We Have the Facts

"I have challenged AZUStitches77’s claim that all sex offenders are rapists or one day will be rapists by asking him to provide factual data to support these absurd statements. To date, AZUStitches has not provided any factual data. Why?"

So speaks the "Truthseeker" SOClear Media's newest and brightest sex offender defender and distorted out of control harassing fool. You may recognize him as ApparitionZ, the guy who hits all the YouTube videos with inane blurbs of nonsense reminiscent of the tactics used by the nodding pedo heads of '07.

Why have I not provided the factual data he requested? Why, it's quite simple. I never said that. Truthseeker, however, DID claim that the majority of registered sex offenders are on the registry for such things as "urinating in public" (that's his favorite argument btw), mooning people, having consensual sex, or in his case "merely looking at a few dirty pictures". That he seems to have absolutely no realization of the seriousness of his crime is great cause for concern regarding the likelihood of him re-offending. After all.....it was just some sexual pleasure at the expense of sexually abused children, wasn't it? He's become the newest sex offender vigilante on YouTube making wild unsupportable accusations and making a total nuisance of himself. Look:

"AZU = Murderer"

"So why do these vigilantes believe public urinators and teenagers having consensual sex should be murdered? Answer : they are scum."

"AZU believes in murdering children for playing doctor. What a sicko!"

"Oh, so you guys murder gay people too, interesting."

"I hear antipaedo used to make his own child porn, be warned!"

"I have proof that vigilantes burned down the home of a former offender in Tennessee and wound up murdering his wife! One of a number of violent attacks by the PJ Cult."

Remember how Zman used to go around to blogs and news sites always repeating "Educate yourself! Visit my blog and learn the REAL FACTS"? Remember that? Well Truthseeker has his own mantra that doesn't even make sense. Taking information from various places he tries to put it together into a new FACT.

"According to the Department Of Justice , less than 8% of sex offenders re-offend and most sexual abuse is committed by someone who is not on a registry which debunks the myth of “stranger danger” in the majority of cases."

Does that statement make sense? Does he understand what he said? Let's listen to the Truthseekers mantra, it goes like this:

Now, let's listen to him explain how news stories are FACTUAL as long as they are on Zman's site.......but not if you just go out and read them yourself of course.

I am a vigilante cult leader for voicing my opinion. That opinion makes me 'violent'. So what does Truthseeker's make him? A ticking time bomb? Not only does he believe that Stitches77 voicing opinions over child sexual abuse is more dangerous that his child molesting pals.....molesting children but he even denies child sexual abuse even exists! NOOOO You weren't abused! Your child wasn't groomed and molested! It's all a myth, an overblown hysterical biased media report to make you think you were raped when you were only mooned. On one of his podcasts he goes so far as to claim the majority of sex offenders are on the registry for urinating in public and demands to know why we aren't putting women on the registry for dressing skimpily at the beach. He says:

There are a variety of reasons why a person would view images deemed as child porn. It may simply be out of research as in the case of Pete Townshend (”The Who”) or to help authorities find the people who produce such materials. Factually, most who only view these images do not go on to hurt anyone.

Completely disregarding:

"Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape."

Well he does have the facts after all doesn't he? What's a few dirty pictures? I guess he wants to make you think "a few dirty pictures" is nothing really to be concerned about, I mean after all he did it, and look at what a nice guy HE is. Maybe he should have read this:

U.S. criminal investigator Flint Waters works undercover in the war on child pornography. And just like the other 800 licensed investigators working the internet, he goes for stress counseling often. Is it any wonder why? He describes some of the recent things he's found.

"A video of a toddler on a changing table who is penetrated by an adult male."

"Pictures of a young girl, 6 or 7 years old, nude, tied to a chair and being penetrated by a dog."

