexpensive but sentimental? It does not matter. THINGS are not there for the taking to people who have no right to them. Images of adults abusing little children is one of those things. American tax dollars is another.

But let us not forget that Kelly Piercy has his own proposal for increasing public safety. He wants sex offenders removed from the registry and their information expunged from the system. He wants judges to order them to treatment without incarceration. He does not want anyone to know that someone has raped a woman, or molested children, or ran websites distributing child pornography for that matter.

I have a better plan, I'd like to amend Mr. Piercy's proposal to affect a positive change and reduce recidivism.

1. All defendants convicted of sexually abusing a child must be remanded to prison for life.


2. All registries should be abolished IMMEDIATELY and the funds allocated to said registries should be redirected to state prisons.


3. Any convicted sex offender in prison who is released before his 90th birthday should be held in a civil commitment center.