[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
Saundra Lund
sslund at roadrunner.com
Sun Jul 1 14:20:10 PDT 2007
Visionaries:
In part, Wayne writes:
"However, according to those present at the last hearing, the conference,
telephonic or not, according to the judge, was to be in open court."
I can confirm this: Judge Stegner made it *crystal* clear that the original
(now rescheduled to Monday at 2 PM) status conference was to be held in open
court with Steven Sitler present whether counsel on both sides appeared
physically or telephonically.
I'm not at all familiar with the process, so I don't know if there would be
some reason for that to change simply because the status conference was
rescheduled.
I would certainly hope, though, that no behind the scenes legal wrangling
(for lack of a better term) will be successful at removing this sordid --
and tragic, not to mention imminently important to the safety of our
community's children -- piece of public business from the public eye. My
interpretation of Judge Stegner's comments and demeanor were that he Gets
that this is a big deal, and that he wants a transparent process, IMHO.
Wayne makes reference to the standard "Idaho Department of Correction Sexual
Offender Agreement of Supervision" Steven Sitler signed in May, which was
before his release (and just recently made it to Sitler's court file). The
provision concerning Internet access is, indeed, item #2 of the agreement.
Also in the Agreement is another item that might be of interest to the
disingenuous here on the Viz with a vested interest in using this forum to
confuse the issues. Actually, the disingenuous wouldn't want this provision
pointed out, which is why I'll do it ;-) As background, not only is the
entire Agreement signed by Sitler (and his PO), but each and every single
provision of the Agreement is initialed by Sitler himself.
"15. I agree to sign any Release of Information form that allows my
supervising officer to communicate with professionals involved in my
treatment program."
I'm very curious about why someone like "Glenn Schwaller," who, by his own
words, has "worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders
in our area," would pen something like this last night:
"I will have to look at a copy of the VTS contract, but my guess is that the
defense is going to push for Mr Lombard's letter to be ruled inadmissible
since it violates the patient / counselor privilege."
Oh, heck . . . I guess I'm not curious at all because I Get It: some here
on the Viz want to cloud and confuse the issue.
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 2007 through life plus
70 years, 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 Art Deco
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 6:09 PM
To: Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
It may be a telephonic conference. However, according to those present at
the last hearing, the conference, telephonic or not, according to the judge,
was to be in open court.
The last thing we need in this case is more concealment. There needs to be
public outrage, concern, and action to reduce the incidents of all child
abuse, sexual or not. Exposure and frank discussion in the community can
help. Without such discussion the status quo will continue.
The points in the post below about the internet connection are crucial.
Communications among several people occurring just after Sitler's initial
release focused on whether he had internet access and how this was to be
monitored. Needless to say, the amount of material of interest to a
pedophile is not hard to find on the internet, even in the wake of last
week's massive global arrests.
The conditions of probation agreed to in court as part of the plea/probation
agreements (available at http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/) do not
mention the internet at all. This, in my opinion, is another example of the
unforgivable ineptitude, laxity, ill-concern for the public safety exhibited
by the prosecutor, whose job is to represent the state, not the defendant,
and the court in this case. This conditions document is mostly boilerplate.
Not only ineptitude, but laziness.
However, Probation and Parole was more thorough. Condition 2 of the Idaho
Department of Correction Sexual Offender Agreement of Supervision initialed
by Sitler states:
"I will not subscribe to, use nor have access to internet service, including
e-mail or any other internet material without permission from my therapist
and probation officer. I will not use any form of password-protected files,
or other methods that might limited access to, or change the appearance of
data images or other computer files without written prior approval from my
supervising officer."
In this context, most of the tracks left on a computer from internet surfing
can be erased by programs such as Windows Washer. I hope that language can
be added to the above condition in the future by Probation and Parole to
disallow the presence on a subject's computer of such programs.
In the future, probably in September or October, I hope to place and keep
updated a click and show map for Moscow and Latah County on the internet
showing the locations of all sexual offenders who have violated children or
have exhibited violent or predatory behavior. Since I am old and have many
other projects going, this may take a while to do correctly.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Schwaller <mailto:vpschwaller at gmail.com>
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions
There are additional probation violations that have been filed and may have
something to do with the sealed communication. Given that the contents of
this letter will probably not be released in the near future, at the very
least the court should give some kind of explanation as to why this letter
was sealed.
Probation and parole seized a computer during the search of Mr Sitler's
residence, and it's contents are currently being evaluated by the State
Forensics Lab in Meridian. Questions 11 adn 12 would be why did Mr Sitler
have a computer, and did he have access to the internet?
