Sickening

[Gonz]

a mountain of evidence

I've lost interest in this story. How many charges have been filed so far?

 

[spike]

Hey there, you're back. Did you ever answer that question of mine about what charges the children were accused of?

 

[jimpeel]

Nope, if there's no abuse their job is easier. But it's odd that you would assume the worst about them while making excuse after excuse for those who have a mountain of evidence pointing to them being child abusers and pedophiles.

There have been numerous cases of child psychologists encouraging children to make false accusations. Look at repressed memory syndrome which has been denounced even by professionals as hokum.

Your problem stems from there being no clearly defined age of consent in America. In one state it is 14 while in others it is 15, 16, 17, and 18.

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

 

[jimpeel]

Hey there, you're back. Did you ever answer that question of mine about what charges the children were accused of?

No one here took that question seriously. It was just one more Spikism.

Perhaps they were the same crimes these children committed.

 

[jimpeel]

I mean, you couldn't even get the discussion in context.

You posted

A little DNA testing should help sort some of this out.

Gonz posted:

Which, of course, comes (the DNA test materials) from the unwilling or unable to defend themselves.

You posted

what?

Gonz posted

Children. (who are unable or unwilling or unable to defend themselves against DNA evidence being taken from them against their will.)

And you turned this into

What crimes are the children accused of?

He never said the children were accused of any crime. He said that they were unable or unwilling to defend themselves from the authorities taking DNA samples from them against their will.

And that is why he has simply ignored your ignorant question.

 

[jimpeel]

Nope, if there's no abuse their job is easier. But it's odd that you would assume the worst about them while making excuse after excuse for those who have a mountain of evidence pointing to them being child abusers and pedophiles.

PBS Frontline did a program on some of trhe cases I am going to cite below.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html

By the way, here is a prime example of what I am talking about when it comes to the authorities and psychologists finding what is not there simply becausee it was their job to find something damning.

The authorities literally tore the school down to the ground to try to find hidden underground rooms that weren't there. I believe it is still a vacant lot.

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume1/j1_2_7.htm

Learning From the McMartin Hoax
Lee Coleman*

ABSTRACT: An analysis of the videotapes in the McMartin preschool sex abuse case shows a strong pattern of pressure, coercion and manipulation aimed at getting the children to make statements about abuse. The tapes from this case should be widely studied in that they are the key to understanding how the children could come to sincerely believe things that never happened.

[more]

I was in CA when this case came to the forefront and thus my skepticism of this case as well. You are willing to march blindly to the gallows carrying the rope while I am willing to see what the facts are.

Or how about the Wee Care Nursery School in Maplewood, NJ:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Creating+victims-a015988921

Creating victims

JOHNNY said he was hungry. "You're hungry?" asked the social worker investigating charges of child abuse. "Okay. You tell me why you want to hit the ... doll and I'll give you something to eat." Johnny insisted there was nothing to talk about. "Okay," the adult replied, "then I'm gonna stay here and we're gonna keep going on with this. It's okay with me. 'Cause I'm here to help you, and I know you want to tell me something and I'll stay here all day till you tell me."

Johnny was one of the children in 23-year-old Kelly Michaels's class at the Wee Care Nursery School in Maplewood, New Jersey. Interviews like this one help explain how Miss Michaels, well-liked by her young charges and respected by her colleagues, could have been indicted on more than 200 counts of child sex abuse without a single unprompted witness or a shred of physical evidence.

The case demonstrates vividly the officially sanctioned child abuse that can occur when sex-crime investigators refuse to take no for an answer. Parents aghast at the initial allegations, therapists with a financial stake in such cases, and social workers conditioned to expect pervasive sex abuse badger children with questions and suggestions until the children come to believe they have been subjected to unspeakable acts--and suffer the same psychological trauma they would if these acts had really occurred. If the prosecutor is a crusader--like Janet Reno, who was involved in two such cases while a prosecutor in Florida--the accused can get a throw-away-the-key prison term.

[more]

Do you need an even better example of abuse by authority figures in sex abuse cases? I can actually give you one.

Ever hear of the Wenatchee, WA Sex Ring Case? An entire town was accused of molesting children. IT WAS A HOAX but the authorities just wouldn't let go, one detective in particular.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wenatche.htm

Quotations:
"Wenatchee may be the worst example ever of mental health services being abused by a state, its social workers and hired therapists, to control and manage children who have been frightened and coerced into falsely accusing their parents and neighbors of the most heinous of crimes."
- Dr. Phillip Esplin, a forensic psychologist and senior research consultant with the National Institute of Health's Child Witness Project.

