Eugene Evans (of Evans v. Berkeley) arrested for molesting Sea Scouts

[packsaddle]

I think it would be useful to separate the message from the messenger in this case. Merlyn brought this news to us. The fact that HE brought it has no bearing on the actual content of the news. We can discuss the actual events as Beavah tried to do at first, or we can take the opportunity to argue with Merlyn about BSA and whatever merits (or lack thereof) are associated with BSA. But to me, Merlyn is not the issue. The issue is the fact that this sad case exists at all and may have existed for some time.

I agree with Beavah, it is tragic (Beavah, my fantasy involves a dissecting kit).

The nature and motives of BSA's response to these things are legitimate questions. I, for one, would like to know if there is a corporate pattern to BSA's response and if so, why?

But in this particular case, it is sad that this guy was not detected long ago and stopped. No matter what side of other issues we fall on, this kind of thing is bad in every way.

[Beavah]

Yah, OK. Packsaddle pulled things back a bit, so it's worth lookin' for a moment at corporate responsibility.

 

In 20:20 hindsight, yeh look at some of da stuff in Idaho, or some of the stuff done by other groups, and it's hard not to get truly angry . Merlyn, I don't think anybody here is anything less than upset by things that look like avoidance/coverup behavior which allows abuse to continue.

 

But there are reasons why corporations that work with children do not publish their child abuse/molestation cases. Some are bad reasons, some are OK reasons, some are actually good reasons. Mostly, they fall in da category of "the lawyers told them not to."

 

The number one reason is that a lot of cases never make it to criminal verdicts of "guilty." Instead, employment action or dismissal of a volunteer may be taken. But publishing such cases as "molestation" can be libel, eh? When yeh don't have someone "dead to rights" talkin' about 'em as molesters might not be fair or just, eh?

 

Often, settlements include sealing the records. Keep in mind that victims are also interested in seeing records sealed, so the incident doesn't "follow them around" the rest of their life.

 

Publishing accounts tends to encourage litigation. After every public accusation, new accusations emerge. Some of 'em are legitimate. Some of 'em are frauds, takin' advantage of the system. When yeh publish molestation cases, you increase your exposure to other claims and to fraud which can be hard to defend.

 

Some accusations you believe to be genuinely false, but you settle anyways. Do we want good men and women to be fired just based on an accusation? How awful would that be? But da risk after the fact is if it turns out to be true and happens again.

 

For all these reasons and a few more, often legal counsel gives what amounts to good legal advice, but poor business or ethical advice. Weak administrators, folks in over their head, business folk lookin' to just get it over with and get on with things, etc. will tend to just follow the advice of counsel. It's fairly rare that an organizational leader has the personal courage to tell their attorney "no" in such cases, especially if the consequence is compromisin' insurance coverage. Sometimes what's best for the business in the short run turns out not to be a good strategy for the long run. Second-guessing is easy, respondin' properly at the time is hard.

 

What would you do if a victim asks that the record be sealed?

What would you do if the advice of counsel is that publishin' the record may expose you to suit for libel?

What would you do if the counsel for your insurance company insists that the records be sealed so as to discourage fraudulent "pile on" cases? Would you say "no" and face those cases without insurance?

Molesters and the falsely accused often look at lot alike. Are yeh willin' to let accusation = guilty for your volunteers and employees?

 

Da real world is sometimes complimicated, and makin' good ethical decisions is hard. We should all be a bit careful about judgin' too harshly.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[eolesen]

Records are sealed for the protection of those who had to give testimony over what happened to them.

 

And rightfully so. Victims deserve privacy.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And the sex-abuse panel would know that. And redacted data with names removed would still be useful.

 

In the particular case of the grand teton council, the victims didn't seal the court records, BSA lawyers did.

[BadenP]

I feel that the Catholic Church, the BSA, and many school districts have done a deplorable job in seeing that these perv's are brought to justice, hiding evidence from authorities to protect themselves as well as the guilty, such as Cardinal Law did in Boston and why he flew off to Rome to spend the rest of his days hiding in disgrace. How many of you know that the Boston DA has issued a arrest warrant for conspiracy to serve Law if he ever sets foot in the USA again.

