BSA CSA: Concealment or Trustworthy, Loyal...?

[HashTagScouts]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:52 AM, ThenNow said:

I suppose I read that IVF from across town and unfairly assumed someone would’ve had the forethought and decency to come tell parents at a Troop 2 miles away to ask their boys if they were being given pornography or booze or other such. Maybe I am asking too much as I look at the Fb pages of my SM abuser, see his life set beside photos of me when I was 14, and wonder how he was allowed to have what he has and why so many boys were left with the dregs of his dark not so secret secrets. Dunno. I think too much.

It has been the toughest part for me to reconcile throughout this, and left me entirely questioning if I should continue to stay involved, is knowing that the BSA was not requiring disclosure to law enforcement in most cases when a credible incident was reported to them, nor notifying other parents of kids in those units. Leave No Trace was uncomfortable to watch, and hearing the very person who was in the position that received those reports for decades say the organization didn't want to have a part in damaging these men's careers or personal lives made me yelp. 

[fred8033]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

Which war is that? WWII? These books and marketing campaigns were late 60's and early 70's, as in during and after the, "Don't believe your government" and "Question Authority!" eras.

Printed materials from 1960s/70s were still the believe your government / trust authority.  The street protests of the late 1960s were opposite.  The printed materials were 20 years behind. 

I'll track down the referenced examples.

[yknot]

32 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Printed materials from 1960s/70s were still the believe your government / trust authority.  The street protests of the late 1960s were opposite.  The printed materials were 20 years behind. 

I'll track down the referenced examples.

In the late 70s I was in a lot of those other youth organizations -- 4-H, US Pony Club, drill team, catechism classes and CYO, sports leagues. I recall no such similar literature, manuals, or attitudes. The only corollary would have been in the Catholic setting where priests were revered and to a lesser extent with individual ex-cavalry military officers who were involved with mounted youth Troops and Pony Club. Their involvement however was more arms length as they were generally judges, officials, chef d'equipes.  

[ThenNow]

On 7/2/2022 at 3:08 PM, ThenNow said:

From my research of the IVF, just in my area of the state (which includes the District and LC, though now reconfigured) 9 abusers are reported and were booted from 1972 (when I joined Scouts and was first abused) to 1977.

I just read 8 of these files in detail, which I had not done previously. In part it's because it makes me sad and angry. Among the files are three Scouters (of 5 men) who hosted a campout 'party' at which the five men had sex with a "large group of boys." One of those arrested committed suicide the day the story broke. At one of their campouts, a Scouter "imported" a 13 year old girl. In another file, the Scouter had 3 priors and prison time for indecent exposure and sex with a minor before he was a Scouter. In yet another, the Scouter was arrested and went to prison in 1973 (after the BSA incidents). He resurfaced in multiple other places - BSA is not mentioned - and was eventually found to have abused 50 other boys over that 20 year period. Remember, this is all in my home state and around my LC, thought not all in it. The big cases were in the news, though not my little local rag. I sure never heard nuttin' about any of this. Wee...

Edited July 12, 2022 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I just read 8 of these files in detail, which I had not done previously. In part it's because it makes me sad and angry. Among the files are three Scouters (of 5 men) who hosted a campout 'party' at which the five men had sex with a "large group of boys." One of those arrested committed suicide the day the story broke. At one of their campouts, a Scouter "imported" a 13 year old girl. In another file, the Scouter had 3 priors and prison time for indecent exposure and sex with a minor before he was a Scouter. In yet another, the Scouter was arrested and went to prison in 1973 (after the BSA incidents). He resurfaced in multiple other places - BSA is not mentioned - and was eventually found to have abused 50 other boys over that 20 year period. Remember, this is all in my home state and around my LC, thought not all in it. The big cases were in the news, though not my little local rag. I sure never heard nuttin' about any of this. Wee...

There are those on this forum that are skeptics when it comes to facts. They tell us that the IV files are full of innuendo and hearsay and that the info should have never been published. I bet dollars to donuts that the skeptics never read the files or choose to disregard what their own organization kept files on. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by johnsch322

[RememberSchiff]

Let's discuss the facts  in a scoutlike way without direct or by innuendo personal attacks.

Thank you,

 

@Eagle1993 @MattR  @T2Eagle @gpurlee  @elitts

[fred8033]

9 hours ago, johnsch322 said:

There are those on this forum that are skeptics when it comes to facts. They tell us that the IV files are full of innuendo and hearsay and that the info should have never been published. I bet dollars to donuts that the skeptics never read the files or choose to disregard what their own organization kept files on. 

Many of us have read dozens and dozens of files.  It's not that the files are hearsay and innuendo.  It's that the interpretation people are applying is often twisted by decades of time having passed or ignoring context or simply begging the conclusion people want to present.  Of the thousands of files, you will be able to find ones that are not handled well.   From what I've read, most (not all) seem like they were handled reasonably given the time and place.  

[johnsch322]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Many of us have read dozens and dozens of files.  It's not that the files are hearsay and innuendo.  It's that the interpretation people are applying is often twisted by decades of time having passed or ignoring context or simply begging the conclusion people want to present.  Of the thousands of files, you will be able to find ones that are not handled well.   From what I've read, most (not all) seem like they were handled reasonably given the time and place.  