How dare he try to sugar coat child sexual abuse, or ANY sexual abuse for that matter? These people actually believe that they can and will change people's minds about them by dismissing as insignificant the horror of what it's really like. They call victims "professional victims" while claiming that THEY are victims. "Oh they should just pick themselves up and go on and stop being victims" I cannot even count the number of RSO activists and pedo activists alike who have made that statement, showing clearly that they have no understanding whatsoever of the true effects of being sexually abused and how it differs from other crimes. Tom Madison claims less than 1% of RSO's are pedophiles, a completely made up figure, he either made it up himself or someone LIED to him and he believed it. I tend to think he made it up.

Listen:

Ok, we want the truth. Let's talk truth. He finally said something that was true:

Yes that's true. I did say that the DOJ did NOT report that 95% of all sex crimes are committed by someone not on the registry. I said it because it's true. We've been harping on this for a year now and they cannot get it through their heads.

A recidivism rate does not equal a crime rate. Furthermore that 3.5% recidivism statistic was spread out over a period of three years, it was not an annual figure. It was not a measurement of the percentage of crimes committed. It was a measurement of re-offending. The DOJ report DOES NOT SAY how many people convicted of a new sex crime in any given year are or are not already on the sex offender registry. You cannot take one statistic and force it into meaning something it does not mean.

For example, let's say you have say 1000 men in 2007 that were RSO's that you followed. Let's say 3% of them re-offended. That doesn't mean that 97% of all sex crimes were committed by someone not already convicted of a sex crime. The only conclusion you can factually draw from that scenario is that 3% re-offended and 97% didn't. You can bet that there were other RSO's in that same time period who re-offended after a varied period of time. But the study wasn't measuring them. The recidivism rate released by the Department of Justice does not mean what they say it means. I don't know how many other ways to say it where they can understand. I know they want to believe it, I know they DO believe it, but it's because the only people they are listening to are people who spend their time trying to find some reason, some excuse, some something somebody anybody to blame except for themselves.

When Tom Madison goes on National TV and says the things he says, he makes a fool of himself in more ways than just losing control and acting like a wild and crazy impulsive and angry sex offender. He makes himself look stupid, because he is uninformed. He can't even read and comprehend a DOJ report.

However, occasionally you find a mind that's a notch up from these other guys. Let's pay attention to him for a moment. Vanguard a staff member of Sosen doesn't get it either but I admit he's closer than the others. He tried to help his people out, and I dare say he got nowhere. They didn't want to hear what he had to say and he didn't push the issue. He's well aware I'm sure of how irritable they get when someone disagrees with them. Even Derek got in on it. I'm going to show you the mentality of these people..... the sheer brain power in action. Read for yourself some snippets of their conversation:

blueshift:

"This is some thing i got in my mail today, form eAdvoate I think. This could be a holy grail question and and answer will debunk or limits the ligamancy of the registry. Its a question I have seen asked many times, but never in this way.

"whether the risk of offending For an ex-felon ever becomes similar, or equal to, the risk of offending for someone who has never offended at all? If so, after what period of time since the last arrest or conviction does this occur?"

So when is a former sexual offender's risk the same as the general population?"

jean A SOSEN Staff Member:

"just the fact that the chances of someone not on the registry offending is 95% and someone who is on the registry is less than 5% tells me that a former sex offender's risk is already less than the general population"

oldman_inmaine:

"I pointed this statistical probability out in a local newspaper once while in a conversation with a poster called stitches. They were quite offended at the idea that I would suggest that their own mathematical formula indicated that they represented a far greater danger to the general population than an ex-sex offender.

So yes the next time you get into a heated discussion with some person that is Downing the ex-sex offender just remember the probabilities of that person crossing the tracks in your direction is a little higher than the probability that you may back step and recommit a crime. laughing

Any mathematical geniuses out there?"

flowergirl_1970:

"Harris/Hanson (one or the other or both) out of Canada looked at this and found that the risk reduces to 0% (I think) 15-20years post release"

Vanguard:

"Yes, the general public is 95% more likely to commit a new sex offense. BUT... there are less than a million registered offenders in a county with 300 million people, and there are only tens of thousands of sex offensed committed.

