[Vision2020] One final thing

[Saundra Lund]

Mr. Morin,

Thank you so much for your post and perspective.

In part, you wrote:
"But how are we to square your assessment of Steven's repentance with the
large photo archive of Steven's at sitler.org? The photos included many
snapshots taken of young children in three states, in their bedrooms, during
Steven's visits to their homes. There were even pictures taken of a visit to
your youngest brother's home. The archive was not an oversight on Steven's
part because it included photographs that he uploaded while he waited for
Judge Stegner to sentence him, and it was active until Monday. If Steven
truly repented, why would he keep such an archive online? Or if I may
paraphrase one of the questions you put to Michael, how do you think the
mothers of those victims felt when they saw their dear children proudly
displayed on Steven's web site? Did they say, "Oh, good," or "Oh, no"? How
do you think the mothers in your congregation feel about you deliberately
withholding this information from them?"

IMHO, this is a very important part of the picture.  Before the sitler.org
site was password protected, I had a chance to look through Steven Sitler's
photos as well, and I noted the same things you did.  In light of Sitler's
predatory sexual abuse of children, I was horrified to see the photos of
children  :-(

I can only hope those with access to the pictures will make sure the
caregivers of each and every children pictured are notified of Sitler's
crimes so the caregivers seek help to determine if the pictured children
were among those Sitler victimized.

There are excellent supports to help the *survivors* of child sexual abuse,
and I hope those in need of such resources will ask if they are having
trouble finding assistance.

For those who aren't in the habit of reading Michael Metzler's Pooh's Think
(http://www.poohsthink.com/), I'd like to call you attention to the
following *excellent* comment that appears there:

"Dear Michael,

On Wednesday the Lewiston Morning Tribune reported Doug Wilson saying, “NSA
didn’t make a public announcement because officials were trying to protect
the victims. . . When you have a situation like this, the court system has a
policy of keeping victims’ names out of public knowledge to protect the
names and reputations of victims.”

Unfortunately, Wilson’s statement blurs the distinction between identifying
the victims and protecting the victims. “Identifying” the victims requires
publicizing the name and photograph of Steven Sitler to the regions where he
preyed so that parents could make diligent inquiry: “Was he near my child?
Did he visit my home?”

“Protecting” the victims is another stage in the process and of necessity
follows their identification. In this case, “protection” requires physical
and spiritual relief for the victims within a safe environment, which
obviously includes sealed privacy.

So announcing the capture of a predator is unrelated to protecting victims’
privacy and the two should not be confused. After all, if notifying the
public of a serial pedophile violated the victims’ privacy, then the state
would not upload sex offenders’ photographs to the worldwide web."

This is criticism of Wilson's attempt to confuse the issue is exactly right,
and I urge those of you who may have been taken in by Wilson's obfuscation
to rethink the matter.



Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.*****


-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Terry Morin
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:04 PM
To: vision2020 at moscow.com; dougwils at christkirk.com
Subject: [Vision2020] One final thing

Doug,
Thank you for sending me the text of your report to the HOH parish meetings
regarding Steven Sitler. Given that some attendees of the meetings remember
hearing about the matter, and some do not, I assume that no printed version
was distributed broadly. In keeping with your "Off List" header, I'll not
post the text.

This is the first notification of your member households of Mr. Sitler's
sentencing, and took place in Nov/Dec 2005, some eight or nine months after
his confession to you. In your Vision2020 post Friday morning, you said, "If
any of you think that I am /incapable /of defending in detail what we did at
every step of this story, you are mistaken. But I will not do that because
of what it would do to the families." You must have been referring to
something else, because there is nothing in this text that you could not
have released on Monday, when Michael went public with the relevant details
of Mr. Sitler's recent history. I can see other reasons for withholding the
text, but protecting known victims is not one of them.

The text consists of two long paragraphs, the first a description of the
"simple facts of the case" as you put it, and the second longer paragraph a
presentation of "the more important considerations" in your words. To your
credit, Doug, I'd say that the text has a place in the process of
shepherding a congregation through the obvious, and not so obvious
difficulties facing a church that must receive a serial pedophile back into
its fellowship. However, as a formal notice or warning to the unsuspecting,
it falls short in the following respects.

First, the "simple facts of the case" paragraph does not communicate the
gravity of the crimes committed by Mr. Sitler. There is no mention of the
extent of Mr. Sitler's predations (three states, children aged 2-12, both
boys and girls, with premeditated intent, in their homes, even while adults
were present in adjacent rooms). Second, the protective stance taken by
Steven's home church was seriously understated. You noted in the text that
his home church had suspended him from the Lord's Table, but you did not
reveal that they had banned him from their property during public services
or from any involvement­at all­with the ministries of the Colville church.
His home church openly referred to him, in writing, as a wolf in sheep's
clothing. Third, the low-key presentation tended to minimize the magnitude
of Steven's crimes, which probably explains why some of the attendees of the
HOH meetings went away without a clue. It seems that the point of the
notification was missed by some in attendance, and by all who missed the
meeting.

In the second paragraph, after noting your judgment of Steven's genuine
repentance, you focus on preparing the membership for the possibility that
Steven will return to your church after his imprisonment. Your attention is
on themes of forgiveness, accountability, and true ministry to the repentant
Steven. All well and good, but these principles assume sins ‹ horrible sins
‹ that were never clearly articulated to the unwary. As the pastor of your
church, you asked your households to prepare to receive Steven back into
their midst without ever knowing the real threat he represented and the
extent of the damage he wrought. Indeed, you asked your members (and Judge
Stegner) to take your word on the genuineness of Steven¹s repentance.

But how are we to square your assessment of Steven's repentance with the
large photo archive of Steven's at sitler.org? The photos included many
snapshots taken of young children in three states, in their bedrooms, during
Steven's visits to their homes. There were even pictures taken of a visit to
your youngest brother's home. The archive was not an oversight on Steven's
part because it included photographs that he uploaded while he waited for
Judge Stegner to sentence him, and it was active until Monday. If Steven
truly repented, why would he keep such an archive online? Or if I may
paraphrase one of the questions you put to Michael, how do you think the
mothers of those victims felt when they saw their dear children proudly
displayed on Steven's web site? Did they say, "Oh, good," or "Oh, no"? How
do you think the mothers in your congregation feel about you deliberately
withholding this information from them?

So as I said before, it¹s your judgment that¹s being questioned here. You
waited eight months before mentioning "child molester" to your congregation.
You vouched for Sitler's repentance to your church (and to the community)
before you served adequate notice of the enormity of his crimes. And you
"decided that Michael needed to get popped a couple of times" before you
decided to clearly notify anyone of Sitler's deeds, which you still have not
done. In short, you took several millstones and reduced them to sand.

Doug, as one secondary part of a process, your text would be creditable and
I appreciate your openness with me. As initial notification to your church,
it failed to inform your membership of the gravity of the threat, and failed
to equip them for the immediate task of damage assessment and control.
--
Terry and Linda Morin
1232 Tamarack Drive
Moscow, ID  83843
208.882.6251