Thursday, May 31, 2007

Glenn Schwaller, Pastor of Christ Church

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

On May 31, you wrote,

“Unless someone has some specifc [sic] questions regarding the conditions of Mr Sitler’s and others’ release, or related topics, I shall NOT revist [sic] this issue.”

But on June 1, you wrote,

“But what have YOU, Mr Hansen, given the circumstances the legal system has put us in, done to protect or inform the community? Oh yes, you have a little web site. And what exactly did that offer for community protection and information that was not readily and more timely available elsewhere? What have YOU, Mr Hansen, done to educate and inform yourself and others about how the system works and how best to work with it, given the release of sex offenders in our community? Have you talked with our local P&P officers? Have you talked with P&P officials in Lewiston? Have you talked with the local police, Bill Thomspon, Judge Stegner, legislators or community officials? Would you share the information they have given you with us as a gesture of your commitment to educate and inform the community?”

Mr. Schwaller, why do you expect others to answer your questions when you have adopted a policy of stonewalling our questions? This double standard of yours is a classic symptom of the “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” disease, which is a malady that results in bloated selfishness, swollen self-righteousness, inflamed hypocrisy, and engorged ego. Unfortunately, it is terminal. It leads to hell. I urge you to seek help immediately. And may I suggest that the most expedient route for you to overcome your deadly case of “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him” is to answer my question, which I asked two days ago — “Please . . . tell this listserv in what capacity you ‘worked for several months with Mr Sitler and other sex offenders in our area’ and how we may confirm this claim.”

This is your remedy, Mr. Schwaller; this is your chance to live. If you answer my question with the truth, you will discover that you are more than a hypocrite; you are a fraud — a fake — a big fat liar. You will discover that Glenn Schwaller is not real in the same sense that Tom Hansen is real. Glenn Schwaller is the figment of a deranged imagination. He is hyper-extension of sick man. Do something. Do something constructive. Get help.

And answer my question.


Monday, May 28, 2007

A personal invitation to Mr. Schwaller

Visionaries and Mr. Schwaller,

I personally invite Mr. Schwaller to return to this forum because I for one found his posts both provocative and enlightening. Hard facts about serial pedophiles are difficult to ascertain and I commend him for sharing his knowledge of this unseemly subject with us so that we as a community can be better prepared to address a predator in our midst.

With this in mind, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Schwaller.
  1. Can you please tell us the recidivism rate for serial pedophiles?
  2. Can you please share with us the average number of children that repeat offenders violate before their discovery?
  3. Finally, given your familiarity with Steven Sitler’s case file, can you please describe for us a worst-case scenario for the children of Moscow (number of victims, age of victims, types of abuse, etc.), if Mr. Sitler resumes his pattern of serial predation?
I believe that these are reasonable questions for a community to ask and I believe that you have our community’s best interests at heart.

Thank you,


Saturday, May 19, 2007

The Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty, Part I

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You say, “QED,” but your latest rhetorical devices indicate that you have fallen head first into a protracted “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” downward spiral, which will only end in calamity. Please, let me help restore you by filling in yet more blanks.

In order to understand this next point, you must firmly grasp the axiom that IT IS ALL ABOUT DOUG, and you must understand that the only way for Pastor Wilson to insure that all things remain ALL ABOUT DOUG, he must CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. He must bend and shape and twist the dialogue, if not prohibit it outright, to insure that when anyone says anything about him (or his church), they either say nice things or else he is present to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

This objective is easy enough to achieve inside the church where he rules with an iron fist. For example, in a previous post I referenced Duck because, as you know, Wilson gave him an ultimatum: “Sign the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty or I’ll put you in the bread line.” The Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty prohibited free speech and it required the strict appearance of perfect loyalty to the church — so strict that if anyone ever questioned it, Wilson would immediately terminate him. The rest of the stories spun by Wilson are complete fabrications. I have read the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty and I have spoken to Duck. Sadly, most kirkers are afraid to call him because they know that when they hang up, they will have to make a costly decision (Wilson knows this too). However, the point of the Christ Church Commitment to Loyalty and the point that you must understand was Wilson’s obsessive need to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

An even better example of Wilson’s need to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION is the case at hand — Steven Sitler. Mr. Schwaller, what pastoral consideration could possibly exist that would override Wilson’s absolute responsibility to warn his flock of predation? Of course, you and I both know that the answer is “No reason or excuse exists that could in any way relieve him of this obligation.” But believe it or not, last year the paper quoted Wilson (or one of his proxies), saying something like they “did it for the victims,” whatever that means.