@fred8033you were not part of the group that I was commenting on. I believe in your willingness to look at everything from a broad perspective and your sincerity. My apologies if you felt this was directed to you. 

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Of the thousands of files, you will be able to find ones that are not handled well.   From what I've read, most (not all) seem like they were handled reasonably given the time and place.  

Let's go back to my 8 cases, 9 with the one most relevant to mine. 9 serious IV matters in 5 years, one two miles from my CO and home. (They are across the street from one another.) Multiple Scouter perpetrators. All those abused kids. All this data. All this debauchery. All this publicity in the small towns where they occurred. We're talking about more than a dozen abused children over 5 years in one section of my state. The cases were "handled" the way they were handled. That is not the point. What happened to care for, keep safe and warn Scouters, parents, and Scouts during and after these cases, that is the question. The answer seems to be, "NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE talked about this stuff from 1972-1977. No. One. So, we can't be held responsible for not warning parents or caring for the abused or for keeping the information tight to the vest. It's what everyone was doing." Well, BSA was talking about it. A lot. They seem not to have taken the next step to advise those most vulnerable or the parents whose right it was to know the potential risk, however "statistically insignificant." (Not my words.)

And, to say the standard for action and integrity was not higher for BSA because everyone else was using "inflated, post-War rhetoric" to canonize their leaders is balderdash. The standard was higher by virtue of BSA's repeated pronouncements of the purity and moral compass of its leaders. Objectively, I think that's pretty clear. Ynot and I, and likely many of us, were involved in all manner of YSOs and activities. I experienced nothing like the BSA leader pedestal in any of them.

[fred8033]

2 minutes ago, johnsch322 said:

@fred8033you were not part of the group that I was commenting on. I believe in your willingness to look at everything from a broad perspective and your sincerity. My apologies if you felt this was directed to you. 

Thanks Johnsch322.  ...  Last night just to remember ... because this has been going on for painfully long time ... I re-read 20(???) of the files.  The files are painful to read. 

I ran into one or two where LA times (or lawyers) highlighted parts they thought were significant; a thread of comments about confidentiality and media coverage.  It took a lot of though on what those words meant and the context of the comments.  The highlighted parts dealt with confidentiality.  The case had prosecutors, police, parents and press (word chosen for alliteration ... a media representative that as also on the local council executive board) not pass the information onto the local newspaper.  All parties agreed on the action course.  Press were involved.  

It really begged a pre-existing judgement to decide if it was noise or damming evidence. 

To be honest, where the IVF files really creep me out is just how many times everyone (parents, police, council, etc) push for the perpetrator to get treatment or that it's treated as a morality crime.  Or that the conviction is dealt with a really short jail time or even just probation.  ... To see parents write letters asking that their son's abuser get treatment just creeps me out.  

 

[ThenNow]

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

I re-read 20(???) of the files. 

 

25 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

To be honest, where the IVF files really creep me out is just how many times everyone (parents, police, council, etc) push for the perpetrator to get treatment or that it's treated as a morality crime.  Or that the conviction is dealt with a really short jail time or even just probation.  ... To see parents write letters asking that their son's abuser get treatment just creeps me out.  

Are the files you read from a smattering of locations across the country? I'll give away the punchline. I grew up in the Midwest in a very blue collar community and semi-rural environments. None of the cases I mentioned had such references to "treatment." Any treatment considerations would likely have involved things far less sophisticated than Freud's couch, Jung's inner child monologues or unburdening of the soul in the confessional.   

Edited July 13, 2022 by ThenNow

[elitts]

On 7/5/2022 at 3:33 PM, ThenNow said:

POST SCRIPT: THIS is the standard of the day BSA needed to rise to and above. Not what the Babe Ruth League was doing. I took part in a ton of activities and only BSA and the RCC did this sort of pre-death cannonization. For the RCC, it was deeply engrained and implied, occasionally reinforced, but not codified like the above. 

That doesn't sound any different than the sorts of advertising that happens with every youth serving organization.  In particular is sounds strikingly similar to the kind of language used with regard to school staff and coaches.  Both of those organizations even require the youth (in HS at least) to sign a Code of Conduct promising to obey instructions from staff and coaches.

 

On 7/9/2022 at 9:39 AM, yknot said:

Things are indeed different now but comparing an epidemic of child sexual abuse to some of these other issues isn't really a defense. It really falls apart when you look at environmental or health issues, because there are many similar situations where government agencies, corporate entities, or other organizations noted, collected, and yet failed to act or do the morally right thing with the information they had and often tried to hide because it was inconvenient, just as the BSA did. Whether it was a cancer causing substance or an abhorrent medical practice, we don't attempt to excuse it with the defense of "Well, that's how it was back then." Enrolling minorities in medical trials without their knowledge or dumping a chemical into a water source that resulted in human cancer clusters was wrong on some basic human level, even if prejudice, environmental awareness, and personal health issues were viewed differently back then. Whenever society has found that entities tried to minimize or even hide these kinds of egregious results, they've been called out for their actions and often criticized and sued just as the BSA has been. You know something's wrong on a basic human level if a lot of people are dying of cancer, or they are suffering from a disease you know is treatable, or a lot of children are winding up sexually abused. I don't why there is this defense that basic humanity should have applied in these cases but not when it comes to the BSA. 

