SIL marrying a pedophile RESOLUTION Post 209 - Page 8

[APToddlerMama]

Originally Posted by MusicianDad 

Since I was just trying to point out that false convictions actually happen... And more than just once in a life time, and not trying to convince people we should let convicted sex offenders roam the streets as some people are trying to argue I am saying. I am out.

I made my point.

Believe if you want to.

A broken system won't fix itself. Work on getting the right people in jail, instead of the wrong people.

I do not advise you do expose your children to a convicted sex offender.

It isn't an appropriate place to make that point. 
 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

You strongly imply it by hijacking a thread about protecting kids from a sex predator to bring up the fact that sometimes people are wrongly convicted of crimes.

It was hijacked long before I got here. I made one statement, to clear up semantics on the first page and someone else decided to jump in and start claiming "what if he's innocent". So go back and read the actual thread instead of throwing out gross accusations to people who do not deserve it. Save yourself some face before you start really start looking like you only care to use this thread to vent your own person dislike of another poster.
 

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

It isn't an appropriate place to make that point. 
 

Not a valid reason to make gross, inaccurate claims about someone.

[APToddlerMama]

MD--I read through... I don't think I'm making any wild claims.  I am done with this thread.  Regardless, I am glad you conclude child shouldn't be left with sex predator.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by APToddlerMama 

MD--I read through... I don't think I'm making any wild claims.  I am done with this thread.  Regardless, I am glad you conclude child shouldn't be left with sex predator.

You are claiming I said something I didn't say and would never, ever say.

[DBZ]

I've known 2 sex offenders over the years. They both claimed to be innocent. The one was convicted of trading pictures of kids online. He said he was doing it to research why pedophiles do what they do. He did this 'research" every place that he had internet access (school library, his grandmothers house, etc.). The first time he got caught he got a slap on the wrist. He did it again and is now in prison.

Then this other guy was convicted of molesting an 8 year old boy. At first he said he only took a shower with the kid. He blamed the girlfriend. When he was on probation for that he got caught going on the internet so he went to prison for violating probation. 

The trend with these men is that they all say they didn't do it. The man is grooming your sister and her kids. I would call the police, social services, and the parole department. 

[kama'aina mama]

MusicianDad, your very first post in this thread was a hair-splitting comment about whether registering as a sex offender and then moving to a different address in a different town, into a house with children, constituted "not being registered"... and your judgement was that he WAS registered in that situation.  From the word go, your opinions in this thread have seemed apologist for this guy, who is a convicted child molester, and who (it seems) is failing to meet the legal requirements of his situation.

[MusicianDad]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama 

MusicianDad, your very first post in this thread was a hair-splitting comment about whether registering as a sex offender and then moving to a different address in a different town, into a house with children, constituted "not being registered"... and your judgement was that he WAS registered in that situation.  From the word go, your opinions in this thread have seemed apologist for this guy, who is a convicted child molester, and who (it seems) is failing to meet the legal requirements of his situation.

How the hell is differentiating between unregistered and not updating your address being an apologist? It is a statement of fact that they aren't the same. If you check it out, the person I was speaking to admitted that she mis-typed. "Registered at a different address" and "Unregistered" are two different legal requirements that are being unmet.

I now think that you are simply grasping at straws to try and villainize me and turn me into some sort of pro-pedo freak. And before you say it.... I have done nothing to do that myself. It is all you and your assumptions and the fact you obviously have a huge problem with me even being here at all.

[ramama]

Originally Posted by scottishmommy 

Originally Posted by VisionaryMom 

Yes, that bears repeating. An aggravated sexual assault means that there was injury or permanent damage done. This wasn't fondling or even what I'd consider molesting (not that those aren't damaging). This was actual harm being done to a child. This man was CONVICTED of causing injury to a child in the commission of a sex offense.
 

I could be totally wrong, but I thought that sexual assault against a child under 14 is automatically considered aggravated sexual assault. Whereas in the case of an adult victim it implies physical maimings, kidnapping etc.

