Two Pennsylvania cases from the molestation files

[Beavah]

Yah, so a local paper in PA is apparently doin' some of its own reporting, and opted to give us some info on two cases from da ineligible volunteer files where supposedly da BSA failed to report. Yeh have to read from the bottom up, because the opening lines sort of misrepresent the cases:

 

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/mc-pa-boy-scout-sex-files-20120918,0,6028194.story?page=1

 

These to my mind are fairly typical cases from da time period.

 

In the first, there was a single (possibly false) report from a youth which was reported to the council Scout Executive. The man in question was forced to resign, his name was added to the ineligible volunteer files which blocked him (several times) from future positions in Scouting, and the boy's parents were notified. The parents had da option to file charges but did not do so, and was happy with da BSA's response.

 

So the boy and da parent thought da response was adequate at the time, and da nature of the evidence was such that a prosecutor would be unlikely to take the case (only one accuser, no witnesses, da accuser is not willin' to proceed). There's no evidence that the fellow ever touched any other boy, before or after.

 

I'm not really convinced that this was mishandled accordin' to da standards of the time, or that it amounted to a cover up.

 

In da second case, there's an accusation by a 14-year-old who is apparently not a scout or at a scout outing about a Scoutmaster. Law enforcement is involved from the beginning of the case, so the fellow is added to the ineligible volunteer files. Charges are filed and then withdrawn.

 

I'm not sure how this is a coverup, or how da BSA did anything wrong? Da article talks about reporting laws and implies that da SE may not have reported da incident to authorities, but law enforcement was already involved and the fellow was charged.

 

I rather suspect that da vast majority of the 500 files that the LATimes implied were da BSA "covering up" were similar to these two, eh? This is lookin' more and more like a hatchet job.

 

Beavah

 

[frankpalazzi]

VERY sloppy journalism, in my professional opinion. I've taken the liberty to send the author an email stating such and even suggesting that he return to school!

 

It's irresponsible reporting such as this that gives the BSA a "black eye" when it's not deserved.

 

I'm all for Freedom Of Speech. I'm against "Yellow Journalism".

[SeattlePioneer]

From the newspaper article:

 

>

 

Read all about it! Newspaper continues cover up! Fails to report allegations to police!

 

A THIRD OF A CENTURY have gone by and still the cover up continues by this newspaper!

 

The newspaper admits that it routinely fails to report allegations of crime to the police. Requests for the newspaper's secret files on decades of such allegations have been rebuffed by a newspaper still hiding from these kinds of abuses of power!(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

[frankpalazzi]

ROCK ON!

[OldGreyEagle]

THe Morning Call is published in Allentown (where all the factories closed down) one town over from Bethlehem where I live. I can tell you that the paper seemingly has a vendetta out on the Catholic Church. Anything that hints of church impropriety gets a front page story. Then again, I could be just overly sensitive

 

ANyway, its par for the course for this paper

[PABill]

I have not had a subscription to a newspaper in years because of "sloppy journalism" add the poor writing skills and I can usually barely get through an article.

 

Right now it is in vogue to attack the BSA....or any organization or group that has certain values and sticks to their guns. As long as they do there will be rabid attacks on these organizations no matter if it has true merit or not.

 

YIS in the Reading area

(This message has been edited by PABill)

[qwazse]

Sounds like we got three potential stories:

 

1. The glass is 1/10 empty.

2. The glass is 9/10 full.

3. Hey, there's a glass!

[T2Eagle]

Yah, hmmm as some say.

 

I read this article, and if its a hatchet job the reporter needs to lose a couple corners off his Tote n Chip.

 

As a piece of journalism its not too bad for a small market paper. They took a national story and dug deep enough to come up with some more local angles, and then did some decent foot work on that. Unless you think its somehow just wrong to be writing about this at all, there doesnt seem to be anything untoward about the idea for the piece.

 

As near as I can tell theres nothing in the story that can be factually disputed, and I think theres less editorializing in the reporting than there is in Beavahs reporting of the reporting . Depending on your predisposition the article let's you conclude anything from the scouts did OK, to they could have done better, to, inferring everything bad, they maybe missed alerting the authorities to a guy about whom there still isnt any public information supporting the idea hes bad.

 

Heres MY editorializing. The SE comes out OK, they report he didnt inform state officials, but they also note the authorities were involved from the beginning, he gave diligent consideration to what his duty was, and the law at the time, since changed, supported that position. Their reporting his widows statement about how he agonized over allegations, and that he did report anything he was supposed to, makes him look like a good guy who didnt do anything wrong this time, and did the hard but right thing all other times.