Let's say there are 100,000 registerable sex offenses committed per year. That leaves the following:

5% committed by RSO's, or 5,000 offenses. Out of a million offenders, that makes 1 in 200 offenders commit a new crime.

95% committed by non-RSO's, or 95,000 offenses. Out of 300 million people, that makes 1 in 3,150 non-RSO's commit a new crime.

Therefore, the anti's could use the argument that RSO's are over 15 times likely to commit a new sex offense."

fallenone:

"There is no real way to do this without complex math.

Somehow I think they are coming to that conclusion the wrong way, by counting recidivism as the basis for assuming how many RSOs actually re-offend in the given year. The DOJ study found the number of sex offenders in the study who re-offended was about 550 of 9000 in 3 years, while 3500 or so of the 240,000 NON-RSOs committed a sex crime. That's six times the number of non-sex offenders committing a sex crime as sex offenders, not counting first time offenders"

Well thanks Vanguard and Derek, you see Derek using YOUR numbers you provided from the 1994 DOJ report on Recidivism, you are correct that the non-Rso felons committed SIX times the number of offenses, but what does that mean really? It might be in your favor if there were the same number of criminals being measured. But there weren't. The non-Rso's made up 27 times the number of Rso's. Meaning one out of 16 sex offenders committed a new sex crime and one out of 68 non sex offender criminals did. And if we add Vanguard's calculation into the mix, there were only 1 out of over 3000 that were not any type of criminal at all.

If you want to make a difference pull your head out of the sand, acknowledge that there are seriously damaging crimes committed against people, and that your figures you're trying to pass off as FACT are not fact at all but a manipulation of statistics to try and make them say something they do not say. The Washington study does indeed say that 19% of all new sex crime convictions resulting in prison time the offender is already on the registry. The New York State study that the Reverend Hess child porn sex offender likes to reference also states a low recidivism rate over a limited amount of time. It also states quite clearly that 25% of the men in that study had a previous sex crime conviction prior to the most current offense that landed them in jail. Get your facts straight. You do not have facts. You do not have truth. Tom Madison is uninformed, and you're all acting like imbeciles.

Or, you could always stick with the same old story you've been using and continue to look like pissed off unrepentant victim bashing sex offenders who will LIE and LIE and LIE and are never to be trusted. I kinda think that's what you guys will do. None of you are smart enough to know you got it wrong, and even if you were, there's not a one of you that has the balls to stand up and say "Stitches is right guys, let's go back to the drawing board".

Need I say more?

What's The Big Deal?

The number of registered sex offenders living in Dorset has risen by nearly 40 per cent in three years, says Jane Reader of the Daily Echo.

Statistics released by the government today show there are more than 500 violent and sexual offenders being monitored across the county, 379 of whom are on the sex offenders register.

The numbers were revealed as part of the MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) annual report.
continued...

It shows the numbers on the register have steadily increased from 273 in 2002/03 to 333 in 2003/04, 352 in 2004/05 and 379 in 2005/06

The police say that this doesn't necessarily mean there are more offenders, just that more are registered and being monitored.

Detective Chief Inspector Ivor Graham of Dorset Police who said only 28 of the 526 offenders under their care are deemed to be so dangerous that they need high-level monitoring and active multi-agency input.

The figures are released just days after a convicted sex offender was warned he would be locked up for life after he was convicted of abducting a six year old girl from her bath and raping her in North Tyneside.

Peter Voisey, 35, who already had a conviction of sexually assaulting a child, dumped his victim naked on the street.

Sounds positive, right? Only 28. Of course, you might think different if your child was a victim of just one of those 28. One child, one life, one soul.

And you must also consider the findings of Dr. Gene Abel:

Pedophiles commit more than 10 times as many sexual acts against children as do non-pedophile molesters. On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts.