By comparison, the church in Colville not only sent letters to the congregation, they adopted a policy to purchase a full-page ad in the newspaper to place Sitler’s photograph before the public with the warning: CONVICTED PEDOPHILE, if he ever returns to Colville. Now that’s a church that cares. Not Wilson; he didn’t say boo to the flock, let alone the public, which brings us back to point.

Wilson decided to ignore the urgent duty of warning his congregation because he wanted to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. He understands that the words “Serial Pedophile” lead to six-inch headlines, and in 2005 he certainly didn’t want to go through another 2003–04. After all, IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG. So he CONTROLLED THE CONVERSATION by withholding vital information.

Now take this principle and apply it to Vision 2020. Wilson needs to CONTROL THE CONVERSATION, but after he ran away from here in 2003, he put himself in a pickle. How could he honor his pledge to sign off 2020 yet simultaneously CONTROL THE CONVERSATION? The answer to this question lies within the Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty.

It is not enough for Pastor Wilson to have proxies spreading his opinions on this bulletin board. Ultimately, he must visit this list in person to make his arguments firsthand. So when he said farewell in December 2003, he left by name only because even at that time he had two Schwaller Mittys — two fictitious personalities with pseudonymous email accounts — subscribed to Vision 2020 so that he could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION. And these two conjured characters were the first in an endless parade of pseudonyms who would visit this forum at various points in Kirk history, so that Wilson could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

Mr. Schwaller, I introduce you to Edna Wilmington (#1) and Rodney Johnson, the first two pseudonyms deployed by Wilson in November 2003, a couple of weeks before he signed off this listserv. Mr. Schwaller, think of them as the Ghosts of Schwaller’s Past, for these two fakes were the beginning of Schwallers — extensions of a deranged imagination slipping into madness — so that Wilson could CONTROL THE CONVERSATION.

Mr. Schwaller, you must save yourself from this “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” downward spiral, lest you fall into oblivion with all the others.

The Secret Life of Schwaller Mitty, Part II will follow.


PS: Mr. Schwaller, you have persuaded me that you can follow an argument and that you do not need repetitive caps. Please indulge me, however, because there is a group of people who require such things to help jar them out of their stupor.

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: A Man of Constant Schwaller

Thank you Mr Herodotus.

Your response most certainly put all the pieces together for me.

quod erat demonstrandum


Friday, May 18, 2007

A Man of Constant Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

I want to give you incentive to overcome your “I’m not Doug Wilson, but I act just like him” syndrome, by relating another story that hopefully will put all the pieces together for you.

You will recall my narrative about how Douglas Wilson stormed off of this list in a huff after he completely humiliated himself. Unfortunately, the story doesn’t end there. You see, during the whole “It’s Not About Slavery” thing, Wilson took personal offense at public statements issued by three members of the University of Idaho’s faculty and administration. Mind you, he had no cause for offense. Nevertheless, he threw a number of temper tantrums (not unlike your recent outburst), and he demanded apologies from the three men at UI, much the same way that you recently insisted upon apologies.

However, in addition to this, he also utilized members of his church, in a well-coordinated public-relations blitz, to heap constant verbal abuse upon the three men, and Vision 2020 became the primary venue for Wilson and his pet monkeys to rail. Presumably he thought this a wise peace-making strategy. But whatever he thought, I have never witnessed such vicious personal attacks in my life.

