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.

The Limits of Blame-Gaming

Remember Remsen Benedict? He was sentenced yesterday to six and a half years for possession of child pornography.

Just like Robert Hochulski's family, Remsen's wrote letters bragging on his community service, his dedication to the Boy Scouts and Big Brother as though that should somehow absolve him and earn him a lighter sentence. I find it fascinating actually and shows the families are still in denial.

The fact that Remsen was a Scout leader and drove a school bus has to do with the fact that he's a pedophile who sought ways to be around little boys. It's even more reason to make sure he's never around little children again.

And he won't be. Legally anyway.

After Wikisposure notified the school district and Boy Scouts of America regarding Remsen's internet pedophile activity, such as membership at sites like Boylandonline, Bliss, BoysMagicWorld, Boys Scout Camp, Boylover.net and BoyMoment - his computer was seized and forensic analysis revealed

hundreds of videos and thousands of child abuse images - the equivalent of 22,275 images under the sentencing guidelines. The images and videos showed prepubescent and pubescent children being sexually assaulted and molested by adults, as well as children engaging in sexual acts with other children under the direction of adults.

When Remsen is released he'll have to register as a sex offender. His internet activity will be restricted and he'll be required to stay away from anyone under the age of 18. It is a part of his sentence and is absolutely imperative so that no parent who is aware of just exactly what Remsen is will ever trust their child around him.

Another thing I found especially interesting regarding the case of Remsen Benedict is how much something Mary Duval has talked about reminded me of him.

You see, Mary has a friend who won't allow her daughter to ride the Church bus unless there is someone else on the bus. Mary claimed her friend was hysterical and had "a hate-on for men"

Mary claimed the bus driver was a fine upstanding member of the community, an elderly gentleman without a criminal record, a father, a grandfather and that her friend was hysterical. Mary repeated this story at least 4 times that I know of. Lenore Skenazy agreed with Mary.

But ya know? I didn't think it was hysterical at all. No, I thought about Remsen. He was a "fine upstanding member of the community" as well. He had no criminal record. He was a father, a grandfather - he drove a school bus.

I wondered what Mary might know about the church bus driver that other people don't? Since she's so sure of how safe he is that she mocks her "friend" to multiple guests on her show she must have some sort of inside and all-knowing information regarding him.

But there's one guest Mary had that she didn't tell the story to and that's Margie Slagle. You see Margie as an attorney works tirelessly to get sex offenders off the registry and other sex offender related activity. Margie is on their "side". But Margie said

Now I know that 93% of all sex offenses occur because we as parents have trusted the offender with our child so I'm far more worried about who I trust my children with than I'm worried about a list.

When my son took guitar lessons at first I'd just drop him off because I thought, well this is a nice guy he gives guitar lessons at church it must be safe and then I realized what the heck are you doing take a book and sit for half an hour you moron. Why would you trust a stranger with your child?

So I have become smarter as a parent and that's the only way to prevent sex offenses against your children is to just be aware of who you trust your children with. I don't want my kids riding home alone in a car with one of their coaches, are you kidding me? You don't set them up that way.

But the registry doesn't do that for you as a parent that's the problem. Parents are not educated enough to protect their kids and if they're relying on a registry they're leaving their kids vulnerable.

I wonder if Mary called Margie hysterical? I wonder if Mary asked Margie what she thought about Lenore Skenazy letting her 9 year old child ride the subway alone in New York City? I wonder if she asked Margie if she thought it was appropriate for convicted sex offenders to mock parents for protecting their children then blaming them if they don't protect them enough? I wonder what a discussion like that would look like. I wonder if it's possible for Mary to take a stand and stick with it and stop changing her story depending upon the guest? So far all we've seen is flip-flopping. Time will tell. The fact is however, that if you support UNDER protecting children you cannot be taken seriously as someone whose goal is to "educate and prevent" sexual abuse. And you certainly can't be taken seriously when one day you say children shouldn't walk home from school and the next day you mock parents who won't let their child walk home from school. You can't have it both ways. Even blame-gaming has it's limits.

"True Victims" according to sex offenders

"True victims" of sex abuse... look like, act like, think of, dream of...?


Should I cut myself, freak out, get on drugs, learn to shut up, drown my sorrows with alcohol? Or go on youtube and cry?

The therapy that I received taught me that I had a voice and to use it.
I am not ashamed of doing so. Possibly... if "miss Mary" had proper therapy she wouldn't be advocating for registry reform and hanging out with pedophiles and sex offenders.

Sex offenders deserve to have their pictures all over the internet and in magazines. People have the right to know their crimes because they are dangerous and cannot be cured. Sex offenders damage their victims for life and should be held accountable for life.


oh and btw...
I am your witness.

Important Aspects

We first talked about "Hutch" Robert Hochulski here. Now his defense attorney is trying to claim that one reason he should be given a lighter sentence is because he has support from his wife. My goodness I thought, I wonder if he knows what sort of "support" she offers?

Support like coming here to AZU and denying his crimes while calling us every name in the book for harming an "innocent man's reputation" perhaps?