If only 3 of those 28 sexual offenders were paedophiles, they could collectively be anticipated to perpetrate more than 200 molestations.

That is a big deal and merely one of the many reasons why the registries and intense monitoring are so important.

Shutting Down a LIAR, again...

JohnDoe420, known around these parts as the forgettable JD, has a little problem. (Shhh I don't think he knows). You see, he falls a little short in the thinking department. Now while we all know he's a pedovore, AND he likes 'em young (as in 6 months old).... everyone may not be aware that he's practically illiterate. He cannot process and analyze information correctly, though goodness knows he'll give it his best shot, it's not really saying much, but what's even more telling is that he requires the assistance of a 'friend' and even when the two of them put their noggins together they STILL can't get it right.

Let me explain. Pedofreak Autumn used a link to a study .... he analyzed the statistics and concluded that 80% of all child sexual abuse was committed by the parents. He simply misunderstood the results. He applied neglect stats to child sexual abuse stats in the same manner as olive freak did a couple of months ago. So I clarified this particular error on their parts once again. I asked if they deceive on purpose? Or perhaps they are stupid??

I got an answer, oh boy did I. JD rides in to save the day on his high horse. He declares that he's "Shutting down a liar, again....." (me) So nevermind the fact that he's never shut me down for the first time, a second time or any time for that matter. He's never shut AZ down, or proved me or any one of us team members at AZ to be a liar.... He proceeds within one post to call me personally a LIAR a total of 10 times --while quoting me--as quoting the 2004 report which was quoted by Autumn and instead linking to the '99 report himself. Me? Liar?


So let's reiterate.... he called me a liar 10 times, he claimed that I (and AZ) are trying to protect child abusers, he claimed that I am trying to HIDE FACTS about domestic and intrafamilial sexual assaualt.... all this from the slithering PRO CONTACT PRO ABOLISHMENT OF AGE OF CONSENT LAWS pedofreak activist who is despised by at least 90% of his own community. The pedovore who is sexually attracted to 6 month old babies and insists they can give him permission to do what he does.

Well, alrighty then. All of this because I posted a link to a study that they had already linked to but conveniently left out this particular chart.



So, does stating the published words of someone else in quotes make me a liar? Or does perhaps calling me that simply make JD appear blatantly desperate?




*IF* I made this statement

"Ken Lanning of the FBI says that 90% of all child molestations are committed by non pedophiles"

Then YES I'd be a liar.

If, however I said the

DHHS says that 2.6% of sexual molestations are committed by parents

or

Ken Lanning of the FBI said "Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system"

OR

"Preferential-type sex offenders, and especially pedophiles, are the primary acquaintance sexual exploiters of children"

OR

Gene Able stated that "pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations."

Would that also be a lie? Would that support the notion that I'm attempting to HIDE EVIDENCE within the vast expanse of the internet from which I first retrieved it?

Or perhaps I've simply been libeled.

JD ends his lunatic rant with this gem of a question

What is her (stitches) personal, vested interest in promoting and protecting the rape of children?

Perhaps her daughter could tell us more.

Well JD you know, this is over the top even for someone as unstable as you are, and I do realize that you felt slighted when I called you forgettable....but just be patient we'll get to you too. You'll get the attention you've been longing for............and it will be a sight to behold.

Crake Offers a "Wise Review"

Or rather, he calls it a wise reivew of Dr. Gene Abel over on that nothing blog. He has lots of tidbits of *ahem* wisdom, such as

The cure is worse than the disease

Of course I would imagine that would depend upon whether you were the pedovore getting your kicks, or the child getting raped....as to which one is worse.

Or like Bill Glaser said, the goal of treatment is not a happy client, but rather safe children.

Crake goes on (and on and on) about Abel's plan for identification and treatment, however, guess what you guys? It's not true. Either Crake is an outright LIAR or he can't read.