Well, time rolled on and Wilson’s efforts at reconciliation only produced more strife in the community and they utterly failed to induce the much-desired apologies. But he wanted satisfaction, so he wrote a letter to the governor of the State of Idaho asking him to compel the three men to apologize, and a couple of weeks later while the governor visited Moscow, a reporter asked him what he intended to do about Wilson’s letter, which brings us to the punch line. The governor replied, “Douglas who?”

No joke. I laughed so hard I almost wet my pants. Of the million different things that any of us could ask Boise to address, Douglas Wilson thought so much of himself that he begged the state governor to make three men say, “I’m sorry.” But his plea never landed on the governor’s desk; his staff deemed it too unimportant to waste the boss’ time (or else some mail clerk round-filed it thinking it was a Trinitarian prank). Can you imagine Wilson’s humiliation? If he had any sense he would have gone home and stuck his head in the oven. But he didn’t, and that’s not my point.

My point is that while Pastor Douglas Wilson exhausted all of his church’s energy demanding apologies from the Daily News, the Spokesman Review, The Idaho Statesman, the AP, Governor Kempthorn, etc.; and while his army of goons went forth to harass and intimidate the local community, the unthinkable took place inside Kirk homes. Steven Sitler raped Kirk children. And nobody knew it.

Pastor Wilson had them all consumed with his hate-filled agenda. They wrote letters to the editor; they made sport on; they flooded Vision 2020 with malicious emails. They had only one cause: IT WAS ALL ABOUT DOUG.

And it’s still ALL ABOUT DOUG. Steven Sitler’s abominations have changed nothing. Even now, as some of them read this, they are grinding their teeth, scheming ideas to exact retribution against me. This is because Douglas Wilson has trained his followers to think one dimensionally; they have only one purpose that brings meaning to their lives: IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG. Pastor Wilson welcomed a serial pedophile back into the fold (without ever warning them of predation), and the Kirk families don’t care one whit, because they have learned IT’S ALL ABOUT DOUG.

So you see, Mr. Schwaller, it really isn’t worth it. Don’t give your life to this hopeless cause. You will lose the rest of your days pursuing empty apologies for non-existent offenses to satisfy an unfeeling man whose only interests reside in his bloated ego. He will waste your soul the same way Sitler violated those dear children.

And because he has no capacity for human emotion, and because he cares only about himself, and because he uses people and throws them away, he is called A MAN OF CONSTANT SCHWALLER.


Thursday, May 17, 2007

The Schwaller Returned to Capistrano

Welcome back, Mr. Schwaller,

I have many things to say to you, but I fear each one may provoke another temporary “I am not Doug Wilson, I just act like him,” lapse of reason on your part; so I shall limit myself to three points and proceed delicately.

First, I note your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him” syndrome because whenever called to account for his obvious failures, Doug Wilson invariably throws a fit and begins accusing everyone right and left of wrongdoing. It is really quite a remarkable phenomenon to behold. The man is like one of Pavlov’s dogs with a bad case of rabies; instead of salivating when he hears the bell, he froths at the mouth, shows his teeth, and growls. Thankfully, 2020 has witnessed few of his outbursts for some time; few, that is, until yesterday when you reacted to my post right on queue. So I encourage you to deal with your obvious bitterness before it spreads out of control.

Second, I note that you apologized to me for “venting” when you should have apologized to the entire listserv for your rude, “venomous” little fit. Your behavior was completely inappropriate and not conducive toward civil dialogue. Admittedly, we have a local church in town that encourages petulance such as yours; however, this listserv is for the most part dedicated to reasonable exchanges, with perhaps a few exceptions. So I encourage you to apologize to the entire list, which you specifically named during your fit of rage, so that no one will think you a hypocrite. After all, you demanded that Messieurs Fox and Hansen apologize to the whole bulletin board for statements that you deemed offensive; how much more should you have to apologize for your reckless, unqualified statements, which essentially blasted every one in the forum?

