Thursday, July 5, 2012

SC - South Carolina sheriff department using the old Offender Watch lie!

After many months exposing the lies propagated by Offender Watch, it appears that yet another sheriff department is spewing the same lies. We noticed this from an email providing the link to the PDF file, and the document can be viewed online here, as well, in case the other file goes missing.

We also have this spreadsheet, which we have used to keep track of this.  And so far, it appears that this is just an issue with some of the South Carolina sheriff departments who use Offender Watch.

NOTE: We also noticed that the original post we had exposing Offender Watch on this, has been deleted from this blog for some reason.  Either by one of the admins, not on purpose, or Blogger, but we will try to restore the original post, if possible.  We have only been keeping the last archive when we download them each month, but we'll never do that again, we will be keeping ALL archived copies from now on.

Click the image to see their presentation of lies


CA - Man (William Lynch) acquitted of assaulting retired priest.

William Lynch
Original Article

I don't care if you were abused or not, it doesn't give you the right to beat someone. And how would somebody prove what the man says is true or not? Just a simple allegation is all it takes, and you are free to do anything you want? That is what I am getting from this! This man has won over $600,000 in another law suit (last two sentences, or see snapshot below), and has more law suits in the works, so it sounds like a money scam to me. I see no evidence to actually back up his claim, none!

07/05/2012

By TERRY COLLINS

SAN JOSE (AP) — A jury acquitted a man Thursday of assaulting a priest he says molested him more than three decades ago during a camping trip and left him with tormented memories that led to alcohol abuse, depression and suicide attempts.

The verdict came after defendant William Lynch took the witness stand during the two-week trial and acknowledged punching [name withheld] several times on May 10, 2010.

While previously pleading not guilty, Lynch said he hoped to use the case to publicly shame [name withheld] and bring further attention to the Catholic Church clergy abuse scandal. Lynch said the verdict surprised him.

"I honestly thought I was going to jail," he said after the verdicts were read. "It turned out better than I expected."

Lynch could have faced four years in prison if convicted. Jurors acquitted him of felony assault and elder abuse. It deadlocked 8-4 to convict him of the lesser charge of misdemeanor assault. The jury began deliberations late Monday and spent all day Tuesday discussing the case before announcing the verdict shortly after 2 p.m. PDT Thursday. They didn't deliberate on Wednesday.

Prosecutors now must decide whether to drop the misdemeanor charge or purse another trial.

"This is a major victory," said Paul Mones, one of Lynch's two attorneys. He said it was remarkable because Lynch told the jury he punched the priest several times.
- Yeah a victory for vigilantes around the country! This is just basically telling them it's okay to beat the crap out of someone, just say they abused you many years ago!

Lynch has said memories of the priest have tormented him for years, and he struggled through nightmares, divorce and other problems. He tried to commit suicide twice.

Prosecutors called Lynch a vigilante and implored the jury not to be swayed by his dramatic testimony describing the horrific ordeal he claims to have endured at the hands of [name withheld].
- So what PROOF was offered up to the people in the courtroom that convicted him? I am willing to bet nothing, except one mans word against another mans word. So much for proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt, all it takes now is simply an accusation.

Lynch countered in his testimony that he only wanted the priest to sign a confession and started punching [name withheld] after the retired priest "leered" at him the same way he looked at Lynch in 1975 during the alleged molestation during a camping trip.

Priest abuse victims and their supporters contributed to Lynch's defense fund and packed the courtroom every day for a trial. Many carried picket signs outside the courthouse decrying the church abuse scandal.

Lynch refused to discuss a plea bargain with prosecutors, even when he was promised he could avoid prison and would serve no more than a year in exchange for a guilty plea.

Prosecutors said they were left with little choice but to take the case to trial and ask the jury to find Lynch guilty of felony assault and felony elder abuse. [name withheld] was 65 at the time of the beating.

Santa Clara County prosecutor Vicki Gemetti repeatedly told the jury of nine men and three women that she sympathized with Lynch and even conceded Lynch was molested. But Gemetti insisted that even the most unsavory of victims — drug dealers, wife beaters and child molesters — deserved equal protection under the law.
- So I ask again, what proof was shown to the court that convicted this man? Sounds to me like everyone is just assuming what the man is saying is true!

