<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<STYLE>P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16441" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ms. Mix, you state:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial>"<FONT face=Tahoma>Please understand,
though, that while that is my primary concern regarding Sitler, it isn't my only
one.</FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial>"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>With all due respect, no kidding. I'm fairly certain that
that was the main point of my post. I'm afraid I'm going to have to reserve
judgment on what I think takes the more prominent position in the list of
"things Ms. Mix is concerned about."<BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>You ask:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"can you think of any organization, especially a
church, that has behaved as arrogantly as the leadership of the
Kirk? Too subjective? All right. Can you think of any
organization, especially a church, that has been embroiled in the controversy --
zoning, taxation, accreditation, plagiarism"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I think that your spin here is
interesting. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Would there be
any controversy if there wasn't a small but shrill little group to take the
slightest perceived problem and attempt to turn it into a county wide scandal?
By the numbers: Zoning, resolved in favor of CC/NSA in spite of a mayor and city
council that was not inclined to see things there way. Taxation: The board found
no evidence of wrong doing and again the matter was resolved in their favor.
Accreditation: They are and other then the fact that Nick Giver isn't happy with
the situation I'm not sure what the problem is in this regard. Plagiarism: When
the error was discovered it was owned up to and corrected. What do you want,
seppuku? Don't answer, I'm sure we all know the response
already.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>"</FONT><FONT face=Tahoma color=#0000ff> Can you truly
believe that a pastor with no formal theological training and no background in
psychiatry or psychology, ordained by his own hand-picked group and published by
his own hand-cranked press, is truly an expert not only on Latin, the Classics,
poetry, architecture, Biblical history, world history, Confederate history,
epistemology, hermeneutics, child development, Scripture, and business -- as
well as in counseling serial child rapists?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I have no idea if Mr. Wilson makes expert claims in any of
these areas. I am fairly sure that as a pastor it is his job to council and
minister to the saints as well as the sinners to the best of his ability. You
have said that you were involved with ministering, who ordained you? You express
opinion on "</FONT><FONT face=Tahoma>Biblical history, world history,
Confederate history, epistemology, hermeneutics, child development, Scripture,
and business" where are your experts credentials?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><FONT face=Arial>"</FONT><FONT face=Tahoma>Does he ever
seek counsel from anyone not holding a mirror, a pipe, and a pair of
slippers?"</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Silly rhetoric, you can't possibly know and I certainly
don't.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"Do you think that maybe -- just maybe -- Sitler is
more than even the estimable Doug Wilson could handle?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If I thought that Mr. Wilson had or claimed sole responsibility for Mr.
Sitler there would be cause for concern. Fortunately the court, probation and
parole and several professional councilors, his family and a sizable chunk of
the community are involved in his case as well.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff>"<FONT face=Tahoma>Doug Wilson didn't
hide a pedophile while he was offending. But he hid from all of us that a
wolf HAD been harming the sheep in his care, and he bleated louder than any of
them when one of them escaped to tell the world."</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Tahoma></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Tahoma>It is my understanding that according to
the authorities (police, prosecutors, etc.) the consensus was that Mr. Wilson
along with the elders in his congregation handled the situation well. Why should
your opinion override theirs? Do you possess some expertise that the folks in
Mr. Thompson's office or at the MPD do not? With regard to "loud bleating" my
recollection is that w<SPAN
class=890375917-30052007>hat they expressed concern over was
that one of the more reckless Vision members posted the names, addresses,
and phone numbers of the victims; and that V2020 turned this into a further
victimization of the children in order to attack Wilson. I think he might
have had good cause to speak up. At the time there was nothing being posted that
was helpful to the community and certainly not the
family.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Tahoma><SPAN
class=890375917-30052007></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT face=Tahoma><SPAN
class=890375917-30052007>g</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> ; <A
title=vpschwaller@gmail.com href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">Glenn
Schwaller</A> ; <A title=bherodotus@yahoo.com
href="mailto:bherodotus@yahoo.com">Bob Herodotus</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:49
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] the difference
(ws personal invitation to Mr. Schwaller)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I appreciate the tone of your reply, Gary, and your willingness
to believe that I am concerned about the welfare of Moscow's children.
