Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

Over on BSDA, Ian gave as evidence of my duplicity the fact that I had stated that there were allegations that Tommy Shelton had molested children, which there unquestionably are, and that I had yet to prove that those allegations are true.

Ian has seemed to have imported that same sort of reasoning here. It is as if in her mind my concerns about Danny Shelton covering up the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations are only valid if I can prove that the allegations are true.

But that makes no sense from a risk management perspective, or from a grammatical perspective. By the very definition of the word, "allegation" is something that may not be proven. Thus, Danny Shelton can still be guilty of covering up allegations even if those allegations are never proven to be true.

But let us remember that we have written statements from two alleged victims, written statements from the mothers of two additional alleged victims, an eye-witness account, and a quasi-confession by Tommy himself.

[Cindy]

Over on BSDA, Ian gave as evidence of my duplicity the fact that I had stated that there were allegations that Tommy Shelton had molested children, which there unquestionably are, and that I had yet to prove that those allegations are true.

Ian has seemed to have imported that same sort of reasoning here. It is as if in her mind my concerns about Danny Shelton covering up the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations are only valid if I can prove that the allegations are true...

O..kay.. I know no one's stupid here! Allegations do not equal guilt!
All should be able to understand that you can't cover up child molestation if child molestation hasn't occured. All should also understand that even IF child molestation has occured, you can't cover it up unless you know of it and of the evidence or facts, and proof of that to cover up!

Certainly all should understand that you can not accuse someone and find him guilty without evidence to prove it, and without that person being able to face his accusers and address the evidence against him!

All should be concerned about child molestation in my opinion, but all should be equally concerned about falsely accusing someone, and making accusations and judgments when they either don't know, or can not prove anything.

Ian


"THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT" -- Forrest Gump

[bonnie]

1.O..kay.. I know no one's stupid here! all should be able to understand that you can't cover up child molestation if child molestation hasn't occured. All should also understand that even IF child molestation has occured, you can't cover it up unless you know it exists and there is evidence or facts, and proof of that to cover up!

Sometimes when I read your posts I have to go back and make sure we are reading the same preceding comments. What in this did you miss....
But that makes no sense from a risk management perspective, or from a grammatical perspective. By the very definition of the word, "allegation" is something that may not be proven. Thus, Danny Shelton can still be guilty of covering up allegations even if those allegations are never proven to be true.

One can certainly cover up allegations. It is done all of the time. Has been practised and I might add, admitted to by the church leadership that is exactly what has taken place concerning the issue of pastoral/teacher/authority sexual abuse.
 Stamp out an allegation at it's source and you can claim "We Never Knew"


2 Certainly all should understand that you can not accuse someone and find him guilty without evidence to prove it, and without that person being able to face his accusers and address the evidence against him!

Problem with the above is the person accused must be willing or forced to face his accuser's. Haven't seen a whole lot of that.
This is the same kind of reasoning we faced. Allegations must be gossip, therefore our hands are tied. Allegations remain allegations till someone cares enough to investigate.
Even when our situation reached the place where it was no longer he said/she said, a conference employee that most of you know said even a confession wasn't proof of guilt. Sometimes people just admit to something for the attention. Followed by bizarre stories of isolated incidences where that happened.


3.All should be concerned about child molestation in my opinion, but all should be equally concerned about falsely accusing someone, and making accusations and judgments when they either don't know or can not prove anything.

This type of conduct is not a spectator sport. It is done in secret and every attempt is made to keep it that way. Rarely does someone else KNOW.
If the victims do not step forward and action taken it remains secret. Even when victims have come forward you are saying no one knows, so where to now.?
How can TS be falsely accused when he himself has admitted to this type of conduct? It is also pretty obvious from what has been posted this information was known among those that should have investigated before placing him in a position of trust and easy acess to committ again.

But let us remember that we have written statements from two alleged victims, written statements from the mothers of two additional alleged victims, an eye-witness account, and a quasi-confession by Tommy himself.
 

What else would you suggest would be grounds to investigate and address this issue. Picture???

4."THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT" -- Forrest Gump


I don't think you will be done with your staunch support of any and every type of conduct/complaint/allegation involving the issues

[Bob Pickle]

Again, Ian, I don't think you're making sense. And Bonnie seems to see it too.

Have I accused Tommy of being a pedophile? Or have I tried to consistently state that he is an alleged pedophile? It is a proven fact that he is an alleged pedophile. That is not a false accusation.