Ownership of, or access to, a computer and / or the internet is decided on a
case-by-case basis. For some offenders, use of a computer my be permitted
only if it is a necessary part of their employment. Other may be allowed a
home computer only, and others may be allowed internet access. In these
instances, most offenders are required to subscribe at their cost to a
program called Covenant Eyes (www.covenanteyes.com). Their probation
officer functions as an "accountability partner" and as such, has complete
and real time access to their computer.
Was Mr Sitler on line while on probation? Was he required to subscribe to a
monitoring service? Did he subscribe? Does any of his computer activity
relate to additional probation violations? It seems a very real possibility
that one or several people dropped the ball on this. Will anyone be held
accountable?
It's possible that the Status Conference scheduled for Monday may be a phone
conference, and not in open court. Has anyone heard differently?
Glenn
On 6/29/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
Here is a letter from one of the persons providing sexual offender
treatment to Steven Sitler. This letter is found as part of a Report of
Probation Violation filed in the court by Senior Probation Officer Jackye
Squires Leonard.
Dalton Lombard, D.Min, LCPC
P O Box 1911
Lewiston, Id. 83501
June 18, 2007
Jackie Squires
Probation and Parole
Moscow Idaho 83843
RE. Steven Shier
Dear Ms. Squires,
This note is in response lo our Telephone conversation today. During
the weekly check in time for the offender group I lead for Valley Treatment
Specialties Mr. Sitler reported that he had masturbated on two occasions
during the previous week. When asked for more detail about the circumstances
and fantasies he experienced during his masturbation he reported that he had
been looking in a neighbor's window with his binoculars. As a result he
became aroused and later masturbated. He denied viewing anyone at the
residence but acknowledged that he was aroused by looking in the window. He
stated to the group that voyeurism is one of the behaviors be engaged in
prior to and leading up to the offences he was convicted of.
I consider this to be a very high risk behavior for Mr. Sitler
considering he had been out of jail less than a month at the lime he
reported the behavior. In my mind this behavior constitutes a violation of
his parole and of his treatment contract with Valley Treatment Specialties.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
/s/
Dalton Lombard
The contents of this letter and other events raise some questions.
First, with respect to the binoculars:
1. When did Sitler acquire the binoculars?
2. Did he previously possess them and someone returned them to
him, did he lately acquire them, or did someone lately acquire them for him?
Given his history of voyeurism and its leading up pedophilic
incidents:
3. What was his motivation for either acquiring or keeping the
binoculars?
4. Shouldn't the possession of binoculars been a no-no in his
probation agreement?
Second, considering the comment "I consider this to be a very high
risk behavior for Mr. Sitler" from his therapist:
5. Why was bail granted at all?
6. Is he not a high risk to reoffend?
7. Why hasn't a Motion to Revoke Probation been filed by the
prosecuting attorney so that an evidentiary hearing can be held and a
decision whether to revoke probation or not be made by the court?
There is a new letter from Dr. Lombard to Judge Stegner now in the
file:
8. Why has this letter been sealed?
9. Aren't the citizens whose children who are now at risk with
Sitler out on probation entitled to the information which would allow them
to:
a. Evaluate the risk?
b. Express their opinions to the prosecutor, media, etc.
Sitler was ordered by the court to vacate his current residence on
June 19, 2007. Today is June 29, 2007. The screen snapshot just below was
taken at 7:30 pm today (06/29/07).
According to the Idaho Central Sexual Offender Website
http://www.isp.state.id.us/identification/sex_offender/obligations.html
Sitler is obligated to:
Within 2 working days of changing the address or location of
residence within the county where the sex offender is registered, the
offender must complete an address change form in person with the sheriff of
that county of the change.
OR
Within 5 working days of moving to another state, the registered sex
offender must provide written notice of the move to the central sex offender
registry. The person must also register in the other State within the time
period required by that State, but not to exceed 10 days.
10. Has Sitler complied with the above but for administrative
ineptitude his State of Idaho sexual offender profile has not yet been
updated?
As of now, a status hearing on this matter is scheduled for Monday,
July 2nd at 2:00 pm. Since schedules can change, those interested should
call the Clerk of the Court's office early Monday to check for any change
(Courthouse: 882-8580).
Wayne A. Fox
1009 Karen Lane
PO Box 9421
Moscow, ID 83843
(208) 882-7975
waf at moscow.com
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
________________________________
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list