It varies by state, but generally it is considered aggravated if there is sexual penetration of a child under 13 or 14.  We're not talking about a case where there is no mark left on the child, a he-said she-said case ripe for false accusations.  We're talking about physical evidence on the child.  Alhtough I don't know, there is a high probability of DNA evidence in cases like these.  Aggravated sexual assault is much easier to prove for these reasons.  This man is dangerous.  The fact that he kept his convicition secret from his future wife is a huge red flag.  My oldest DD is seven and this whole situation makes me want to vomit.  Again, we're not talking about a case of fondling or inappropriate exposure (I'm not arguing that those crimes aren't damaging, just that they're considerably harder to prove) we're talking about either physical injury and/or penetration of an 8 year old.  There is no way, no how, that I would tolerate this man being around any children, whether my own, those related to me, or children I don't even know.  

[Cyllya]

MusicianDad, your very first post in this thread was a hair-splitting comment about whether registering as a sex offender and then moving to a different address in a different town, into a house with children, constituted "not being registered"... and your judgement was that he WAS registered in that situation.  From the word go, your opinions in this thread have seemed apologist for this guy, who is a convicted child molester, and who (it seems) is failing to meet the legal requirements of his situation.

Um, what?

Personally, when I saw Lucy Alden refer to him as an "unregistered sex offender," my first impression was that she misread that part of the OP's post, which is a common message board mistake. I don't know how correcting something like that constitutes "seeming apologist" for the convict. (Indeed, Lucy Alden agreed with the correction.) Especially since it could end up being relevant to the OP's situation. (If she calls the police and says there's an unregistered sex offender living there, but the police find out he is registered, would that make them stop investigating the situation?)

Some people in this topic are criticizing others for giving the convict "the benefit of the doubt" or "defending" him. But no one suggested giving him the benefit of the doubt, and no one said anything to defend him. The closest anyone ever came to that was one person suggesting that the OP talk to the SIL and the convict for more information before deciding on a course of action, and even that person said they'd keep their kids the hell away from this convict. And while I disagree with that person's advice, I think comments like "Wow, just wow" and calling her suggestion "sickening" are totally uncalled for!

After people started complaining about others posting about the possibility of false convictions, a one or two other people popped up to defend their own falsely convicted acquaintances, but still, no one has said anything to defend to convict the OP is talking about. So people need to stop accusing other people of doing so.

I am certain I never said that no one was ever falsely accused or falsely convicted...

No, but you did say this:

I am shocked and saddened that a number of people are convinced that men are convicted of abusing children on little or no evidence "all the time."  I think that if you had ever had any actual experience with the criminal justice system, around this issue in particular, you would not believe that.  It is very difficult to get a conviction in cases of this nature.  This contention that "bitter ex-wives" are throwing men in prison in droves, just on their word, is offensive and dangerous.

...even though no one in this topic ever said they think "that men are convicted of abusing children on little or no evidence 'all the time.'" Since no one said literally what you're complaining about them saying, it sounds like you're referring to what they are saying ("it happens sometimes") and just exaggerating for effect, and either way, you are disagreeing with them.

Basically, you and MusicianDad agree on what he's actually saying (a small number of people are falsely convicted of sex crimes), but you're reading a bunch of weird extra stuff into hid posts so that you can argue with him about that stuff.

[Honey693]

in some states isn't living with a registered sex offender with your own kids in tow enough to get a child abuse charge slapped on  you?  I think that came up in my mandated reporter training, but that was a few years ago.  So isn't the OPs sIL in danger of being reported for child abuse unless she kicks this guy out?

[MittensKittens]

Originally Posted by Cyllya 

Some people in this topic are criticizing others for giving the convict "the benefit of the doubt" or "defending" him. But no one suggested giving him the benefit of the doubt, and no one said anything to defend him. The closest anyone ever came to that was one person suggesting that the OP talk to the SIL and the convict for more information before deciding on a course of action, and even that person said they'd keep their kids the hell away from this convict. And while I disagree with that person's advice, I think comments like "Wow, just wow" and calling her suggestion "sickening" are totally uncalled for!