Third, I note that you tagged your tirade with John 8:7 and I confess that you appear somewhat confused, because YOU were the one throwing stones yesterday. Please remove the rock pile that covers your post and reread it. Then apologize to the list for twisting Scripture during your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him,” panic attack.

Well, as I said, I have many things to say but you have convinced me that you’re too immature to hear them all at once; perhaps tomorrow, after you have apologized, we may pick up where we left off and you can tell us by what standard you attribute “some modicum of sincerity” to an apology delivered by the psychopath Sitler? and by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?

After that, maybe you will be kind enough to engage the arguments I advanced in my post yesterday, which sent you over the edge into your “I am not Doug Wilson; I just act like him” eruption.

Thank you,


Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The Inner Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

Given the wide variety of contributors on this board as well as the broad range of subjects broached on any given day, I am not sure how you conclude:

“Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging.”

Unlike you, I do not presume to condemn this whole list based upon a limited sample addressing an isolated subject, unless, of course, things are not as you represented. I must confess that your shrill response indicates that I touched a nerve. It’s as though you’re personally invested in things pertaining to Douglas Wilson, despite assuring us otherwise.

Therefore, Mr. Schwaller, I encourage you to slow down, take a deep breath, and reach down to touch that inner you. Be at peace with the real person inside of you. Identify the man within and say, “Be still, Glen, there is no venom here. No one has called me any names; no one has slung any mud at me, kicked me in the shins, or gouged my eyeballs out. I’m going to be A Okay. Everything’s just fine.”

There you go, Glenn, everything will be just fine.

Perhaps it will help if I give you some more perspective. You recall how Douglas Wilson ran from this listserv after he proved to the whole community that he did not live by his own standard, which he had previously maintained was fixed and unmovable. Well, this time last year Mr. Wilson rejoined this list for a short period after a local blogger notified the community about Steven Sitler’s predations. And it’s important to note that the blogger’s information relative to Sitler was much like yours — just the facts.

The strangest thing, though, was that while the blogger focused on points of community awareness, Wilson immediately dragged the victims into the conversation, saying that any talk of Sitler reopened their wounds and forced them to relive their tragedy; and Wilson used this pretense to demand silence from the community regarding the subject of Steven Sitler: “The victims, the victims, the victims; THINK OF THE VICTIMS!”

It was a remarkable display of cowardice for a pastor to use victims of a serial pedophile as human shields to protect himself from answering for his failure to warn the flock of predation. Think about it. He never warned his congregation that a serial pedophile dwelled among them for 18 months. Talk about negligence. As you said, Mr. Schwaller, “Doug Wilson could have handled things in a better way.”

But my point is that you have provided some very helpful information with your posts, and your contributions are consistent with the goals of this list; however, you should be thankful that you’re not dealing with a madman constantly screaming, “THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS! THE VICTIMS!” You seem to understand much better than Pastor Wilson that serial pedophiles create horrible prospects for a community. In fact, even though you still have not answered my question (“by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?”), I believe that if you had been here last year, you would have demanded an apology from Pastor Wilson to the entire community.

Anyway, I have carried on much too long here. I simply wanted to help you get composure after your last outburst and I hope I offered you some perspective in much the same way you have tried to offer “facts.”

Before I let you go, though, I have one more question. How do you think the victims feel knowing that Steven Sitler is roaming the streets on probation, and that his freedom may be due in large part to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s letter to Judge Stegner?


From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision2020
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: Schwaller the Reductio

“Schwaller catches a whiff again. . .”

Just to set the record straight (not that I particularly care about setting the record straight, I just like to hear the collective hammering of the veins in the foreheads of a few of our 2020 visionaries) I was not attempting to absolve, forgive, condone, nor vilify Doug Wilson, Steven Sitler, Christ Church, nor anyone for that matter. I was simply addressing a VERY specific point in Ms Ford’s post, and how I chose to interpret (some of you might use the words “twist” “manipulate” “exploit”) that particular passage of scripture.

