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

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

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.

 

Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers.

 

A judge sealed the records after the settlement of the original cases, in all likelihood to protect all parties especially the victims.

 

In all likelihood of protecting the BSA's reputation.

 

I think Merlyn and the Post Register both suffer a bit from a desire to sensationalize, and from a lack of understandin' of Scouting.

 

That doesn't explain the lawsuits pending against the grand teton council and the BSA.

[Beavah]

Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge....Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers.

 

That's not in evidence, eh? In fact, that would be part of the sealed records, so you're really just blowin' smoke. Sealing records generally happens only with the consent of both parties. So sure, it is a benefit to the BSA not to have the record splashed all over the media, in the same way it is a benefit to the victim not to have the record splashed all over the media. They both agreed.

 

Yeh must be careful, in your interest in castigatin' the BSA, to also respect the rights and privacy of the victims.

 

That doesn't explain the lawsuits pending against the grand teton council and the BSA.

 

I didn't see anything in the articles about additional suits, though the newspaper articles sure did their best to encourage additional suits.

 

What explains lawsuits in general is that something horrible happened to kids in our care, for which some compensation is merited. That's what lawsuits are for. Not one is goin' to trial, yeh won't see da BSA fightin' this unless the victims are asking for a Lotto Win, which isn't likely. They will all be settled.

 

To me, that's bein' responsible.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Da BSA's lawyers can't seal anything. That requires the order of a judge....Yes, at the request of the BSA's lawyers.

 

That's not in evidence, eh? In fact, that would be part of the sealed records, so you're really just blowin' smoke.

 

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/06-2NRsummer/p95-0602-miller.html

...

First came the tip: A pedophile caught at a local scout camp in 1997 had not had two victims, as we reported at the time; he had dozens. When we went to the courthouse to look for the civil suit filed by these victims, the clerks (and the computers) said there was no such case. We later learned that the national Boy Scouts of America and its local Grand Teton Council had hired two of Idaho's best-connected law firms to seal the files and hide what came to be known as the Brad Stowell case.

 

The Post Register went to court in late 2004, and by January 2005 we'd dragged the case file into the light of day and read it from beginning to end. Turns out that as early as 1991 scout leaders had been warned about Stowell; they hired him again anyway. Top-level local and national leaders of the Mormon Church, which sponsors almost all Grand Teton Council scout troops, had also been warned, but to no effect. From these files we learned that while under investigation Stowell confessed his problem to his bishop in 1988 and had been sent to church counselors for sex abuser treatment. Seven years later, this bishop told scout executives he knew of no reason Stowell should not be a scout camp leader. The files also showed lawyers for the Boy Scout organization knew about more victims, but never told those boys' parents. The victims were probably asleep at the time, one lawyer said, and even if not, it was a bad memory best ignored.

...

[Beavah]

Yes, not in evidence. The rant of an editorial (by an agitated editor who feels himself "under attack" no less) is not evidence. Though I did note they achieved their objective, and sold more newspapers!

 

But the editorial you refer to does allow me to bring up another very important point, one that is often missed in these discussions and one that we should all be aware of.

 

Statutes of Limitations.

 

I find it utterly tragic that Idaho followed da trend of several states in abolishing da statute of limitations on abuse. Dat's roughly the equivalent of abolishing the right to a trial by jury when someone is accused of certain heinous crimes. It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn. Of course, I'm surprised yeh support firin' a guy based on rumor and innuendo with no documentation, too.

 

Da thing is, for any of us who are involved with kids for any length of time, defending ourselves against an accusation is almost impossible without a reasonable statute of limitations. Imagine bein' a 64-year-old scouter like Mr. Evans, nearin' retirement, and having first one lad and then a bunch of copycats accuse yeh of molesting them 40 years before, back when you were 24. And it doesn't have to be you, eh? You might be the Camp Director who didn't notice that an aquatics director was abusin' kids.

 

Do yeh have your calendar from 40 years ago? Do yeh even remember who was on staff who you could call as a witness? Are they even still alive? If they are, where are they? We're a pretty mobile society, eh? And of course, you're probably not goin' to be covered by that insurance policy from 40 years ago, and maybe not by your current policy either if it excludes acts prior to when the policy went into force.

 

In short, it becomes impossible to mount a reasonable defense.

 

Same applies to parents, eh? How do yeh defend yourself against an accusation from 60 years before? Great way for kids to "change" their parents' will, eh?

 

I urge everyone to oppose changes in the statutes of limitations, especially for this type of crime where "credible accusation" often carries the day.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry Beav, but back when I was abused I didnt know what, how, where to report the fact I was abused. I was so happy when he went on to my brother I didnt even tell him or anyone else about it.

 

So we are going to limit the time it takes to find out someone is destroying lives? Look at me, years of guilt because if what he did to me, trying to ignore it and trying to pretend it didnt happen and all the time knowing it did and wondering if I was gay myself and wanting desparately to be normal again, not having been abused, ok raped, is that better? And because I couldnt find my voice until way into adulthood I would have to stand aside and know that guy is molesting other kids? And you think that is right? Walk in the victims shoes a few miles before you start letting the perps off. This stuff happens and the effects are devastating, there is no time limit to what he did, why should there be one on reporting what he did

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Yes, not in evidence. The rant of an editorial (by an agitated editor who feels himself "under attack" no less) is not evidence.

