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.
Schwaller