One can use any passage of scripture to strengthen one’s point. One can use any manner of teaching styles or methods to inform or influence. In either case, it seems it is up to every individual to determine if we agree or disagree, follow or flee. All of us are teachers. All of us have taught well. All of us have taught poorly. All of us have wounded a weak conscience and thus “sinned against Christ.”

I’ve been monitoring this site for less than a month, and the venom that oozes from a majority of these posts becomes tedious. Contrary to the disclaimer on the homepage Moscow Vision 2020 seems to be a very partisan group of Moscow residents designed to discourage public information unless it meets that partisan viewpoint, and debate seems to be limited to name-calling, mudslinging, shin-kicking and eyeball-gouging. I must admit though, it DOES make a difference.


“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
John 8:7

Schwaller the Reductio

Schwaller whiffs again, this time minimizing the impact of Wilson’s influence on his devotees when he wrote,

“For your example to hold up, Mr Sitler . . . would need to have seen Doug Wilson . . . in the act of molesting children, then justify his actions by saying “Well Doug did it, it must be OK for me to do it.” Since this was not the case, Doug Wilson cannot be held accountable for Mr Sitler’s actions, in the sight of man, of law, or of God.”

Of course, this is absurd because it ignores the overwhelming testimony of Scripture, which clearly holds teachers to a higher standard, “for in many things [they] offend all” (James 3:1, ff). And the “many” includes all the little things that encompass a man’s doctrine and that illustrate his sermons on a daily basis. Consider these examples of the influence of Wilson’s doctrine on Steven Sitler:

Pedophiles rely on manipulative deceit to capture and silence their victims, and Steven Sitler sat under the master of manipulation — Douglas Wilson — when he preyed in Moscow. Rest assured that by reading Wilson’s blog and observing his interaction with the public, Sitler learned cunning beyond measure. Yes, indeed, he watched his pastor twist other’s words into meaning something that no one intended, in order to manipulate them into giving him what he wanted (do kirkers really believe the stories that Wilson peddles about Duck? He fabricated every one of them while he applied enormous economic and emotional pressure on the Schulers, hoping they’d cave). Sitler learned from Wilson how to create opportunities by misrepresentation and then pounce on weakness the moment he saw it. And not ironically, Sitler arrived in Moscow in fall 2003, just in time to witness Wilson and Jones deceitfully manipulate the thesis of Southern Slavery As It Was into a book about non-violent emancipation. He saw Wilson dismiss the capital crime of manstealing and manipulate its proceeds — slavery — into a “life of plenty.” Wilson taught him how to manipulate words so that oppressive slaveholders became “noble Christians” and stolen labor became a lifestyle of “mutual affection.” Yes, know for sure that Wilson taught Sitler the deceitful art of manipulation.

Pedophiles are typically narcissists and Sitler sat under the poster child of narcissism — Douglas Wilson — during his stay in Moscow. Indeed, his parents educated him on the Wilson classical model, praising all things Wilson, with the hope they could send him to New Saint Andrews College where he could fawn over every word that fell from the master’s lips. And as saw the master encourage the worshiping multitudes to adore him, know for sure that he learned self-love exceeds self-denial as the preeminent Christian virtue.

Pedophiles act in contempt of all law — God’s and man’s — in order to obtain their desires, and Sitler’s 18 months in Moscow forever embedded the principle in his mind that if the law stands in your way, break it. Steven Sitler was an eyewitness to Douglas Wilson’s public defiance of state property tax law as well as the City Zoning Code, and he learned firsthand that Christian dominion Wilson-style provides for self-willed antinomianism, if necessary. Wilson taught Sitler that the law does not represent a gift from God, rather it is a tool of the godless intoleristas to persecute the godly kirkers whose reign shall be for ever and ever. No doubt Wilson’s wholesale contempt for authority encouraged Sitler to disdain any authority who would check his impulses. (If you disagree with this assertion, please show me one example in the last five years where Wilson exemplified humble Christian submission to the civil magistrate pursuant to Romans 13.)