"The ghost won't lie still: Ten years after first arrest, 'sex-ring' episode still haunts the community"
- Headline of a newspaper article written by Martin Salazar on 2004-APR-11.

"It began with the cry of a young girl and escalated into the victimization of dozens of citizens for allegedly committing horrific sex crimes against children. Soon families were broken up, adults were accused of heinous crimes and were prosecuted, without anyone questioning the methods of the so-called experts. Now, an independent attorney, who spent a year in Wenatchee, pieces together the story of one of the most blatant cases of misuse of power and miscarried justice since the McCarthy witch-hunts."
-Review of the book "Witch Hunt" which chronicles the Wenatchee disaster. 1
[more]

 

[Gonz]

Hey there, you're back. Did you ever answer that question of mine about what charges the children were accused of?

Obvioulsy, I ignore questions that are pointless.

 

[spike]

By the way, here is a prime example of what I am talking about when it comes to the authorities and psychologists finding what is not there simply becausee it was their job to find something damning.

Jim you use this same logical fallacy over and over and over. Finding an example does not prove a generalization especially when you're simply making up motives. Do you get that?

If it worked that way all I would have to do is find examples where authorities weren't mistaken to obliterate your point. Do you think I might be able to find a few examples of busted pedophiles or child abusers Jim? Or are you of the opinion that there is no such thing as pedophilia or child abuse?

You are willing to march blindly to the gallows carrying the rope while I am willing to see what the facts are.

In reality I am willing to see the facts while you make excuse after excuse for these people and make accusations against the authorities. You are completely blind to the facts.

I think a combination of DNA evidence and the Bishop's lists that they have found should make the facts of the matter pretty clear. But you'll still be ignoring the facts and accusing the authorities of things that you have no evidence to back up.

Bishop's lists are showing underage girls listed as wives.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/05/polygamist.families/

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9165683

It seems now they just need results of DNA tests showing who the fathers of these kid's babies are.

 

[spike]

Obvioulsy, I ignore questions that are pointless.

No, you just go away when your argument is proven pointless.

You said "Which, of course, comes from the unwilling or unable to defend themselves" meaning the kids.

I asked what the kids where accused of. If they weren't accused of anything why would they need to defend themselves.

The problem is you had no point and tend to start ignoring things when your arguments dead end.

 

[spike]

He never said the children were accused of any crime. He said that they were unable or unwilling to defend themselves from the authorities taking DNA samples from them against their will.

And that is why he has simply ignored your ignorant question.

I think the ignorance here is anyone who would think you need to "defend" yourself from the truth. If they are not accused of anything than they don't need to defend themselves. DNA evidence will just bring the truth to light and it is ignorant of you to think that is a bad thing.

 

[Gonz]

If they weren't accused of anything why would they need to defend themselves.

If they've done nothing wrong, why is the state forcing them to turn over DNA evidence?

 

[spike]

To find out if their dad did something wrong. I thought that was incredibly obvious.

 

[jimpeel]

In reality I am willing to see the facts while you make excuse after excuse for these people and make accusations against the authorities. You are completely blind to the facts.

I think a combination of DNA evidence and the Bishop's lists that they have found should make the facts of the matter pretty clear. But you'll still be ignoring the facts and accusing the authorities of things that you have no evidence to back up.

Bishop's lists are showing underage girls listed as wives.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/05/polygamist.families/

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9165683

It seems now they just need results of DNA tests showing who the fathers of these kid's babies are.

Here are the facts you are NOT willing to see from your own link:

(CNN) -- In the secretive, illegal world of American polygamy, life has been good to 67-year-old Wendell Loy Nielsen of Eldorado, Texas.

Photos from a Web site launched by the sect show scenes during and after the raid of their ranch.

1 of 2 By his own account, Nielsen has 21 wives -- and 36 children.

His oldest wife is 13 years older than he is, (That would be 80 -- j) and his youngest wife is 43 years younger -- she's just 24.

No molesting there unless you are willing to raise the age of consent to 80.

And then there's this from your other link:

A review of the "Father's Family Information" sheets shows a handful of 16-year-old wives, (Within the confines of the law if they were married with their parent's permission -- j) 13 young monogamous couples and 24 men with multiple wives - including one man with 21 wives and 36 children.

...