I agree that many posters have "jumped" on MuscianDad and twisted his words; something that I've seen more often on MDC. Perhaps it's his discussion style, perhaps something else. MD, you're probably right about false convictions in general (sex cases are probably different, because of a lack of witnesses. Being in jail for something you didn't do is probably just as damaging as being a rape victim, especially if you're also raped in prison (happens a lot, I think - no evidence to back this up though). And I say this as a sexual abuse survivor. I do want to say it is very, very, very unlikely that someone would be accused of raping a child on a regular basis when in fact SOMEONE ELSE did it. We're not talking about being raped on the street by a stranger. Perps are known in cases of regular abuse!

Cyllya, I think not calling the police and alerting CPS in this case IS giving the convict the benefit of the doubt. It places the children in danger. On the off chance that this person is innocent, he still should not be making judgments like this.

The monster who raped me daily for four years starting when I was 11 had an outstanding warrant in his country of origin. He told my mom it was about a 17 year old, who was nearly 18, and that it was "therefore" a bogus accusation. Definitely, this story should have been something to add to the LONG list of warning signs. This person was giving the benefit of the doubt for far too long. Did not I deserve the benefit of the doubt as well? Didn't I deserve anything when I SAID I was raped? Should people not have recognized all those very obvious signs? (Or did they, but they decided not to act?)

[GoBecGo]

I'm only echoing really but i'd call the police department, the parole officer, CPS and the step-dad re: this man.  I would probably also give the schools and neighbours a heads-up (mainly because moving and not reporting his move indicates an attempt to subvert his conditions, and hey, if he DID report his address change and the website wasn't updated yet then the school, police and parole officer already know and no harm done anyway).

I would strongly consider, if you have access to the nephews, telling them what this guy was convicted of.  It will give them a better means of protecting themselves uf they are on guard for inappropriate approaches from this man, and a powerful weapon of defence for them to be able to say "you want to go back to jail for this?  Because i know what you did and i WILL tell if you try it with me."

I would tell any of my own kids who are old enough to understand too.  Knowledge is power.

OP *hugs* this is so stressful for you.  Thank you for being brave and calling on it.  It is HARD to be "rude" and point the finger on this.  

When i was a kid we knew this man, he was so sweet, really wonderful with kids.  He was the headmaster of our primary school, our babysitter, an engaged and loving man.  He was also a child rapist who raped, assaulted and molested my brother for 4 years.  My brother, in turn, molested me.  Our family is broken.  The abuse (of me) stopped before my brother was 16 so even though i did give a statement to the police when my brother was seeking a conviction against HIS abuser (because the things he was doing to me when he was 9, 10, 11, corroborate the story of his abuse) i know pressing against him will turn a broken man into a monster, and he's living in his own personal hell as it is.  But then he has never met, and will not meet before they are adults, my kids.  

The most damaging sentence ever spoken to me was from my mother's mouth.  We told her what this man had done, and what my brother had done, and she said "you know, we always wondered about him".  She wondered.  She left us with him, sometimes overnight.  She allowed him into our home, she allowed him full access to us, she let him name our pet dog.  She wondered but she did nothing because what an incredible social faux pas to make, to accuse someone of something like that.  Every time i have a flashback, every time i've used lube because my mind-body connection was broken where arousal was concerned, every time i look at my beautiful children and imagine what happened to me happening to them and feel sick i wish she'd done something and not just "wondered".

[kerryamen11]

I am realy shocked that so many people here think that so, so many men are convicted of sex offenses on little or no evidence all the time. I dont think any1 who has personal experience with the justice system will belive that. Its most oft the time very difficult to get convictions. And once they are concicted, it doesnt mean they will "automatically" stop molesting children. Even if they are "put" into a sex offender database, they could still move and live in your town tomorrow.

[Bellabaz]

Just curious, OP, if you could update us on the situation?

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by Cyllya 

Um, what?