Please understand, though, that while that is my primary concern regarding
Sitler, it isn't my only one.<BR><BR>When a group exhibits behavior that I
believe Christ Church has and you believe they haven't, I tend to view their
actions in crisis and in triumph through the lens of how they've acted
before. And I freely admit that I expect a higher degree of integrity
from a church than I do from, say, a gun club, a moms' parenting group, or a
group that attracts people based on their common interest in philately.
This is not because riflemen, moms, or philatelists are people of inherently
lower moral standards, but because a church exists to worship and glorify One
higher than themselves; their standard, then, is an ascending one, not a
static or, God forbid, a descending one. What the Bible says on this is
perhaps of little interest to most people, but it is germane to the issue at
hand for the preacher, teacher, elder and all other believers: to whom
much (responsibility, respect) is given, much is expected (Matthew
25:14-30). Further, teachers (we sometimes call them elders or pastors
as well) will be judged more strictly in their conduct and the content of
their counsel than, say, Mary Sue and Billy Bob Pewwarmer (James 3:1).
This of course applies to any of the pastors of the men you've mentioned,
regardless of who they are or what they've done, and it certainly applies to
the pastors (elders, etc.) of those men. <BR><BR>But here's the
rub. There are a lot of churches in town whose doctrines I disagree
with. This is rightly of little importance to anyone. But there is
not another church in town that has conducted itself as carelessly and
dismissively of its community in the way Christ Church has. I see it
that way, which is why I write what I write. You don't, so you write
what you write. But let's be fair, Gary -- can you think of any
organization, especially a church, that has behaved as arrogantly as the
leadership of the Kirk? Too subjective? All right. Can
you think of any organization, especially a church, that has been embroiled in
the controversy -- zoning, taxation, accreditation, plagiarism -- that Christ
Church has? Could it be that the subjective behaviors -- the dumb
teachings, the ill-informed defense of things that cause and have caused harm
to real people, the insistence on control and hierarchy -- coupled with these
objective issues have caused people to doubt that Doug Wilson has the
wellbeing of anyone other than Doug Wilson at heart? That he's maybe
just a bit disingenuous at times? Can you truly believe that a pastor
with no formal theological training and no background in psychiatry or
psychology, ordained by his own hand-picked group and published by his own
hand-cranked press, is truly an expert not only on Latin, the Classics,
poetry, architecture, Biblical history, world history, Confederate history,
epistemology, hermeneutics, child development, Scripture, and business -- as
well as in counseling serial child rapists? <BR><BR>Does he ever seek
counsel from anyone not holding a mirror, a pipe, and a pair of
slippers?<BR><BR>I can readily accept that any of the men you listed before,
Gary, might attend churches in the area. If 77 percent of the men in the
Texas State Prison system consider themselves devout Baptists, as some
studies suggest, then it's not hard to believe that a guy who attends Sunday
worship might still be a guy who hurts women and children on Saturdays.
But Steven Sitler was in many ways a product of Christ Church and certainly an
academic protege of his pastor, Doug Wilson. I would spend a great deal
of time in humble reflection if a student of mine somehow got through my
Christian college, attended my church regularly, spent time with my family and
my congregants' families -- in fact, lived with one because of the policy I'd
set forth for my students -- and yet somehow didn't grasp that forcing a child
to kiss his penis was evil. I might even begin to wonder if perhaps I
had emphasized male control and power just a wee tiny bit too much, and I'd
re-explore if it really ought to be taught as well. Sitler didn't begin
hurting children when he came to Christ Church, but evidently not even a
come-to-Jesus night of crisis with his pastor didn't compel him to take down
the "trophy website." Do you think that maybe -- just maybe -- Sitler is
more than even the estimable Doug Wilson could handle? <BR><BR>Nope.