Have I stated that Danny covered up child molestation? Or have I endeavored to consistently state that he covered up child molestation allegations?

[Snoopy]

Ian will need to take a couple of days to get back to you.

Again, Ian, I don't think you're making sense. And Bonnie seems to see it too.

Have I accused Tommy of being a pedophile? Or have I tried to consistently state that he is an alleged pedophile? It is a proven fact that he is an alleged pedophile. That is not a false accusation.

Have I stated that Danny covered up child molestation? Or have I endeavored to consistently state that he covered up child molestation allegations?

[scratsmom]

The question was also asked over at BSDA, "What would you consider proof?" The silence was deafening--there were no responses to the question. It looks like there is  nothing that could be revealed or brought forward that would make them believe that TS abused those under his spiritual care.    Innocent and cannot be proven guilty. Now there is a free pass that a lot of criminals would love to have.

Bonnie has already pointed out that these kinds of activities almost never happen in public places with witnesses. Most crimes, in fact, are done in as secret a manner as possible. For a reason...they don't want to be caught and punished. Yet courts try and convict people every day. The judge and jury were not present at the scene, yet the charge "You were not there so you don't know!" doesn't keep the guilty from being sent to jail. Evidence is collected and weighed, ALLEGATIONS are presented and rebutted, and the judge or jury has to decide who is telling the truth. Often without anything that the TS supporters would consider "proof" being available.

Anyone can be falsely charged. And it does happen. (But I would say that if a pastor has good boundaries and does not spend time alone with vulnerable people, his chances of being falsely accused are greatly diminished.) But when allegations come from numerous sources, over a period of years, it becomes harder to believe that they are all just vengeful parishioners out to get the pastor. And when there is an eerie similarity to the stories that are told, what is called a "pattern of behavior" looks likely, and the "weight of evidence" comes into play. I known of a situation where a pastor had allegations of inappropriate behavior in about every district he went to. Always with unbalanced women whose allegations would not be typically believed. Once--it can happen. But over and over? Similar story, similar description from the women of how he approached them, etc. Any church that discounts numerous "allegations" of abuse, waiting for the 3D, 4 color, live and in person proof before they take it seriously, will have to deal with the One who recommended that millstones be worn by abusers, if other children are harmed on their watch.

So no, an allegation by itself is not "proof". But you get a number of them together, and they can play a part in proving something.

[Maxey]

Ian will need to take a couple of days to get back to you.

Truly amazing...

[Ozzie]

Again, Ian, I don't think you're making sense. And Bonnie seems to see it too.

Have I accused Tommy of being a pedophile? Or have I tried to consistently state that he is an alleged pedophile? It is a proven fact that he is an alleged pedophile. That is not a false accusation.

Have I stated that Danny covered up child molestation? Or have I endeavored to consistently state that he covered up child molestation allegations?

And... from a Risk Management perspective alone, wherever there is an allegation of sexual abuse, one MUST treat those allegations as if they are fact (by protecting those who are vulnerable to predators), UNTIL it is proven otherwise. That is the ONLY way that vulnerable people can be protected. Those who owe a 'duty of care', will know EXACTLY what I mean.

[bonnie]

Ian will need to take a couple of days to get back to you.

Truly amazing...

What is truly amazing is to claim an allegation cannot be covered up.

When an allegation is made with good reason, and that allegation involves a felony as our situation did, and ignored and not investigated, that is a cover up. Plain and simple.

Obviously nothing will be proven as long as allegations are ignored and pretend they don't exist.
All cases of abuse, unless actually witnessed, which most are not, begin with an allegation. Then it is either investigated or covered-up

[Ozzie]

The question was also asked over at BSDA, "What would you consider proof?" The silence was deafening--there were no responses to the question. It looks like there is  nothing that could be revealed or brought forward that would make them believe that TS abused those under his spiritual care.    Innocent and cannot be proven guilty. Now there is a free pass that a lot of criminals would love to have.

Bonnie has already pointed out that these kinds of activities almost never happen in public places with witnesses. Most crimes, in fact, are done in as secret a manner as possible. For a reason...they don't want to be caught and punished. Yet courts try and convict people every day. The judge and jury were not present at the scene, yet the charge "You were not there so you don't know!" doesn't keep the guilty from being sent to jail. Evidence is collected and weighed, ALLEGATIONS are presented and rebutted, and the judge or jury has to decide who is telling the truth. Often without anything that the TS supporters would consider "proof" being available.