Personally, when I saw Lucy Alden refer to him as an "unregistered sex offender," my first impression was that she misread that part of the OP's post, which is a common message board mistake. I don't know how correcting something like that constitutes "seeming apologist" for the convict. (Indeed, Lucy Alden agreed with the correction.) Especially since it could end up being relevant to the OP's situation. (If she calls the police and says there's an unregistered sex offender living there, but the police find out he is registered, would that make them stop investigating the situation?)

Some people in this topic are criticizing others for giving the convict "the benefit of the doubt" or "defending" him. But no one suggested giving him the benefit of the doubt, and no one said anything to defend him. The closest anyone ever came to that was one person suggesting that the OP talk to the SIL and the convict for more information before deciding on a course of action, and even that person said they'd keep their kids the hell away from this convict. And while I disagree with that person's advice, I think comments like "Wow, just wow" and calling her suggestion "sickening" are totally uncalled for!

After people started complaining about others posting about the possibility of false convictions, a one or two other people popped up to defend their own falsely convicted acquaintances, but still, no one has said anything to defend to convict the OP is talking about. So people need to stop accusing other people of doing so.

No, but you did say this:

...even though no one in this topic ever said they think "that men are convicted of abusing children on little or no evidence 'all the time.'" Since no one said literally what you're complaining about them saying, it sounds like you're referring to what they are saying ("it happens sometimes") and just exaggerating for effect, and either way, you are disagreeing with them.

Basically, you and MusicianDad agree on what he's actually saying (a small number of people are falsely convicted of sex crimes), but you're reading a bunch of weird extra stuff into hid posts so that you can argue with him about that stuff.

Someone did say that and another poster agreed with her.  I copy and pasted the phrase "all the time" from her post, which has been removed.  I'd be happy to PM you the full text of it, though.  As it happens I sometimes type drafts in a different window so I can use a spell checker and that one is still available to me. 

[kama'aina mama]

weird double post

[sosurreal09]

I think out of respect for OP and her situation we should leave all debates about anything out of this...

[pianojazzgirl]

I don't get why there should be any question here....

Regardless of what speculations could be made, the fact is that if you know someone was convicted of pedophilia and all evidence seems to support an assumption that he's breaking the conditions of his parole (ie. as far as we know hasn't registered his new address, and we know for sure that he is living with children), then it is purely and simply time to involve the authorities.  I suppose there is a slim chance that he *is* allowed to live with children, and that he *has* updated his address (but it hasn't been changed on the website), and if that is the case then the matter will be looked into and dropped.  But there is absolutely NO reason not to call the authorities just because of that slim possibility!  I agree that some men have been wrongly convicted in the past, but honestly I don't see how that pertains to the situation at hand IN THE LEAST.  Interesting topic of discussion for another thread?  Possibly...  But let's not muddy the waters here.  The OP knows that a convicted pedophile has moved in to a household with minor children.  She needs to MAKE SURE that the police, his parole officer, whoever needs to get involved is aware of this so they can act accordingly.

[Ldavis24]

At this point I am just hoping OP can update us with something resembling good news, whatever that may be. I feel like this thread has taken a turn for crazy town where a couple people like to argue over semantics.

OP, I would echo what others have said, call the non emergency hotline for the police, short of "finding out" any info at least alert them to the situation. Point out the possibility that he is probably breaking his parole in more than one way (and I would be very strong on this point because frankly *flame away* I wouldn't feel a bit guilty about sending the guy back to prison on a parole violation) and alert CPS and the father of those boys as well. You have gotten some really good advice here despite the pointless turn this thread has taken.

I guess I don't care that there are people who are wrongly convicted of sexual abuse crimes, those numbers are still fewer than the ones who ARE guilty. Until the day when it turns around and the number of people wrongly convicted is greater than the number of those rightly convicted, in the cases of sexual abuse I will assume that justice has been done correctly. I don't have a choice at this point, gotta protect me and mine. It may not be "fair" but as the saying goes, "thats life".