Well of course we weren't trying to "harm an innocent man" and of course he wasn't innocent. He was sentenced yesterday to almost 6 years. He had over 2000 images on his computer but confessed to less than 600 of them. And of course the images included prepubescent children and sadistic acts. That's a "childlover" for you.

But what I found especially interesting was Bob's letter to the judge. Not only was Bob a moderator on a pedophile board, not only did he continue to log into his account AFTER his arrest but he put himself in a position to - as he called it - "mentor" boys for years. That's what filthy pedophiles do. Now he wants to use the fact that he did "good works for boys"? And HEY! not only Bob, but all his family and friends used the same reasons to the court. "Bob is a GOOD man" and "Bob has done so much work for children" and "I was shocked when I heard and I know that he's sorry and would never do it again"

Funny, that's what Joseph Duncan's friends said about him as well.

Duncan wrote:

Someone told me yesterday that I was different than most other sex offenders because I was only 16 when I committed my crime and have never committed any other sex crimes since (or before).

Of course we know NOW that he HAD already committed other sex crimes. Hindsight is funny that way isn't it?

Robert Hochulski wrote:

My family and my work with youth are two of the most important aspects of my life. Unfortunately, my decisions which have led me to the current situation have effectively taken away my ability to work with and mentor to youth. For this and the pain and suffering I have inflicted upon my family I am truly sorry. However, as I progressed in my counseling, I have come to realize that there was a third party that was involved with my bad decisions. They are children who were coerced and forced into a life of abuse and exploitation. These children must be rescued and provided all necessary help in recovering from their situation. I also believe that the parties responsible for this exploitation must be brought to justice and made to pay for their crimes.

I understand that I must suffer the consequences for my actions and decisions. However, I have begun to turn my life back to the path of living within the laws of man and God. I ask that you see who I am beyond the filter of my crime and see me for the person I am.

I see Bob for exactly what he is. A pedophile who drooled over sexually abused children, invaded their privacy and re-victimized them. (there were three victim impact statements made in this case). Child pornography is not a victimless crime. Men like Bob look at it for a reason. - that reason is not because they're bored and have nothing better to do than twiddle their thumbs. No, Bob searched for it with search terms that included things like "boys in loinclothes" and "boylove". He did this from multiple computers and from multiple places - including from his job at the after school program he ran. NOW Bob says he's sorry, not for the children he harmed but for his family. Funny how they always find God when they want to be saved from prison. But if we've learned anything from all the pedophiles who love to blabber off their mouths it is this: pedophiles cannot and will not change. Bob will spend his 5 years and 8 months in prison and return to the loving enabling arms of his wife. When he does: he'll still be a pedophile. Mark your calenders, I have a feeling we'll be seeing Bob again one day.

Like Bob himself once said:

Never told anyone, but I'm sure people suspect as I have been involved with teens for over 30 yrs

A Red Flag

Jarred Harrell was arrested today for the murder of Somer Thompson.....among other things.

You may recall little Somer was abducted while walking home from school with friends last October. Somer was 7 years old. Her body was found in a landfill a few days later.

On a related note, I argued with Cheryl Griffiths on a news article about it when Cheryl started attacking Somer's mother for appearing on TV to talk about the case. Cheryl - with her typical venomous hatred for victims of sex crimes said it was "over" and Somer was dead and her mother was just trying to get attention and exploit her own dead child. And I wonder, why would Cheryl care if Somer's mother wanted to keep attention on the case.... the perpetrator had not even been caught. Why?

Jarred Harrell was also arrested for possession of child pornography. If he had not been charged with Somer's murder these self-absorbed apologists for baby-rapers would be saying "It was ONLY pictures, it's not like he abducted and killed a child".

We must remember that almost all child molesters are also found to be in possession of child pornography. And in a recent study 85% of those convicted for possession of child pornography also had committed hands-on offenses against children that had gone undetected.

Jerome Miller of Reform Sex Offender Laws Campaign RSOL claims those offenders in that study only said they molested children because they would get special privileges. Interesting that he knows so much about what ALL the men in that study did or didn't do. So I ask you....would you confess to being a filthy child molester if you really weren't? Child molesters are the bottom of the barrel, a scourge, a blight - the most sickening the thing a person can be and something nobody would want to be identified as.

In this particular study 26% of the offenders were known to have molested children at the time of their conviction but during the study they revealed that 85% of them had. Most of them with multiple victims. In fact, as a group they had 75 child victims amongst them - known at the time of their original sentencing for possession of child pornography. After their confessions that number jumped to 1,777. This study was conducted on 155 men by the way. And yet those people who are interested in removing all penalties for possession of child pornography dismiss this study and instead promote the recent one that came out of Switzerland. You know..... the one who used a BoyChat member as his resource for information?

Is Jarred Harrell unusual in some way? Yes, in that he actually killed his victim. No, in that he didn't JUST get caught with child pornography - he progressed before being captured. People who look at images of children being sexually assaulted are not "the real victims of society" the way the Nambla people at RSOL would have you believe. They are people with a sexual interest in children and as Mary Duval always says "That should be a red flag"

DUH