Doug Wilson can handle anything. He handles everything. The
carnage might not have been from his hands, but his hands sure as hell would
contain it. And not to protect anything or anyone other than . . . Doug
Wilson. All you young Kirk moms -- hope you found out. All you
moms and dads at the park -- remember, the covenant doesn't extend to
you. All you doctors who might have put two and two together when your
youngest patients were presented to you with oddities and behaviors you
couldn't quite figure out -- well, there's a lot of creeps out there.
Hope you find 'em all.<BR><BR>No, Doug Wilson didn't hide a pedophile while he
was offending. But he hid from all of us that a wolf HAD been harming
the sheep in his care, and he bleated louder than any of them when one of them
escaped to tell the world.<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: jampot@adelphia.net<BR>To: kjajmix1@msn.com; vpschwaller@gmail.com;
bherodotus@yahoo.com; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] the
difference (ws personal invitation to Mr. Schwaller)<BR>Date: Wed, 30 May
2007 07:37:08 -0700<BR><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ms. Mix,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It is my understanding that the instant that Mr.
Sitler's pastor became aware of the crimes that he had committed he made
immediate arrangements for the authorities to be notified, Sitler
removed as a threat to children, and the people that he thought
affected informed. Could he have done more? I suppose that a full
page ad could have been taken out or he could have gone door to door to be
sure that every mother in Moscow was completely aware of the sordid
situation. I'm guessing that had he done either of these things there would
have been complaints that he didn't appear on national TV to spread the
word.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Of the men that I listed in the post you are referring
to why did I not hear the same out cry? Why was Mr. Burkgart's Pastor not
vilified for not alerting Latah Co. to the dangers of his congregant? Why no
hue and cry when Mr. Buckinghams priest didn't see to it that a note reached
every local in box? Mr. Brazington's guidance councilor excoriated for not
sending out a community wide memo? Perhaps every clergy person, counselor,
and health professional should be taken to task for<FONT face=Tahoma> "not
immediately and publicly sounding the alarm"</FONT> on their charges crimes
rather than simply referring them to the proper authorities to be dealt with
as the law requires.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>When it comes to Sitler's release and the terms of his
parole it seems to me that we very much have an apples to apples comparison
with the men I have previously listed. To somehow blame his pastor for this
condition is definitely barking up the wrong tree. It would seem that your
complaints would be better directed to the judge, the prosecutor, the
probation and parole department, heck maybe even his parents. To imply
that this one offender is somehow more of a threat then the other men I have
mentioned because of his affiliation with a "particular community" is a
contention that I do not think that you can effectively
support.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>I appreciate that you feel a concern for the youth of
our community. The point I am attempting to make is that I do not believe
that it is your sole concern. Were Sitler to have renounced his former
church and perhaps even disingenuously made the assertion that it
had somehow contributed to his deviance (as "certain elements" on
this list have) discussions of him and this topic would have taken on a
very different tone. I don't think this position is "stubborn and
truculent" I believe it's obvious to any fair minded observer. To deny
it would seem foolish.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely
emerinemix</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B>
<A title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> ; <A title=vpschwaller@gmail.com
href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">Glenn Schwaller</A> ; <A
title=bherodotus@yahoo.com href="mailto:bherodotus@yahoo.com">Bob
Herodotus</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B>
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:00 PM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Subject:</B>
[Vision2020] the difference (ws personal invitation to Mr.
