[Vision2020] Ten Sitler Questions

Sat Jun 30 18:08:38 PDT 2007

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 
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
======================================================= 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/03bbc07b/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 84281 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070630/03bbc07b/attachment-0001.png 