[name withheld] also testified and denied abusing Lynch. He later invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and would not testify further for fear of a perjury prosecution. The judge ordered [name withheld]'s testimony stricken from the record.

In a deposition in the late 1990s, [name withheld] said he didn't recall Lynch, who received $625,000 in a 1998 confidential settlement with the Jesuits after alleging the abuse.
- Hmmmmmm, so he's done this before? Now it sounds like a load of BS to me! The following is a snapshot from another article (click here) where this man has won over $600,000 in one law suit, and has more in the works.


LA - Lake Charles man files suit against the sex offender registration ordinance

Original Article

07/05/2012

By Theresa Schmidt

LAKE CHARLES (KPLC) - Sex offender [name withheld] has filed a new lawsuit challenging the sex offender registration ordinance passed by the Lake Charles City Council. The original ordinance approved by the council sought to require sex offenders to pay a $600 registration fee.
- Requiring ANY fee in order to remain in compliance, is extortion!

[name withheld] had sued earlier but says the suit was dismissed without prejudice and he didn't oppose because he thought there was going to be a compromise and the matter resolved-- but he says it hasn't been so he has filed a new lawsuit.

Basically [name withheld] says the ordinance is unconstitutional. Also he says the registration fee and rules pertaining to residency heap on additional punishment. He says he thinks the $400 registration fee is aimed at raising money for the Lake Charles Police Department.

Apparently letters were sent out to known sex offenders in Lake Charles over the last several days. [name withheld] received a letter saying the ordinance takes effect July 18 and that he is to contact one of the police officers named in the letter to update his sex offender registration status. The letter says, "Failure to contact and schedule an appointment will subject you to arrest for Failure to Register."

The letter goes on to say, "If you have registered since January 1, 2012 and paid the Louisiana state $60 fee you are still required by law to register and pay the Lake Charles Police Department an initial registration fee of $400."


JAMAICA - Former police commandant (Harold Crooks) found guilty on sex charge

Harold Crooks
Original Article

07/05/2012

By PAUL HENRY

Harold Crooks, a former commandant of the Island Special Constabulary Force, was yesterday convicted on two counts of indecent assault on a minor. He will be sentenced on July 20.

The 72-year-old Crooks, however, was acquitted of the charge of carnal abuse. The verdict came a week after the trial started last Wednesday in the St Catherine Circuit Court.

The jury accepted that Crooks had had sex with the teen in 2009 after she turned 16 -- the age of consent. The prosecution had been contending that the act occurred a month before the girl's 16th birthday, along with the indecent assault.

On March 17, 2010, Crooks left the island a day before he was scheduled to be interviewed at the Centre for the Investigation of Sexual Offences and Child Abuse in relation to the allegations. He later telephoned his then attorney Vincent Wellesley to say that he would not return to Jamaica to face trial because he had no faith in the justice system.

"He said that he is innocent, but that he has no faith in the justice system and he is not coming back," Wellesley told the Jamaica Observer then. "He said he is an old man and that if he is convicted, he will die in prison."

Crooks was arrested after jumping off a cruise ship in Ocho Rios, St Ann, when he returned to the island.

During the trial, Crooks testified in his own defence that he and the teenager had sex after her 16th birthday. He said they had met at his house on Labour Day in May 2009.

He was represented by attorneys Barry Frankson and Jodian Hammitt.


UK - Former police officer (Stuart Wardall) stands trial over child sex offences

Stuart Wardall
Original Article

07/05/2012

A former police officer subjected a schoolboy to a series of "sickening" sexual assaults, a court heard.

Stuart Wardall is alleged to have preyed on and groomed him to the extent that the victim could not turn down his advances.

The complainant said he felt too embarrassed to tell others.

He was a teenager when the first offence is alleged to have happened.

Wardall, a former Metropolitan Police officer of Farm Close, East Grinstead, appeared for trial at Hove Crown Court this week, charged with three counts of sexual activity with a child, three counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and two counts of sexual assault.

