[Vision2020] Question for Mr. Schwaller
vpschwaller at gmail.com
Mon May 14 10:37:27 PDT 2007
Dear Mr Herodotus
I'm not quite sure what you are implying by referring to me as "one of the
all things to all men kind of guys." If you mean that I think I'm an
omnipresent self important kind of guys, then no. If you are suggesting as
Paul did to the Corinthians that "I am made All things to all men, that I
might by all means save some.", well no, I don't think that is correct
either. I don't believe I'm trying to save anyone, other than to try and
stave off some ignorance by offering up what I believe to be factual
information. Not that it matters; I'm just curious.
And alas (at least for those of you who thrive on innuendo, conspiracy,
supposition and gossip), I am not another incarnation of Doug and Doug on a
skylarking expedition. I'm glad you "know better."
I make no excuse nor offer any apology for seeming to be intimately familiar
with the court records (they are public domain), P&P policy and procedure (I
also have some insight into policy and procedure of the prosecutors office,
and MPD and LCSO), Mr Sitler's automobile (I just happened to see him
leaving the jail on they way to one of his treatment programs), and Christ
Church's seating arrangement. Well, here I should make an apology - I did
not intend to suggest that I know anything about their seating arrangement.
I was attempting to point out that I know how other similar situations have
been handled, and how Mr Sitler's attendance at that or any other church (or
public arena in which children may be present), would most likely be
So, onto contradictory implications:
I was not trying to be dismissive about Mr Sitler's trophy website - this
was a response to Wayne Fox's questions from May 4th
"Was the court aware of Sitler's trophy website of photos of children, some
of whom were his alleged victims? Or was this information withheld from the
court? Was this evidence in the possession of the LCSD at the time of
sentencing and re-sentencing or did they miss this in their
I was assuming (possibly an error on my part) that Mr Fox meant "were they
aware at the time of the original sentencing." As such, I believe I was
correct in stating that if the court was not aware of the website (at the
time of the original sentencing) they are now (as of his review on May
4th). I don't know why Mr Sitler chose not to disclose that fact earlier
on. Perhaps he was advised not to do so (the right to remain silent among
all those obnoxious civil rights we have - sorry. I apologize for the
sarcasm). Perhaps it was to see how well local law enforcement was at doing
their job of "discovery." Perhaps he thought it was not germane to the
case. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. We may never know. I believe the court was
well aware of his other victims since his admission to other crimes was, I
think, part of the plea agreement. If one wants to split hairs as lawyers
are so fond of doing, from a legal perspective (assuming these were "normal"
photographs) it may not have been illegal for him to have these photos in
his possession. In the interest of full disclosure, remorse, and empathy
for his victims, Mr Sitler should have brought this to the court's
attention. And admittedly it does leave his apology somewhat hollow. My
point was, at least at some level he did offer an apology. It may not have
been 100% heartfelt, but I choose to believe there was some modicum of
sincerity in there. That was more than I have seen from Mr Hansen and Mr
Fox for suggesting Mr Sitler should be allowed to board in a home with
children present, putting them at potential risk. As I and others have
pointed out, regardless of their tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic intent, this
was worse than in poor taste: this was and is unacceptable, and they (Mr
Hansen and Mr Fox) should apologize to the 2020 community.
On 5/13/07, Bob Herodotus <bherodotus at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Schwaller,
> You seem like one of those "all things to all men" kind of guys to me; in
> fact, if I didn't know better I might be tempted to think you're another
> incarnation of Doug and Doug on one of their "skylarking"
> expeditions. They're such clever guys.
> Nevertheless, since you appear intimately familiar with the court records,
> P & P's policy & procedure, Sitler's automobile, and even the Christ Church
> seating arrangement, I'm wondering if you could please account for the
> contradiction between the implications of two of your statements?
> On Friday, May 4, you wrote,
> "I'm sure if the court was not aware of the "trophy website" then, they
> are now."
> But on Saturday, May 12, you wrote,
> "I would note that even Mr Sitler was responsible enough to stand in open
> court and apologize for his actions. Yes, it may very well have been self
> serving of him to do so, but nonetheless he did apologize."
> In the former instance, you seemed almost dismissive about the so-called
> "trophy website." However, in the latter you placed great weight on Mr.
> Sitler's public act of taking responsibility, whatever may have motivated
> This is important because the "trophy website" contained photographs of
> Sitler's victims from the states of West Virginia and Washington, and Bill
> Thompson has confirmed that Sitler failed to own it prior to its
> discovery. So if you believe that Sitler "was responsible enough to stand
> in open court and apologize for his actions," then why do you believe the
> scope of his responsibility didn't include full disclosure?
> Bob Herodotus
> spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection in the all-new Yahoo!
> Mail Beta.
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Vision2020