Schwaller)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Tom Hansen has ably explained why a recently-convicted,
just-released pedophile, one who faced only one count but admitted to
many, many others, is of greater concern than the majority of other sex
offenders. I will now try to explain why there is so much
indignation expressed by "certain elements" on this list. I'll try
to do so without self-righteously pointing out that while Schwaller
appears to be blithe and disingenuous, Crabtree appears to be merely
stubborn and truculent.<BR><BR>No critique of anything having to do with
anyone at Christ Church, it seems, can be judged on its own merit or lack
thereof in Gary's world -- while professing to be a fair-minded guy, he
has apparently decided that origin of critique and substance of critique
are the same thing. And since Christ Church staff and defenders
rarely stick around Vision 2020 when the going gets tough, it becomes easy
to blast any Vision 2020 questions regarding Kirk practice, doctrine, or
engagement with the community as the cynical whisperings of a "certain
element" dedicated to trashing a quirky but entirely innocent group of
God-worshippers. Kirkers hide behind pseudonyms or leave the forum
in a huff, sniffling and snorting while Gary bravely points out that those
who are concerned about Sitler's conviction, sentence, release and
supervision haven't properly memorized the adjudication of every sex
offender now living in Latah County. <BR><BR>The truth is that while
Christ Church did not hide a pedophile among them during the time Sitler
offended, they did hide from the community that a serial pedophile had
been among them -- an important distinction and one that Crabtree, much
less the merry men of the Kirk, refuse to acknowledge. Sitler's
parents' church immediately warned the community -- with name and picture
published throughout the community -- that Sitler was a pedophile and that
Sitler had been active in the Colville area. Wilson and company
waited for several months to tell predominately male heads of households
that "a sex offender" -- there's some question whether or not Sitler or
the nature of his deeds was named -- had been among them and would likely
be returning. The only women worthy of official notice were those
unmarried HOHs who bothered to attend meetings; the mothers of young
children had to find out from their "covenant heads," even though -- God,
I'm tired of saying this -- mothers of young children are generally in a
better position than anyone to correlate certain symptoms with possible
acts of depravity. And as for the non-Kirk community -- well, a
brave blogger in the know broke the news. He was smacked down and
hung out to dry; Wilson and the elders blathered on and on about "the
victims;" and I am not aware of even one time when Wilson has acknowledged
that MAYBE his neighbors, and the mothers who call him "pastor," might be
deserving of a heads-up. Not once.<BR><BR>Sin is sin, crime is
crime, and sex crimes of all nature are inherently stomach-churning.
But most thinking people can make a moral determination that there is a
quantitative if not qualitative difference between a guy in his 20s who
has sex with his underage girlfriend. That guy, while deserving of
all the law has to hand out and a swift kick in the ass as well, isn't
generally a threat to others. The adult, Christian college-educated
man who repeatedly uses toddlers for sex and does so in the most brazen,
arrogant, and reckless fashion is different. Sitler and only Sitler
is accountable for his actions; Wilson and the elders, and only Wilson and
the elders, are accountable for the disdain with which they treated the
community in not immediately and publicly sounding the alarm. We all
know that there is not a class of pedophilia that limits its victims to
"those also in the offenders church," and we know serial pedophiles are
virtually certain to reoffend. It's tragic if they do so within or
outside of their particular community.<BR><BR>I know that Gary Crabtree is
a smart guy who sees this. I just wonder when Gary will be the
honest guy that I believe him to be and finally acknowledge that all is
not well at the Kirk and certainly wasn't during the time Sitler
confessed. Or is it more fun to simply blast away at the straw men
erected to strengthen his contention that the Kirk is being
persecuted? Because if so, that's not curmudgeonly and libertarian,
Gary -- it's foolish.<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
From: jampot@adelphia.net<BR>To: kjajmix1@msn.com;
vpschwaller@gmail.com; bherodotus@yahoo.com;
vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A personal invitation
to Mr. Schwaller<BR>Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:31:34 -0700<BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>It's rather difficult to take all the indignation
and self righteousness expressed by a certain element on this list as
seriously as one might otherwise. Why is Sitler singled out for all