 

The other case actually gives me some pause. In 1979 a 14 year old scout reported a DE to his SM, and his story was compelling enough that the SM reported it up the ladder, where the story remained compelling enough that a 30 year old man was forced to resign because he didnt think he could defend himself against the uncorroborated statement of a middle schooler. That was not the way these things usually turned out 30 plus years ago. And the lads family apparently believed him enough that they wanted the DEs hide.

 

Beavah is the one who usually urges us to give deference to the local unit leader and trust their judgment regarding their scouts. But in this case, even though the SM apparently found the scout credible, Beav reports it as a (possibly false) report. I think if one of my 14 year old scouts came to me with this kind of allegation Id be a pretty good judge of its credibility, and as a scout from that time I can assure you nobody was encouraging anybody to come forth with this kind of thing. It would have taken either a whole lot of malice or a whole lot of conviction to do so.

 

Later, this same adult, having lost his job because of one false accusation, decides hes willing to risk that again and reapplies. Now I love scouting, but one such experience would keep me cheering from the sidelines. Not this guy, one lost job, then a turn down showing the organization is still paying attention, and he tries a third time to get back into the organization, this time as a volunteer.As the song says "makes you want to go hmmm."

 

Heres why I think this is legitimate fodder for journalism. It is most likely that the guy is innocent, and the paper acts responsibly in not printing his name even though its now part of the public record. But there is a legitimate discussion that can be had that maybe this wasnt the only time where he, or someone else similarly situated, was allowed to resign quietly. Maybe it happened again at a YMCA camp a few states over a few years later, and maybe again at a soccer league. Then you dont have a case of an organization acting responsibly given the times, instead you have the template for successful predation. This is what good journalism does, it gets us to think, and talk, and want to know more.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

The alleged perp doesn't get his name printed in the paper, but the paper smears the name of BSA generously over the paper, when BSA did NOTHING wrong.

 

 

In recent years, state legislatures have required a variety of child care advocates to report to the police instances in which there is credible evidence of child abuse. Fine.

 

But as far as I know, that DOES NOT include BSA, it's employees or volunteers. So why are newspapers pointing with alarm when BSA used its discretion not to report alleged incidents?

 

A physician observing injuries on a child can make a report of those injuries and turn it over to the police.

 

BSA at best usually has unsworn comments by a youth of some conduct, which people are not trained to record in a systematic way and which is merely hear say.

 

And of course most of these allegations occurred decades ago, probably before ANYONE was mandated to make reports.

 

I see these as biased and vicious media attacks on BSA. Thoughtless and vile yellow journalism.

[T2Eagle]

Where's the smear in this article? I don't see anything that's not factually reported. And what's your definition of "did NOTHING wrong?"

 

In 1979 in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a 30 year old man grabbing the buttocks and crotch of a 14 year old boy was committing a felony punishable by a long prison term. The Scout Executive at the time must have at least sort of believed it or why else would he have forced the guy to resign. It's true the SE didn't himself break the law by not reporting it. But I have seen posters on this board argue we should call the cops on our own scouts for at worst misdemeanor behavior. But you would say a scouting professional who accepts at least the possibility that one of his employees committed a felonious sexual assault on a 14 year old is just fine not notifying the authorities about it.

 

That wouldn't have met my definition of "NOTHING wrong" then or now.

[Beavah]

Yah, to be clear, da "hatchet job" I was referrin' to was by the LATimes. This paper reported two cases from da LATimes "BSA coverup" pile, and I look at 'em and I can't say that the BSA actually did anything wrong. They removed two people from Scoutin' for legitimate suspicion, even though there wasn't enough evidence for law enforcement to take any action.

 

I'm not sure why that's a failure on da BSA's part, to be lumped into the 500 cases the LATimes claimed showed the BSA covered up or failed to report.

 

I think we also have to remember that an allegation is not proof, which is why often organizations go with da "forced to resign" route rather than the "refer for prosecution" route for many sorts of things.

 

Beavah

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

That is the CURRENT Youth Protection Policy.

 

It didn't apply until the past few years.

 

>

 

 

Be my guest and convict people of such crimes --- if you have the evidence. The evidence can be tough to come by.

 

By contrast, an employee can usually be fired for any reason or no reason at all.

 

Two drastically different standards of evidence. WHY don't people understand such things?