 

The Grand Teton case Merlyn speaks of is a particularly damning case not only for the BSA but the Mormon Church who were co-conspirators in these criminal acts. These are just two of countless cases where the BSA and the CAtholic Church preach one thing but practice another, and both of these agencies need to be held accountable for destroying evidence and allowing these perv's continue their vile crimes on these kids. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?

 

Maybe its time to make an example by sending some of these top people to prison, a few scout executives, National officials, Bishops and Cardinals will send a veryclear message that these agencies straighten up their acts or all parties will be fully prosecuted, not just the ones committing the acts. Bring back the public stocks and let the public decide their fates. Both the BSA and the Catholic Church, and other organizations need to be made more accountable if thiese types of cases are ever to end.

[Beavah]

Yah, since this was about the eleventy-first time Merlyn brought up da Grand Teton Council case, I went and read through the Idaho paper's "expose" and talked to a few friends in eastern Idaho.

 

Like any time kids are hurt, the case is sad. Like many of da Rocky Mountain BSA incidents, some of this gets caught up in LDS Relationships issues. But while there were some dropped balls and some coulda-mighta-shoulda's, I'm really not seein' any of da nastiness Merlyn is claimin'.

 

The case involves a lad, himself a victim of (non-Scout-related) abuse at age 12, who at age of 15 or 16 molested (probably fondling, not rape) a 6-year old neighbor. No charges were filed in that case, but the boy was sent for 6 months of therapy, with a resulting belief by the therapists that it was a one-time incident.

 

The BSA hired the 16 year old as a youth staffer for camp, not knowin' the history (and of course no background check would have revealed it anyway). He molested his first scout (youth-on-youth) that summer. The BSA had no reports, and continued to rehire him in successive summers. By all accounts he was perceived as a neat, clean, "good kid."

 

Around about the time the boy was 18 or 19, the BSA was informed by someone about the incident with the 6-year-old which had occurred several years before. That was a third-hand, hearsay report (the man heard from his LDS bishop who had heard from someone else), about an incident outside of scouting with no record from when the guy was a minor. Around this time, the young man was also no longer in the BSA, being away at college and on LDS mission.

 

Four years later, done with his mission and with college, the young man was sought out by the camp program director (probably also a young guy) to serve as aquatics director. The program director was told by a teacher at the local elementary school about the incident with the 6-year-old back when the guy was 16 (again, a third-hand, hearsay report with no documentation). The program director did inquire about a police report, but felt that with no documentation of the supposed incident he had to hire the guy. The camp director had heard the same rumors, but also agreed. During the summer, LDS central contacted the BSA and also passed along the (now 5th-hand) information about the old incident from when the guy was 16. The SE checked it out, got stellar endorsements from the local LDS folks, the young man admitted to the prior incident as a teen but said he had been treated for it, and didn't do that anymore.

 

The man worked two more summers, moving up to program director at the camp. There were no further reports, but his abuse of kids (mostly fondling and masturbation) continued and got more brazen. Some inappropriate "back rubs" or minor incidents of violating two-deep were noted. Persistent and brave reports by a young 14-year-old camper spurred the camp director to call law enforcement around the middle of that 3rd summer.

 

-------

 

So what did the BSA know? They had a well-liked former Eagle Scout, whom parents approved of, who was an effective and enthusiastic camp staffer. The guy was a regular dinner guest and family friend of the boys who eventually blew the whistle on him! Against that, the BSA had a few third-hand reports, all of them about an incident that had occurred when the guy was a HS sophomore, with no police report or documentation. When they looked into it, they had testimony from everyone that it was a one-time "incident" he had received treatment for and "was over."

 

I dunno. Do we toss a "great guy" based on rumors of what he did as a sophomore?

 

No question, the BSA could have done more by way of pro-active supervision in light of the reports about the prior incident. But we all know what camp is like, eh? Long hours, and not long on staffing. And unlike some YP programs, YPT ain't great at teachin' folks to recognize "grooming" behaviors.

 

I see no evidence in the reporting to suggest, as Merlyn claims, that the remaining victims have requested the records be unsealed. Quite the opposite, from here it looks like da BSA is trying to protect those victims from an intrusive press. The whistleblower victim suffered mightily for being a whistleblower, droppin' out of high school because of the teasing. Why should anyone else be made to go through that to feed a voyeuristic media?

 

Da case is a sad one, about one of our own scouts, our Eagles, doin' the unthinkable. And it's a brave one, of a young scout whistleblower. It might even be a story about redemption, of a perpetrator who has since put his life back together and (apparently) stayed clean.