Next he has a comment from Autumn. Autumn is a new name around these parts, but not exactly new on the scene, apparently thinks we can be faked about it.....*wink wink*

So what Autumn does is give some "FACTS" from the US Department of Human Services. What's interesting here is that these are the same "FACTS" that olive freak tried to give. So here ya go, you mentally challenged 'individual'

These are statistics about child abuse in general, these are not specifically about child sexual abuse. You can't discuss whether or not parents or pedophiles are the ones committing the majority of CSA and say 80% are committed by parents!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! When the actual statistic is that 80% of child neglect are committed by parents or similar. And only 2.6% of CSA is committed by parents, and IMPLY they are one and the same. They are not one and the same. So did you Autumn share the statistics with the intention to deceive, or are you just that plain stupid?

I Was Challenged Part 2

Jillium (a frequent pedophile visitor to AZ) isn't aware of the amount of information that's out there. He likes to quote people who are quoting people who are quoting unethical researchers who manipulate data for their own purpose.

He tries to challenge me. I prefer to take it as a dare. So, here ya go Jillium, read it and weep.

I'm going to give you some statistics from a study done by Gene G. Abel. For those of you who aren't aware, he's one of the most respected in this field, his work going back over two decades, the most often referred to by all sex researchers, and the most widely published.
The following are from his book The Stop Child Molestation Book 2001.

Dr. Abel's study sample included 16,109 adults who admitted sexually molesting at least one child. His demographics matched those of the general population in terms of age, ethnicity, religious affiliation, marital status, educational level and socioeconomic status. For the sake of space I'm going to give you the highlights of this large scale study.

Pedophilia is the most significant cause of child molestation.

People witih pedophilia molest 88% of child sexual abuse victims.

68% had molested a child in their family, defined as under the age of 13 and either a biological child, stepchild, adopted child, foster child, niece, nephew, grandchild.

40% molested children of their friends or neighbors. 24% of men molesting children in their family also molested children of friends and neighbors.

Only 10% molested a stranger.

Only 1% of molesters were female.

Of the men in this study, the pedophiles molested 88 percent of the children which totaled 28,419, as compared to the 12 percent or 3,761 for non-pedophiles.

Pedophiles commit more than 10 times as many sexual acts against children as do non-pedophile molesters. On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts. On average, a molester without pedophilia commits 6.5 acts. This group of pedophiles committed 95 percent of the acts for a total of 171,973 versus only 5 percent of the acts for non-pedophiles.

The number of child victims and acts per molester depended on whether the molester targeted girls, boys or both. Those molesting only girls averaged 5.2 victims and 34.2 acts. Those molesting only boys averaged 10.7 victims and 52 acts. Those molesting both averaged 27.3 victims and 120.9 acts.

While many more men molested girls, the men who molested boys averaged double the number of victims.

47% of male molesters had been molested as a child.

The number of victims also varied depending on whether the molester had himself been molested as a child. The never-abused molesters averaged 7 child victims while abused molesters averaged 25 victims. On average, sexually abused molesters committed over 100 more acts than never-abused molesters.

In order to reduce the number of children molested, we must identify the pedophile and implement treatment as rapidly as possible.

Pedophiles molest 88% of all victims and commit 95% of child molestations.

It Actually Does Bear Repeating

We'll return to our good friend Ken Lanning. There is no doubt what Lanning said. There is no doubt what Lanning meant. Only if you want to read that 'blue' means 'red' can you take this to mean anything other than what it says.

Understanding the Preferential Molester
Men sexually attracted to young adolescent boys are the most persistent and prolific child molesters known to the criminal justice system. Depending on how you define molestation, they can easily have hundreds if not thousands of victims in a lifetime.

Because the molestation of children is part of a long-term persistent pattern of behavior, preferential child molesters are like human evidence machines. During their lifetime, they leave behind a string of victims and a collection of child pornography and erotica.