Finally, pedophiles see children not as humans but as objects, and the most important lesson that Steven Sitler learned in Moscow was in the field of anthropology. Douglas Wilson taught Steven Sitler to take joy and satisfaction in dehumanizing and humiliating human beings made in the image of God. And just as Wilson strips people of their dignity, taking sadistic pleasure in flaying them alive with his serrated edge, so Sitler stripped children of their dignity, scarring them for life with his naked flesh. No surprise that victims of pedophiles usually suffer acute shame — inexplicable feelings of humiliation and embarrassment — as a result of their molestation. And Sitler learned the chief article of his faith in Moscow, Idaho, where Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church, taught him the ABCs of dehumanization. (This is also perhaps the best explanation that accounts for kirkers’ lack of horror at Sitler’s crimes; Wilson has successfully desensitized them from feeling compassion for their fellowmen. They are “without natural affection.”)

No, Christian doctrine is not limited to a set of credos; rather, it is a system of beliefs lived out each day. And while Douglas Wilson never approved of pedophilia or taught Steven Sitler how to rape a child, he certainly helped the serial pedophile hone the deviant personality traits necessary to commit the unspeakable, and Wilson did it in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Welcome to Christ Church, Moscow.


Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You would have “staved off some ignorance” and “offered up . . . factual information” if you had simply replied, “We may never know,” and even then you should not have qualified your answer with the word “may” because we WILL NEVER KNOW what drives Steven Sitler. This is because the man is a psychopath, i.e. he has no conscience and no compunction. He lacks the moral capacity to feel right and wrong — and he is aggressive. One public record (which the court has sealed) documented in explicit detail his rape of a two-year-old girl, in a room immediately adjacent to a group of adults. “Perhaps perhaps perhaps,” you find this flip. I do not; hence my inquiry about the website in relation to the so-called apology.

At best, Steven Sitler did not comprehend that the photographs of victims on his website horrified normal, decent human beings, which is another way of noting that he is twisted at levels no one understands. Consequently, “‘cured’ is not an option.” And as “cured” is not an option, then it follows that no one can ever trust him under any circumstance, which probably accounts for his constant need to have a chaperon, i.e. a court-appointed guardian who will insure that he does not wander near children. And if the man is so untrustworthy that even “a distressed result from a polygraph is going to bring P&P and the court down on him like a ton of Logos Bricks,” then it follows that no one should believe a word he says, which includes his apologies. Besides, somehow the words, “I’m sorry I molested your baby,” just don’t cut it.

So it is laughable that you attribute remorse, “even if it was not 100% heartfelt,” to a psychopath, and if this was not so serious it would be downright hilarious that you manipulated this seeming remorse into cause for demanding an apology from community members who expressed shock at the probation of a serial pedophile.

Since you represent yourself as new to the listserv, let me tell you a story. Years ago, Pastor Douglas Wilson used to berate this list with the question, “By what standard?” I say “used to” because after hectoring and haranguing the community with his fixed biblical standard, he proved himself a textbook hypocrite when he applied a relative standard to justify the unbiblical thesis of his book “Southern Slavery As It Was.” It was really quite amusing, though the amusement didn’t last long. The poor fool ran from here faster than you can say “Edna.”

I call these historical facts to your attention, Mr. Schwaller, to ask you two questions: First, by what standard do you attribute “some modicum of sincerity” to an apology delivered by the psychopath Sitler? and by what standard do you ask Messieurs Fox and Hansen to apologize?

Bob Herodotus

From: “Glenn Schwaller”
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr Herodotus

I’m not quite sure what you are implying by referring to me as “one of the all things to all men kind of guys.” If you mean that I think I’m an omnipresent self important kind of guys, then no. If you are suggesting as Paul did to the Corinthians that “I am made All things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”, well no, I don’t think that is correct either. I don’t believe I’m trying to save anyone, other than to try and stave off some ignorance by offering up what I believe to be factual information. Not that it matters; I’m just curious.