 

Oh, but you making up stuff is?

 

Beavah lies:

It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn.

 

Hey, liar, where have I said ANYTHING about the statute of limitations?

 

Your statement that I "support" changing or eliminating the statute of limitations is a lie, because I haven't even commented on it.

 

By the way, your statute of limitations red herring doesn't matter; these are recent allegations:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_7649274

...

Evans is accused of having sexual relations with four boys, ages 13 to 17, aboard the S.S.S. Farallon, the 85-foot ship used for the Sea Scouts program, over the last five years, said Berkeley Police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss.

...

They seized a computer containing child pornography from his home, Kusmiss said. Police believe Evans showed the pornography to his victims during the molestations, which occurred aboard the Farallon ship or after Sea Scouts gatherings, Kusmiss added.

...

[the police ARE looking for older crimes, too]:

Kusmiss said investigators believe the four boys who came forward are not the only victims.

 

"We are quite confident there are (more victims)," she said. "Based on our knowledge and experience of sex offenders and the culture of pedophilia, it is unlikely that his activity is confined to recent years."

...

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[MarkS]

That Nieman Report article by Dean Miller doesn't even accurately report what was stated in the Post Register. It over simplifies the details leaving out the important timeline of events. The statement, "Turns out that as early as 1991 scout leaders had been warned about Stowell; they hired him again anyway." is very misleading bordering on a lie.

 

No one doing the hiring was notified. National was notified by a "Blackfoot man" who heard something from a paster about a juvenile three years prior. Furthermore, given that the junvenile was now an adult and had no record, there's nothing they could have done with the information. Complaints were made to the church that the council was hiring Stowell but as far as the church was concerned, Stowell successfully completed their counseling program.

 

The Post Register's assertion that Stowall was a "known child molester" is a false statement. How the Register came up with that conclusion given that their own story indicates the local council wasn't informed until 1995, that the council checked Stowall's background through the church, and the church indicated that it wasn't an issue (all apparently before summer camp started) defies logic. The right people didn't know and had no means of finding out.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, thanks for acknowledging that in fact both victims and BSA agreed to seal the files, and that keepin' the files sealed from the press is a way of protecting victim privacy. And for tacitly acknowledgin' da points MarkS and I make about the Grand Teton case.

 

As for Statutes of Limitations, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, eh? Probably should have spun that off.

 

I was makin' a general argument about statutes of limitations, without direct reference to either case. Substitute "Mr. Poopyface" for Mr. Evans. Yeh already had my real feelings about Mr. Evans from earlier in the thread. Shotgun, remember?

 

But I believe eliminating statutes of limitations in these cases is da wrong thing to do. It amounts to limiting our civil rights if we are accused of certain types of acts. What do you think, Merlyn?

 

OGE, I can sympathize, and you're right in sayin' that most kids don't report. But our system deliberately errs on the side of liberty and a presumption of innocence, for good reason. False accusations happen too, eh? All da time. Memories fade and change and are re-interpreted. The accused is entitled to a real defense, and that just is impossible if too much time has passed.

 

Cultural norms change too, eh? It wasn't that long ago that pullin' down a kid's pants and paddling him was an OK thing. Now it would be presumptive abuse. That's another good reason for statutes of limitations on civil cases in particular - da norms of society change with time, too, and holdin' someone from 40 years ago accountable to todays norms just ain't fair. That's been true of some of da Catholic priest cases, for example.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Yah, Merlyn, thanks for acknowledging that in fact both victims and BSA agreed to seal the files, and that keepin' the files sealed from the press is a way of protecting victim privacy.

 

I didn't acknowledge that. But you're just lying again.

 

As for Statutes of Limitations, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, eh? Probably should have spun that off.

 

I was makin' a general argument about statutes of limitations, without direct reference to either case.

 

So what? You also stated "It's a gross attack on civil liberty, and I'm astonished yeh would support such a thing, Merlyn." which was just a lie.

 

What do you think, Merlyn?

 

I think it's pointless to try and argue with you, since you deliberately misrepresent my views.

[OldGreyEagle]

As far as I can tell raping a seventh grader was as wrong in the lates 60's as it is today. I would write more but I am far to emotionally invested in this to discuss this logically and in a civil manner.

[FScouter]

The passage of time hurts the accuser's case more than the accused. In a trial, the burden is completely on the accuser to prove his case. The accused doesn't have to do anything except sit and listen. If he did nothing, there will be no evidence. If he did commit predatory sex abuse on a child, tough luck if he has a hard time fabricating a "defense". The passage of time doesn't lessen the evil committed. I'm afraid you won't get much support if you're trying to get victims of childhood rape to just forget about it and let bygones be bygones.

 

 

[Beavah]

I didn't acknowledge that. But you're just lying again.

 

Not lyin'. Just bein' sarcastic. Though I would truly be astonished if yeh supported such a thing. That was the truth.