He denies the charges, which all relate to the same child.

Prosecuting, Gareth Branston said: "He was too embarrassed to let people know about it. It took one incident he described as 'traumatic' for him to tell his mother."

The victim said two weeks after his last sexual contact with Wardall, he met up with another man through a website and they engaged in some sexual acts. It was after this that he told his mother about the incidents with Wardall.
- If this person is underage, why is he looking online for men to have sex with?  That sends up red flags to me.

While Wardall denies the charges, he admits he entered a "consensual" relationship with the victim when he was above the age of 16.

Mr Branston told the court the incidents began soon after the boy approached Wardall about a personal problem.

"He described Wardall as not caring and suggested he became aroused by it," he said.

"It was not long after this that the defendant began to touch the victim. He had never done anything sexual with anyone else. He was embarrassed by what was happening and said he felt quite sick about it."

"He described it becoming a routine, which sickened him even more."

"He recalls that the defendant told him not to tell anyone because there would be consequences. Eventually, the defendant knew he could do anything to the victim and the victim would not tell anyone."

In a video interview shown to the court, the complainant said he started walking home from school a different way to avoid passing Wardall's house.

He added: "I didn't really feel at any time when he was doing these things that I could tell him to stop. He would always touch me first."

"He was always very subtle and I don't think anyone else ever noticed. I knew what he wanted me to do to him, but I never wanted to do it."

The defence was due to give its evidence yesterday (Wednesday), after the Courier & Observer went to press. The trial continues.


CANADA - Educating children better than banning sex offenders on social media in Canada

Original Article

07/04/2012

By Gillian Shaw

Educating children is a better way to protect them from online predators than banning sex offenders from social media sites or forcing them to disclose their crimes on social networks, says an online-safety spokeswoman.

Merlyn Horton was commenting after recent moves in the U.S. to use legislation to crack down on Internet sex predators.

In Indiana last week, a federal judge upheld a law banning registered sex offenders from accessing social networking sites used by children, including Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and others.

In Louisiana, legislation has been passed requiring sex offenders to list their crimes in their social networking profiles.

And Facebook is calling on Canada to open up its sex offender lists — which the public cannot access — to social networks to help them keep sex offenders off their sites.

But the difficulty of verifying identities on the Internet makes such efforts pointless, says Horton, executive director of the B.C.-based Safe OnLine Outreach Society, which educates children, parents and educators about online risks.

Can you bar somebody from having a Facebook account? What if they have an account under a name they make up, under their brother’s name, or under the name of someone they pay to let them use their name on a Facebook profile?” said Horton.

Identify verification is one of the biggest problems; it’s a huge issue online.”

For predatory pedophiles, social networks and the Internet are an “open avenue,” she said, adding resources would be better directed to educating youth rather than trying to enforce bans or requiring Internet users to disclose crimes.

Horton noted there have been cases in Canada where individuals have been barred from using the Internet because of their crimes against children. But instead of through legislation, this has been done through conditions on parole or bail release, she said.

Even then, people can find ways to easily circumvent the restrictions.

I remember a particular case I got called on,” she said. “The guy was accessing and luring children through the public library.”

Terms of service for various social networking sites vary, with ones like Twitter stipulating that users can have an account only if they “can form a binding contract with Twitter and are not a person barred from receiving services under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction.”

Facebook’s terms of service specifically ban convicted sex offenders. By email, Facebook said it has been working with U.S. attorneys-general to run lists of registered sex offenders against its user base.

If someone on a sex offender registry is a likely match to a user on Facebook, law enforcement is notified and the account is disabled, the statement said.

In the U.S., citizens can access lists of registered sex offenders. However in Canada, where the National Sex Offender Registry isn’t made public, it’s impossible for Facebook to carry out similar searches for sex offenders among Canadian users.

We believe that in order to achieve a safer Internet, governments should give consideration to new and more effective ways to share information about registered sex offenders with social networks,” Facebook wrote in response to The Sun’s question about whether it is able to search out sex offenders signing on to its site in Canada. The statement said the model has been widely deployed by the attorneys-general of several U.S. states “and led to the removal of such individuals from these services.”