the condemnation (not that he doesn't deserve every ounce of it)
when there has there been nary a peep when it comes to others
who have committed the very same (or worse) crime in this county and
also still reside here. Where is your "legitimate fears" when it comes
to Michael Ashcraft, Christopher Busting, and Mike Brazington? Why are
you not so vocally "concerned" about Robert Buckingham, Frank Burkgart,
and Harvey Hamilton? What about the likelihood of reoffense for Michael
Hardway, Dennis Hendrix, Wayne Jacobs, Knute Klingler, and Kevin
Osterberg? Could it be that they get no Vision 2020 scrutiny
and castigation because to do so would not further an
agenda? I'm afraid that the pious blather that comes
from History Daddy and his little band of likeminded
friends would be far easier to stomach were it not so blatantly
just another cynical means to an end.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>g</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal">-----
Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: rgb(228,228,228) 0% 50%; FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely
emerinemix</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>To:</B>
<A title=vpschwaller@gmail.com
href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">Glenn Schwaller</A> ; <A
title=bherodotus@yahoo.com href="mailto:bherodotus@yahoo.com">Bob
Herodotus</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Sent:</B>
Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:52 AM</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal"><B>Subject:</B>
Re: [Vision2020] A personal invitation to Mr. Schwaller</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Somewhere between five and 98 percent of all
Visionaires who read the post below detect an undercurrent of
snarling, manly arrogance. I'm guessing that the two percent
were raising their Sabbath glasses to him.<BR><BR>Either way, his
attempts to mask his disdain for his questioner by quoting the gamut
of statistics that might address the Sitler situation fell flat.
I'm afraid indifference to the genuine concern expressed by other
Visionaires and disdain for them for expressing it leaked out like a
robust Syrah in cloudy, cracked stemware.<BR><BR>I'll try it the
simple, albeit shrill and insistent, manner Schwaller by now knows me
for:<BR><BR>Can you possibly grasp the anger this community has toward
Sitler and those who dealt with him, and can you understand the
legitimate fears of those concerned that he's out of jail?
<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:18:47 -0700<BR>From:
vpschwaller@gmail.com<BR>To: bherodotus@yahoo.com;
vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] A personal
invitation to Mr. Schwaller<BR><BR>Visionaries and Mr
Herodotus,<BR><BR>Thank you for the invitation to "return" but I
never really left. I was simply a bit busy over the past few
days taking advantage of the weather break to plant the begonias,
nasturtiums, and geraniums.<BR><BR>I'll attempt to answer your
questions, but I do so assuming you are being genuine and not
disingenuous in your query. I mention this only because
another visionary has questioned "the truth about (your) opinions",
that this individual "Doesn't believe I'll do that" (accept the
truth of my opinions), "thank you very much.", then proceeds to
demand the answer to 3 additional questions.<BR><BR>So, on to your
questions. These are important, timely questions that deserve
answers. However, I don't believe I can give you full nor
adequate answers to any of them. I don't know that definitive
answers exist, however one can find just about any answer one wants
to fit one's position. That being said:<BR><BR>"1. Can you
please tell us the recidivism rate for serial pedophiles?"<BR><BR>I
don't believe a thorough statistical study has been done for over 10
years. So keeping that in mind, according to the U.S.
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, within 3 years
of release from incarceration, a little more than 5 percent of sex
offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. If one looks
at ALL crimes committed, about 40 percent of sex offenders were
rearrested for other offenses.<BR><BR>Within this three year period,
3.5 percent of convicted sex offenders were convicted again for a
sex crime, 24 percent convicted for new crimes, and about 40 percent
are imprisoned again because of a parole or probation
violation.<BR><BR>However, if you're Joan Opyr, in an article she
published not quite a year ago, she quotes a 75% recidivism
rate.<BR><BR>The USDJ study also looked at the relationship between
offenders and victims and reported that overall, 46 percent of the
victims were a family member. A 2005 study by the National
Crime Victimization Survey reports that 73 percent of sexual
assaults were known by the victim: 38 percent were a friend or
acquaintance, 28 percent were involved in an "intimate"
relationship, and 7 percent were another relative.