Until 2005, Texas allowed girls as young as 14 to marry with a parent's permission; in September of that year, the age was increased to 16. In Texas, residents can legally consent to sex at age 17. (So these girls could have been married with their parent's permission and those married before 2005 were legal at 14 by state law -- j)

The bishop's records do not include marriage dates or information about whether the marriages are legally recorded and, in all but a few instances, do not match children's names to their mothers.

The state coupled the records, however, with information gathered in interviews to figure out how old a teenager or woman was when she had her first child.

Texas officials focused on five girls who conceived when they were 15 or 16, all of whom then gave birth recently when they were 16 or 17. According to the bishop's record, three of those teenagers are in plural relationships with men who are 28, 35 and 40. One teenager, who is pregnant, is not listed on the records. (Starting to look like that high school statistic again -- j)

And one is shown as being in a monogamous marriage to a 22-year-old man.

Texas officials also looked at 15 other births that stretched back as far as 1993. (Which was before the law was changed to 16 in 2005 -- j) They have since said they have identified 31 minors who have children or are pregnant, a group that includes 26 women whose ages are disputed.

Of the 37 families who filled out the sheets, 13 were monogamous couples. Those husbands ranged in age from 19 to 39, with an average age of 24.

The wives' ages ranged from 16 to 39, (That falls within state law if the 16 year olds had their parent's permission. The reat are just plain, well, LEGAL except for the polygamy; but not all of them are polygamous marriages -- j) with an average age of 21. There are two 16-year-old females listed as wives of men who were 19 and 22. (Legal if they had their parent's permission -- j) Those two couples were among six young pairs shown as having no children. Most of the monogamous couples are close in age, with the biggest age spread being four years.

So the legal age is 16 if the parents consent. At the time of marriage, they are legal to consummate the marriage. I guess they failed to do one very important thing: They failed to call Spike to see if it was all right for them to allow their daughters to marry.

 

[Gonz]

To find out if their dad did something wrong. I thought that was incredibly obvious.

Son, we must take a swab of your mouth because your daddy might have done someting wrong.

You don't see the inherent wrong in that? Several wrongs?

 

[jimpeel]

Son, we must take a swab of your mouth because your daddy might have done someting wrong.

You don't see the inherent wrong in that? Several wrongs?

The sins of the father ...

Sounds good to Spike.

 

[spike]

Here are the facts you are NOT willing to see from your own link:

No molesting there unless you are willing to raise the age of consent to 80.

Jim, did I accuse that guy of molesting? Please tell us what your point is.

You wouldn't be trying to use a single example to make generalizations again would you?

So the legal age is 16 if the parents consent. At the time of marriage, they are legal to consummate the marriage. I guess they failed to do one very important thing: They failed to call Spike to see if it was all right for them to allow their daughters to marry.

Again, hypocritically you have declared them all innocent before letting all the facts come out. Did they call you to see if it was ok to pork a 14yr old? What is this insider knowledge you have of pedophiles to be able to make such quick judgements without all the facts?

 

[spike]

Son, we must take a swab of your mouth because your daddy might have done someting wrong.

You don't see the inherent wrong in that? Several wrongs?

A swab is not punishment. It's painless.

If it proves your daddy is a habitual kid-fucker then lock up the kid-fucker until he rots.

Where's the problem exactly?

 

[spike]

The sins of the father ...

Sounds good to Spike.

Hell yes, if the father is a pedophile lock the piece of shit up.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

*DISCLAIMER*

The following post is based upon info posted by person/s not on ignore only, in accordance with the prophecy.






Could it possibly be that the DNA swabs are to determine...oh, I dunno....maybe something like


PATERNITY???!!



I mean, we gots us a CONVICTED sex offender with a history of likin him the leettle girrrllllls. We got an isolated cult (there, I said it) with leettle girrrllls aplenty, a significant percentage of whom are/have been knocked up. Of course we ALL know that every time a kid gets [minkey] pigged [/minkey] she gets preggers, so those MUST be the ONLY ones molested. [/peelthink] So it ain't exactly outside the realm of possibility that they decided to swab these kids' mouths to compare DNA and see who da baby daddy is, rather than book 'em all on Maury Povich to find out.

Just look how much time, trouble, heartache, needless pain, unimaginable suffering, and attention could have been avoided if this perv had been locked up where he belongs. But I guess child molesters shop at big discount stores too...

 

[Gonz]

A swab is not punishment. It's painless.

If it proves your daddy is a habitual kid-fucker then lock up the kid-fucker until he rots.

Where's the problem exactly?

hmmmm

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.