And alas (at least for those of you who thrive on innuendo, conspiracy, supposition and gossip), I am not another incarnation of Doug and Doug on a skylarking expedition. I’m glad you “know better.”

I make no excuse nor offer any apology for seeming to be intimately familiar with the court records (they are public domain), P&P policy and procedure (I also have some insight into policy and procedure of the prosecutors office, and MPD and LCSO), Mr Sitler’s automobile (I just happened to see him leaving the jail on they way to one of his treatment programs), and Christ Church’s seating arrangement. Well, here I should make an apology — I did not intend to suggest that I know anything about their seating arrangement. I was attempting to point out that I know how other similar situations have been handled, and how Mr Sitler’s attendance at that or any other church (or public arena in which children may be present), would most likely be handled.

So, onto contradictory implications:

I was not trying to be dismissive about Mr Sitler’s trophy website — this was a response to Wayne Fox’s questions from May 4th “Was the court aware of Sitler’s trophy website of photos of children, some of whom were his alleged victims? Or was this information withheld from the court? Was this evidence in the possession of the LCSD at the time of sentencing and re-sentencing or did they miss this in their “investigation?”“

I was assuming (possibly an error on my part) that Mr Fox meant “were they aware at the time of the original sentencing.” As such, I believe I was correct in stating that if the court was not aware of the website (at the time of the original sentencing) they are now (as of his review on May 4th). I don’t know why Mr Sitler chose not to disclose that fact earlier on. Perhaps he was advised not to do so (the right to remain silent among all those obnoxious civil rights we have — sorry. I apologize for the sarcasm). Perhaps it was to see how well local law enforcement was at doing their job of “discovery.” Perhaps he thought it was not germane to the case. Perhaps perhaps perhaps. We may never know. I believe the court was well aware of his other victims since his admission to other crimes was, I think, part of the plea agreement. If one wants to split hairs as lawyers are so fond of doing, from a legal perspective (assuming these were “normal” photographs) it may not have been illegal for him to have these photos in his possession. In the interest of full disclosure, remorse, and empathy for his victims, Mr Sitler should have brought this to the court’s attention. And admittedly it does leave his apology somewhat hollow. My point was, at least at some level he did offer an apology. It may not have been 100% heartfelt, but I choose to believe there was some modicum of sincerity in there. That was more than I have seen from Mr Hansen and Mr Fox for suggesting Mr Sitler should be allowed to board in a home with children present, putting them at potential risk. As I and others have pointed out, regardless of their tongue-in-cheek or sarcastic intent, this was worse than in poor taste: this was and is unacceptable, and they (Mr Hansen and Mr Fox) should apologize to the 2020 community.


Sunday, May 13, 2007

Question for Mr. Schwaller

Dear Mr. Schwaller,

You seem like one of those “all things to all men” kind of guys to me; in fact, if I didn’t know better I might be tempted to think you’re another incarnation of Doug and Doug on one of their “skylarking” expeditions. They’re such clever guys.

Nevertheless, since you appear intimately familiar with the court records, P & P’s policy & procedure, Sitler’s automobile, and even the Christ Church seating arrangement, I’m wondering if you could please account for the contradiction between the implications of two of your statements?

On Friday, May 4, you wrote,

“I’m sure if the court was not aware of the “trophy website” then, they are now.”

But on Saturday, May 12, you wrote,

“I would note that even Mr Sitler was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions. Yes, it may very well have been self serving of him to do so, but nonetheless he did apologize.”

In the former instance, you seemed almost dismissive about the so-called “trophy website.” However, in the latter you placed great weight on Mr. Sitler’s public act of taking responsibility, whatever may have motivated him.

This is important because the “trophy website” contained photographs of Sitler’s victims from the states of West Virginia and Washington, and Bill Thompson has confirmed that Sitler failed to own it prior to its discovery. So if you believe that Sitler “was responsible enough to stand in open court and apologize for his actions,” then why do you believe the scope of his responsibility didn’t include full disclosure?


Bob Herodotus