 

But while sad, with parts that make any of us truly angry, I just don't see anything that merits a general indictment of da organization. Just seems unconscionably cheap to use such tragedies to advance a personal agenda.

 

Beavah

 

[captainron14]

Great Post Beavah!

Thank you for bringing the "details" out into the open.

It's nice to see a non-sensational version of what happened.

Something a "regular" scouter can understand and relate too.

All to often, things like this are used to trash organizations like BSA.

Are there problems? yes. Should we burn the ship to the waterline to get rid of some rats? No.

That seems the agenda of many who disagree with BSA policies.

Do it my way, or else.

I feel we shoud just trap em and get "rid" of them.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

I see no evidence in the reporting to suggest, as Merlyn claims, that the remaining victims have requested the records be unsealed.

 

I didn't SAY that. I said the records were sealed by the BSA's lawyers.

 

Some of the remaining victims are suing the BSA and the grand teton council. Doesn't sound like they agree with how the BSA handled things.

[OldGreyEagle]

Wait a second there, Merlyn, are you saying Beavah's assesment is accurate, other than the part about the records being sealed by the BSA lawyers?

[evmori]

Thanks for that great post Beav! Excellent work on a sad situation!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE writes:

Wait a second there, Merlyn, are you saying Beavah's assesment is accurate, other than the part about the records being sealed by the BSA lawyers?

 

No, I hardly skimmed Beavah's whitewash. But I did notice where he misrepresented what I wrote. Since he can't even get correct what's plainly written in this thread, I wouldn't bank on what he writes about the grand teton situation, where he doesn't even have firsthand knowledge or access to court records.

 

Here's the Post Register series on it, where they actually talked to people with firsthand knowledge, and had access to court records:

http://www.postregister.com/scouts_honor/index.php

 

[Beavah]

I didn't SAY that. I said the records were sealed by the BSA's lawyers.

 

Now we should be clear about a few things here, eh?

 

Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge. A judge sealed the records after the settlement of the original cases, in all likelihood to protect all parties especially the victims.

 

What the newspaper states quite clearly is that the newspaper is requesting that the records be unsealed. The BSA's lawyers are opposing that motion on the grounds that doing so harms the victims. Sometimes it's hard for yeh folks in big cities to understand, but in da rural west it would be an ordinary and just thing for the BSA to do on behalf of families that couldn't afford to hire an attorney to oppose the newspaper.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

where he doesn't even have firsthand knowledge or access to court records

 

Yah, well, that makes two of us then, eh?

 

My sources were the Post Register series primarily, and a couple of legal pro friends who live in eastern Idaho. But yeh can get everything I wrote just by a careful and informed read of the Post Register articles and experience in workin' with Boy Scout camps.

 

I think Merlyn and the Post Register both suffer a bit from a desire to sensationalize, and from a lack of understandin' of Scouting. For example, if yeh think a camp program director is an older, trained professional with a lot of experience, then it sure looks like he should have done more work on the background check. But if yeh recognize that in BSA camps, a program director is typically a young guy in or just out of college, working a temporary summer job at long hours and low pay, your view is different. In the latter case, it's understandable after you discover there's no police record to go with the great recommendations on the guy from people you know and trust, rather than diggin' further. How many NCS trained aquatics directors do yeh suppose are sittin' around eastern Idaho to choose from, eh?

 

It also helps to have some experience with how reporters who are lookin' to move up in the world tend to write .

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

No slant to that article Merlyn!

 

I love unbiased news!

[MarkS]

Merlyn must know something that's not been reported because I don't see where the stakeholders and decision makers had the right information at the right time to to avoid hiring the guy in the first place (for any of the times they hired the guy). All that's there is some "Blackfoot man" and his wife spreading rumors and innuendo (albiet, rummors and innuendo that turned out to be true) to the wrong people. If you follow the the timeline and who was notified and when, you'll see it was not timely and not the decision makers who hired the guy. The final straw is when the information finally gets to the right person, he follows up, and the originator of the rumors and innuendo says it's no longer a problem.

 

It's right there on page three of the Post Register web site under the heading Multiple Warnings (which given the timeline of events and those involved is really a misleading title). No one received multiple warnings and those that needed to know, received none.