And that's not all

Most preferential child molesters spend their entire lives attempting to convince themselves and others that they are not perverts. They try to convince themselves that they love and nurture children. Because most of them have hidden their activities for so long, when identified and prosecuted, they try to convince themselves that they will somehow continue to escape responsibility. This is why they often proclaim their innocence right up to the time of their trial. If, however, the investigator and prosecutor have properly developed the case, preferential child molesters almost always change their plea to guilty. The last thing they want is to have the public hear the details of their sexual activity with children. After pleading guilty, they attempt to convince the sentencing authority that their lives have been ruined and that they are "sick" and need treatment.

We know what Lanning said. Choose another scapegoat.

Pedophiles and Intellectual Capacity

They meaning the pedovores (HT to Shoprat for the term), call us, among other things, ignorant - stupid - racists, bigots, nazi's - selfish - unenlightened - jealous - uneducated control freaks.

These accusations made on the part of a borderline psychotic community of societal outcasts have roots in various predictable places. One of which is repeating by rote the comments other members of their community have previously stated without thought to the truth, rationality or validity of the claim. A second reason is cognitive distortions which we previously discussed HERE and which act to provide a sort of psychological defense mechanism. We'll discuss this further in the near future, but for now I want to focus on a third reason: mental capacity, intellectual potential or rather a lack thereof.

I have said from the beginning that this is not a game, no tit-for-tat, no sticks & stones, nor liar-liar-pants-on-fire mission that we have undertaken here at Absolute Zero. We are here to tell the truth, period. I will now share with you the latest research findings regarding this very issue noted above. This information is from Quantitative Reanalysis of Aggregate Data on IQ in Sexual Offenders, coauthored by James Cantor, Ray Blanchard, Lori Robichaud and Bruce Christensen and funded by Canadian Institutes for Health Research Grant 94205. Published in Psychological Bulletin 00332909, July 2005, Vol. 131, Issue 4

This study concerned the intellectual capacity of sexual offenders and the analysis encompassed 75 reports and represented 25,146 individual people. Some of the issues addressed were those who offend against little girls vs little boys, intrafamilial offenders vs extrafamilial, offenders whose victims are adults vs those whose victims are children, and juvenile offenders vs adult offenders. There were many more issues addressed, but these are the topics of interest to us now. While multiple studies have shown a greater incidence of non-righthandedness and childhood head injury in pedophilic vs nonpedophilic men, this study corroborates what we all surely already knew or suspected.

The subjects for the analysis were divided into 4 distinct groups, noncriminals, nonoffenders (criminal but not sexual), sexual offenders against adults and sexual offenders against children. As we may have guessed, the pedophilic offenders were the least intelligent of all groups, with offenders of adults being more intelligent, and criminal nonsexual offenders being the highest ranking of these 3, yet only slightly higher than offenders of adults. Of course non criminals were the highest in intelligence rankings.

Of the pedophilic offenders the data was further broken down by age of the child, and the discovery was that the younger the child the lower the IQ

The unstandardized regression coefficient, indicated that for each decrease of 1 year in the definition of child, the samples' mean IQ dropped by approximately 2 IQ points.

So the offender of a 12 year old child vs a 2 year old may have as much as a 20 point difference in IQ.

The results of juvenile offenders echoed adult offenders across the board as far as sexual and non-sexual offences. There were virtually no difference between those offended against girls or boys. Likewise no detectable difference between intrafamilial offenders compared to extrafamilial.

While it has been proven that there is a higher incidence of non-right-handedness, and greater frequency of childhood head injury in pedophilic offenders, the authors state this:

Our most fine-grained analysis of victim age and offender IQ suggests that low IQ is a characteristic particular to pedophilia.

We suggest that a third variable--a perturbation of prenatal or childhood brain development--produces both pedophilia and low IQ. That is, low IQ correlates significantly with pedophilia, not because it causes pedophilia, but because both characteristics result from some common etiological factor.

I believe these findings give us reason to hope, not only in finding the cause for pedophilia but that these studies take us one step closer to finding a cure for this affliction.