<BR><BR>An NPR story in 2005 offered a 98 percent recidivism rate
over a 25 year period, with a 60 percent likelihood of offending
again within 5 years under the best treatment available., there is a
60% occurrence of re-offence within five years. The story also
mentions that the offender in most sexual abuse cases is a family
member or friend of the family (97 percent for victims under
the age of 6, and 95 percent of those between the ages 6 and
12).<BR><BR>So, somewhere between 5 and 95 percent?<BR><BR>"2. Can
you please share with us the average number of children that repeat
offenders violate before their discovery?"<BR><BR>Again, I have no
concrete statistics. There is apparently some information on
Mr Sitler's repeated violations before he was discovered (I'm sure
Mr Hansen can give you that number off the top of his head).
The numbers seem to run from one to dozens over decades for catholic
priests. And in Portugal, a driver and gardener was accused of
molesting children at the school where he was worked. After
questioning and examining more than 600 children, over 125 were
reported to have been victimized by this individual.<BR><BR>So,
somewhere between 1 and more than 125? <BR><BR>"3, Can you
please describe for us a worst-case scenario for the children of
Moscow (number of victims, age of victims, types of abuse, etc.), if
Mr. Sitler resumes his pattern of serial predation?"<BR><BR>Quite
frankly, I sense an undercurrent of sarcasm in this last question,
but hey . . .<BR><BR>Maybe you can ask me how many polar bears,
perched on their ever-diminishing slab of ice, are going to starve
tonight?<BR><BR>Well, obviously I can't give you the answers you
would like to hear. I doubt even Mr Sitler himself would know,
given the worst possible case, what would be the answers to those
questions. However, if you refer back to the replies to
Question 1, you may find some answers of sorts in there.<BR><BR>I'd
like to think I have the community's, but perhaps not that of
starving polar bear's, interests at
heart.<BR><BR>Schwaller<BR><BR>"You can always see it commin', but
you can never stop it."<BR> --Michael
Timmins<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=EC_EC_EC_gmail_quote>On 5/28/07, <B
class=EC_EC_EC_gmail_sendername>Bob Herodotus</B> <<A
href="mailto:bherodotus@yahoo.com">bherodotus@yahoo.com </A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=EC_EC_EC_gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex">Visionaries and Mr. Schwaller,<BR><BR>I
personally invite Mr. Schwaller to return to this forum because I
for one found his posts both provocative and enlightening. Hard
facts about serial pedophiles are difficult to ascertain and I
commend him for sharing his knowledge of this unseemly subject
with us so that we as a community can be better prepared to
address a predator in our midst.<BR><BR>With this in mind, I have
a couple of questions for Mr. Schwaller.<BR><BR>1. Can you please
tell us the recidivism rate for serial pedophiles?<BR><BR>2. Can
you please share with us the average number of children that
repeat offenders violate before their discovery?<BR><BR>3.
Finally, given your familiarity with Steven Sitler's case file,
can you please describe for us a worst-case scenario for the
children of Moscow (number of victims, age of victims, types of
abuse, etc.), if Mr. Sitler resumes his pattern of serial
predation?<BR><BR>I believe that these are reasonable questions
for a community to ask and I believe that you have our community's
best interests at heart.<BR><BR>Thank
you,<BR><BR>Herodotus<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>____________________________________________________________________________________<BR>Looking
for earth-friendly autos? <BR>Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at
Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.<BR><A
href="http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/"
target=_blank>http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
</A><BR><BR><BR>=======================================================
<BR>List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>
<A href="http://www.fsr.net"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR> mailto:<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">
Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
Change is good. See what's different about Windows Live Hotmail. <A
href="http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507"
target=_blank>Check it out!</A> <BR>
<HR>
<BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
Download Messenger. Start an i’m conversation. Support a cause. <A
href="http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07"
target=_blank>Join Now!</A> </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<HR>
Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows Live
Hotmail. <A
href="www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/managemail2.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_impcont_0507"
target=_new>Try it!</A> </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>