 

The pattern is usually

 

Merlyn: claim.

Someone else: explain why claim is wrong.

Merlyn: ignore the information presented, but find one sentence to object to and get huffy.

 

OGE, words can't describe my sympathy. And a Scout Salute to yeh for recognizin' how the issue affects yeh emotionally. As yeh say, emotion makes logic and civility hard, and is a bad way to legislate.

 

FScouter, remember we're talkin' civil cases here, not just criminal. Preponderance of the evidence, not reasonable doubt. Molestation and fondling and such, not just rape. And there just isn't any physical evidence usually.

 

It all turns on da testimony of the accuser. The only reasonable defense against that is to catch the accuser in a falsehood, and that usually requires access to records and other witnesses which become less and less available with time.

 

I don't want the victims of child abuse to forget about it or let bygones be bygones. I pray that some day they experience healing. The rest is between their religion and their God in terms of forgiveness of those who hurt them so terribly.

 

But I also don't think da law should be set by those who are hurting. Like as not, that leads to usin' the law for vengeance, not justice. Same on the other side, the law should not be set by those who are hurting from being falsely accused or imprisoned.

 

Peace.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[acco40]

Let's keep our cool everyone.

 

One of my first times volunteering at a Cub Scout day camp I was "teamed" with another adult leader. He had been a Boy Scout leader at one time (Scoutmaster?). He told me that once on a campout the older boys (16+) asked to drive out of camp to get a pizza. He said no. According to him, the next day charges of sexual abuse followed. I didn't get into details (he seemed very bitter). I know from my own experience, at a Boy Scout Camporee, one the Scouts in our troop was acting up (cutting across other troops campsites without permission). I (as SM) told him that was not showing good etiquette. Two minutes later he was doing it again and one of my SAs calmly put his hand on the boys shoulder and gave him "the look." Almost as a reflexive answer the boy repeatedly said "child abuse, child abuse" (or possibly sex abuse, sex abuse, I don't recall). I was standing right there, didn't think much of it and told the Scout to knock it off. He did and went on his merry way. Well, to make a long story short, many adults were up in arms about the incident and it came down to losing half of the adult leaders or the Scout in question. I met with the CC and we decided that to return to Scout activities the Scout in question needed to have a sit down discussion with the CC. He choose not to.

 

My point is that we have many superbly manipulative boys and adults out there. The adults, unfortunately, who want to take "advantage" of some of the Scouts are sophisticated. There are many reasons for the courts, victums, accusers, accused and parent organizations to act the way they do - money, ethics, legal advice, privacy, etc. Let's don't try to make assumptions on their actions based on partial evidence.

 

For myself, as leaders we need to educate our youth about how to handle such situations so that they can be minimized or dream of dreams, eliminated. As a leader, I make sure I don't put myself in a position to be accused of wrong doing. Our society (America) still has some very weird thoughts wrt sex and sexuality. I have a 13 year old daughter. I remember a few years ago, she must have only been ten, and I went out jogging about the neighborhood. She used to go along with me riding her bicycle (and carrying a water bottle for me!). On one run, she was about 100 yards ahead of me and a car drove by with a bunch of teenage boys. When they passed her they all whooped, hollared and whistled at her while hanging out of the windows. She stopped at a corner and when I caught up to her, she innocently asked me who those boys were. Since she didn't know them she thought they must know me! Why on Earth would they make such a fuss is they didn't know her? I didn't have the heart to tell her what the incident was all about.

 

Merlyn, please don't incite - I don't think they can do that with the namesake of one of their major lawsuits. Everyone, how about a "I think you misunderstood me" and not "you're lying" type comments? Don't forget Cheerful, Kind, Friendly and Courteous.

[MarkS]

My main issue in this discussion is we're using the Post Register as a reference and the article makes a specific claim that the Council should have known Stowell was a molester prior to hiring him when their own research clearly shows the Council could not have known. When someone so obviously misinterprets the data they've collected, it makes me question what else they got wrong. Yet we're quoting them as an authority on all of the facts of the case.

 

Not to mention the fact that the Stowell case if off-topic from the Evans case.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[evmori]

Breaking out the liar card again! Great way to defend a point! Debase & degrade the poster! Just like it's done in the political arena! Invalidate the others argument so yours appears to be valid whether it is or not!

 

While we are discussing molesters, let's not forget this from February of this year

 

A former American Civil Liberties Union executive, who once argued that Internet filters in libraries that limited children's access to pornography would interfere with their ability to learn and communicate, is facing a federal court hearing today on charges he possessed child pornography.

 

The preliminary hearing is scheduled in court in the Eastern District of Virginia for Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, of Arlington, Va., who has been held in custody in the case since his arrest. According to report on the case, Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMS, which reportedly depicted graphic forcible assaults on young girls.

 

Rust-Tierney, who served as president of the Virginia ACLU chapter for several years, was the lawyer who argued against Internet filters in libraries in the early 2000s when the ACLU was opposing the Children's Internet Protection Act, which later was approved by Congress.

 

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all(This message has been edited by evmori)