You are making ridiculous comparisons here.  The BSA had a system of protection that was insufficient and children got hurt.  That's incomparably different than a company or governments direct actions being responsible for people being hurt.

On 7/9/2022 at 1:33 PM, johnsch322 said:

One major thing I can't get out of my mind is what was ever done for the victims? I have not found any evidence of the BSA extending a helping hand to those who were damaged while in the care of the BSA. Does anyone have any knowledge of what the policy to victims were? 

Up until the last few decades I don't think there was a clear understanding of the kind of lifelong psychological damage these abuses could cause.  Even the understanding of the impact of rape on women wasn't directly applied to boys here; I suspect because of a combination of beliefs that "kids will outgrow it" and "boys are tough and can put it behind them".  I think I read that by the 80s or 90s they started offering counseling of some sort, but again, that depended on the boy having made an official report.

On 7/9/2022 at 2:00 PM, Eagle1970 said:

I continue to believe there is no shortage of evidence to support a concealment case.  At this point, logistically speaking, how does tolling the sol with concealment impact a survivor's case?  

Under the Trust Agreement, would it require an independent review, along with the $10k to make a case for concealment?  Or would the argument simply tilt the sol factor higher under the standard procedure?  Or other legal action?

In the end, there were multitudes of failures along the way, and some appear to be intentional.  That will remain a fact, regardless of the bk settlement or the BSA's future.

This issue isn't "Concealment" (which clearly the BSA did) it's "Fraudulent Concealment".  In general no one has an obligation to inform others when they've committed a tort against them.  The only time such an obligation exists is when there is a fiduciary or other "special relationship".  So the issue here isn't so much whether the BSA concealed the amount of abuse happening it's whether there was a duty to inform people.  And even then, I suspect "Fraudulent Concealment" could only apply when the BSA had some way of knowing a particular child was victimized.  So basically only those who filed complaints would be eligible.

28 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

Thanks Johnsch322.  ...  Last night just to remember ... because this has been going on for painfully long time ... I re-read 20(???) of the files.  The files are painful to read. 

To be honest, where the IVF files really creep me out is just how many times everyone (parents, police, council, etc) push for the perpetrator to get treatment or that it's treated as a morality crime.  Or that the conviction is dealt with a really short jail time or even just probation.  ... To see parents write letters asking that their son's abuser get treatment just creeps me out.  

 

Again I think this is the result of a failure to understand how devastating child abuse (sexual or otherwise) is to the psyche of an individual, particularly if untreated.  I truly don't think parents understood how life-altering the abuse would be for many children.  It may also have been parents deliberately putting on blinders about the issue; hoping "if we just ignore it and never talk about it, it's like it didn't happen."

Edited July 13, 2022 by elitts

[yknot]

52 minutes ago, elitts said:

This issue isn't "Concealment" (which clearly the BSA did) it's "Fraudulent Concealment".  In general no one has an obligation to inform others when they've committed a tort against them.  The only time such an obligation exists is when there is a fiduciary or other "special relationship".  So the issue here isn't so much whether the BSA concealed the amount of abuse happening it's whether there was a duty to inform people.  And even then, I suspect "Fraudulent Concealment" could only apply when the BSA had some way of knowing a particular child was victimized.  So basically only those who filed complaints would be eligible.

 

If our friend Cynical Scouter, whose name is still attached to many of these threads, were still here I think he would remind you that BSA's fraudulent concealment and negligence has already been proven in court. It was the cause of several large judgements and is why BSA saw no other option than to file for Chapter 11. It would have been unable to defend itself against the legion of lawsuits that were already on the horizon then.  

Edited July 13, 2022 by yknot

[clbkbx]

47 minutes ago, elitts said:

I think I read that by the 80s or 90s they started offering counseling of some sort, but again, that depended on the boy having made an official report.

I know there are many different outcomes. My abuse was in the 90’s and he was arrested while still the SM. I guess I didn’t make an “official report” but as noted, not a word to me or my family. 
 

To other abuse victims (or those that would have knowledge): did BSA provide any counseling to you or to your knowledge?

 

I guess to @elitts’s point, for instances after the 80’s. 

[elitts]

6 minutes ago, yknot said:

If our friend Cynical Scouter, whose name is still attached to many of these threads, were still here I think he would remind you that BSA's fraudulent concealment and negligence has already been proven in court. It was the cause of several large judgements and is why BSA saw no other option than to file for Chapter 11. It would have been unable to defend itself against the legion of lawsuits that were already on the horizon then.  

No, Negligence has been found in many cases, but I haven't seen any cases where the SoL  has been re-opened (and the case won) via a claim of Fraudulent Concealment.  I believe ThenNow posted a link to a court case where the Court refused to dismiss a claim on summary judgement because they argued Fraudulent Concealment but that ruling was very heavily based upon the fact that they were unwilling to categorically reject all such cases, not because they thought that specific case would win.