And victims of abuse are emotionally blackmailed into keeping quiet. The myriad of excuses that lay blame on the victim: "What did I do to cause that person to abuse me?" "Now sweetie, you wouldn't want to upset Mummy/whoever and destroy the family/church/whatever".

SOME people need to sit behind a screen where those who have been abused can't see them and can't hear them, and just listen to their horrendous stories; the guilt they've carried, the lives destroyed, how dirty/filthy they feel; listen to have a person feels who doesn't want to wake up and face each day, because of that abuse of trust and power etc.

Anyone can be falsely charged. And it does happen. (But I would say that if a pastor has good boundaries and does not spend time alone with vulnerable people, his chances of being falsely accused are greatly diminished.) But when allegations come from numerous sources, over a period of years, it becomes harder to believe that they are all just vengeful parishioners out to get the pastor. And when there is an eerie similarity to the stories that are told, what is called a "pattern of behavior" looks likely, and the "weight of evidence" comes into play. I known of a situation where a pastor had allegations of inappropriate behavior in about every district he went to. Always with unbalanced women whose allegations would not be typically believed. Once--it can happen. But over and over? Similar story, similar description from the women of how he approached them, etc. Any church that discounts numerous "allegations" of abuse, waiting for the 3D, 4 color, live and in person proof before they take it seriously, will have to deal with the One who recommended that millstones be worn by abusers, if other children are harmed on their watch.

So no, an allegation by itself is not "proof". But you get a number of them together, and they can play a part in proving something.

Yes. There can be untrue allegations made, and unfortunately the accused has to contend with that, till the facts are proven.

A person very close to me was wrongly accused of an inappropriate relationship with a patient and it nearly destroyed him, until the person (patient) came and saw him, in my presence one morning at another work venue, and apologised for what she had put him (and me) through, because none of it was true. Her reason for the allegations: Yes. She thought she loved him. She hoped he would 'love' her because he is a kind person and she saw me as "standing in the way of the man she loved". Some other staff had threatened her with expulsion from the Clinic, if she didn't make the allegation, because we were 'blowing the whistle on abuse within the system'.  The goal was to 'get at us'; with no concern for what happened to us or to that patient.

Sick minds? Yes. It was pay-back to try to stop us going ahead with reporting abuse in the system; all to no avail. That person still suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome, but I wonder how the woman who was used as a pawn in the 'sick mind games', has adapted during the period since then. Without support, she may well have taken her life. We don't know. All we could do was leave our reports with the relevant authorities and move interstate to start our own lives again, but it still concerns us how that female is coping after being used to make absolutely false allegations?

[Bob Pickle]

Recently someone told me that a grandfather immediately after abuse occurred prayed and asked God to forgive their little grandchild for making them do that. "See," they told me, "how they confuse the mind of a little child into thinking that it was their fault?"

It is better that a millstone be hung around their neck and they be cast into the depth of the sea than what is in store, unless they repent.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"Certainly all should understand that you can not accuse someone and find him guilty without evidence to prove it, and without that person being able to face his accusers and address the evidence against him!" IAN

Thank-you, Ian for that little enlightenment...so...roll out the evidence against Linda Sue Shelton that we have heard so much about but no-one has ever seen nearly four years later...or, admit she is not guilty and pay restitution for the grotesque error.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[inga]

All should be able to understand that you can't cover up child molestation if child molestation hasn't occured. All should also understand that even IF child molestation has occured, you can't cover it up unless you know of it and of the evidence or facts, and proof of that to cover up!

Please read this again:
The issue is not covering up molestation. The issue is covering up allegations of molestation.

There's a difference, and covering up allegations of molestation is a serious matter.

That there are allegations appears to have been demonstrated.

And it is apparent that Danny knew there were allegations, but he effectively covered them up.

No amount of spin can change that.

[Ozzie]

All should be able to understand that you can't cover up child molestation if child molestation hasn't occured. All should also understand that even IF child molestation has occured, you can't cover it up unless you know of it and of the evidence or facts, and proof of that to cover up!

Please read this again:
The issue is not covering up molestation. The issue is covering up allegations of molestation.

There's a difference, and covering up allegations of molestation is a serious matter.

That there are allegations appears to have been demonstrated.

And it is apparent that Danny knew there were allegations, but he effectively covered them up.

No amount of spin can change that.

What does it say about those who attempt to cover up allegations of molestation?

[Bob Pickle]

What does it say about those who attack, sue, finance suits against, or, regarding ASI membership, discriminate against those who are concerned about such things?